G.R.

181455-56
Facts
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 181455-56, December 04, 2009 ]
SANTIAGO CUA, JR., SOLOMON S. CUA AND EXEQUIEL D. ROBLES, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
DIRECTORS OF PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN,
JEMIE U. TAN AND ATTY. BRIGIDO J. DULAY, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 182008]
SANTIAGO CUA, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN, JEMIE U. TAN, ATTY. BRIGIDO J.
DULAY, AND HON. CESAR UNTALAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MAKATI REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR.
149, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before this Court are two Petitions: (1) a Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court filed by petitioners Santiago Cua, Jr. (Santiago Jr.), Solomon S. Cua (Solomon), and Exequiel D.
Robles
(Robles), in their capacity as directors of the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI), with Miguel Ocampo
Tan (Miguel), Jemie U. Tan (Jemie) and Atty. Brigido J. Dulay (Dulay) as
PRCI is a corporation organized and established under Philippine laws to: (1) carry on the business of a
race course in all its branches and, in particular, to conduct horse races or races of any kind, to accept
bets on the results of the races, and to construct grand or other... stands, booths, stablings, paddocks,
clubhouses, refreshment rooms
Issue
Both Petitions assail the Decision[3] dated 6 September 2007 and Resolution[4] dated 22 January 2008
of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP No. 99769 and No. 99780. In its 6
September 2007 Decision, the Court of
Appeals dismissed for lack of merit, mootness, and prematurity, the Petition for Certiorari
Both Petitions assail the Decision [3] dated 6 September 2007 and Resolution[4] dated 22 January 2008
of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP No. 99769 and No. 99780. In its 6
September 2007 Decision, the Court of
Appeals dismissed for lack of merit, mootness, and prematurity, the Petition for Certiorari of petitioners
Santiago Jr., Solomon, possible aid in the development of sports, and uphold the principles of good
sportsmanship and fair play.[7] To pursue its avowed purposes, PRCI holds a franchise granted under
Republic Act No. 6632, as amended by Republic Act No. 7953, to

Ruling
Both Petitions assail the Decision [3] dated 6 September 2007 and Resolution[4] dated 22 January 2008
of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP No. 99769 and No. 99780. In its 6
September 2007 Decision, the Court of
Appeals dismissed for lack o
Both Petitions assail the Decision [3] dated 6 September 2007 and Resolution[4] dated 22 January 2008
of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP No. 99769 and No. 99780. In its 6
September 2007 Decision, the Court of
Appeals dismissed for lack of... of PRCI was amended to include a secondary purpose, viz:
Principles:
respondents Miguel, Jemie, and Dulay (Miguel, et al.). In its 22 January 2008 Resolution, the... appellate
court denied the Motions for Reconsideration of petitioners and the Motion to Admit Supplemental Petition
for Certiorari of petitioner Santiago Jr, et al. The same Resolution did not consider the Supplemental
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition... filed by petitio
To acquire real properties and/or develop real properties into mix-use realty projects including but not
limited to leisure, recreational and memorial parks and to own, operate, manage and/or sell these real
estate projects.[8]
G.R. 152392
Facts

Korean Airlines (KAL), a foreign corporation filed a collection suit against Expertravel and Tours, Inc.
(ETI) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila through its appointed counsel, Atty. Mario Aguinaldo.
He signed and indicated in the attached verification and certification against forum shopping that he was
the resident agent and legal counsel of KAL and he caused the preparation of the complaint.

ETI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Atty. Aguinaldo was not authorized to
execute the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. The motion was opposed by KAL and Atty.
Aguinaldo claimed that he had been authorized to file the complaint through a resolution of the KAL Board
of Directors approved during a special meeting conducted through a special teleconference. However, he
failed to submit a copy of the said resolution.

Issue

Evidence – Was it proper for the court to take judicial notice of the said teleconference?
Ruling

Yes. The Supreme Court held that in this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice
that business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is
interactive group communication (three or more people in two or more locations) through an electronic
medium. In general terms, teleconferencing can bring people together under one roof even though they
are separated by hundreds of miles. Teleconferencing and videoconferencing of members of board of
directors of private corporations is commonly used in the Philippines to conduct business transactions or
corporate governance.

Judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be
known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts
may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is
limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed
fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.

Things of “common knowledge,” of which courts take judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men
generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts
which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications,
are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they
may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. As the common knowledge
of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being
matters of common knowledge. Teleconferencing is considered a matter of common knowledge