Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 171993 2011-12-12	MARC II MARKETING v. ALFREDO M. JOSON PEREZ, J.
Accordingly, in determining whether the SEC (now the RTC) has jurisdiction over the controversy, the status or relationship of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy must be taken into consideration. [33]
	GR No. 157802 2010-10-13	MATLING INDUSTRIAL v. RICARDO R. COROS BERSAMIN, J.
In Nacpil v. Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation,[23] which may be the more appropriate ruling, the position subject of the controversy was not expressly mentioned in the By-Laws, but was created pursuant to a By-Law enabling provision authorizing the Board of Directors to create other offices that the Board of Directors might see fit to create. The Court held there that the position was a corporate office, relying on the obiter dictum in Tabang.