Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

J.G. SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176579 2011-06-28	WILSON P. GAMBOA v. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES CARPIO, J.
The Corporation Code of the Philippines[42] classifies shares as common or preferred, thus: Sec. 6. Classification of shares. - The shares of stock of stock corporations may be divided into classes or series of shares, or both, any of which classes or series of shares may have such rights, privileges or restrictions as may be stated in the articles of incorporation: Provided, That no share may be deprived of voting rights except those classified and issued as "preferred" or "redeemable" shares, unless otherwise provided in this Code: Provided, further, That there shall always be a class or series of shares which have complete voting rights. Any or all of the shares or series of shares may have a par value or have no par value as may be provided for in the articles of incorporation: Provided, however, That banks, trust companies, insurance companies, public utilities, and building and loan associations shall not be permitted to issue no-par value shares of stock.
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2010-02-11	PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Apropos the separation of powers doctrine and its relevance to this case, it may well be appropriate to again quote the following excerpts from our decision in JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[6] to wit: The role of the Courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of the Government has transgressed its constitutional boundaries. But the Courts will not interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within those boundaries. Otherwise, it strays into the realm of policy decision-making.
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2009-09-17	PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Jurisprudence is well-established that the courts cannot intervene or interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within constitutional limits. In JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[18] the Court explained: The discretion to accept or reject a bid and award contracts is vested in the Government agencies entrusted with that function. The discretion given to the authorities on this matter is of such wide latitude that the Courts will not interfere therewith, unless it is apparent that it is used as a shield to a fraudulent award (Jalandoni v. NARRA, 108 Phil. 486 [1960]). x x x The exercise of this discretion is a policy decision that necessitates prior inquiry, investigation, comparison, evaluation, and deliberation. This task can best be discharged by the Government agencies x x x. The role of the Courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of the Government has transgressed its constitutional boundaries. But the Courts will not interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within those boundaries. Otherwise, it strays into the realm of policy decision-making.
	GR No. 178799 2009-01-19	FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION v. PORO POINT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF PPMC NACHURA, J.
As we explained in JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[22]