Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 171184 2008-03-04	BENJAMIN P. QUITORIANO for himself and in behalf of the other successors-in-interest of the intestate estate of the late NICOLAS QUITORIANO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD and EDUARDO AGLIBOT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The above findings of the DARAB are entitled to great weight, nay, finality considering that the findings of the Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB are undeniably factual issues.[27] These issues have been threshed out below, and the findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, as a rule, findings of facts by quasi-judicial bodies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant.[28]
	GR No. 157573 2008-02-11	Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court ruled that:Circular No. 28-91[13] was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be so interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure --which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.
	GR NO. 159938 2006-03-31	SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT v. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES GARCIA, J.
In National Steel Corporation v. CA,[11] the Court has ruled that the certification on non-forum shopping may be signed, for and in behalf of a corporation, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document. The reason for this is that a corporation can only exercise its powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose.[12]
	GR NO. 152392 2005-05-26	EXPERTRAVEL v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a case where the plaintiff is a private corporation, the certification may be signed, for and on behalf of the said corporation, by a specifically authorized person, including its retained counsel, who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be established by the documents. The reason was explained by the Court in National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[11] as follows:Unlike natural persons, corporations may perform physical actions only through properly delegated individuals; namely, its officers and/or agents.
	GR No. 147217 2004-10-07	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In sum, we find that the certification against forum shopping in CA-G.R. SP No. 60838 is fatally defective, not having been duly signed by both petitioners. This procedural flaw warrants the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. We have consistently held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties.[4] With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document.[5]