Abad vs. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp.

GR No 200620 (March 18, 2015)

Facts:

The case involves a power struggle between two factions battling for control of sequestered
corporations, namely the Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and the
Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC). PHILCOMSAT owns 81% of the
outstanding capital stock of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC). The majority shareholders of
PHILCOMSAT are also the seven families who have owned and controlled POTC. The two factions, the
Africa-Bildner group and the Nieto-PCGG group, have been engaged in a battle for control over the
respective boards of POTC, PHILCOMSAT, and PHC.

Issue:

Whether it is the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which has jurisdiction over a
stockholders' suit to enforce the right of inspection under Section 74 of the Corporation Code.

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) having jurisdiction over the stockholders' suit
to enforce the right of inspection. The Court held that the RTC, and not the Sandiganbayan, has
jurisdiction over cases that do not involve sequestration-related incidents but are intra-corporate
controversies. The Court also ruled that the complaint did state a cause of action as it was supported by
a Board Secretary's Certificate stating that PHILCOMSAT's board of directors had authorized its President
to exercise the right of inspection and to file a case in court in case of refusal by PHC.
 Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.
GR No 212895 (November 27, 2019)
Facts:

The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) issued a Notice of Award in favor of FDIP
against FEPI in April 2000, ordering FEPI to pay FDIP a certain amount plus interest. The decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 2001 and by the Supreme Court in 2008, becoming final and
executory in 2009. FDIP attempted to execute the judgment by garnishing FEPI's shares in another
corporation, Fil-Estate Industrial Park, Inc. (FEIP). FDIP later discovered that FEIP had ceased operations,
rendering its shares worthless. FDIP filed a motion for an alias writ of execution with the CIAC, which
was denied. FDIP subsequently filed a Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, requesting an extension of 15 days to file a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals
denied FDIP's motion, prompting FDIP to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying FDIP's Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for
Certiorari.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of FDIP, granting its petition. The Court emphasized that while the
general rule stipulates a non-extendible 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, exceptions may be
made under exceptional circumstances and subject to the court's discretion. FDIP presented compelling
reasons justifying an extension, including the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy from the
CIAC's order, the potential for manifest injustice due to the failure of execution of the arbitral award,
and the need for additional time to investigate FEPI's assets. The Court highlighted the importance of
substantial justice and ensuring that parties have ample opportunity for the proper determination of
their causes. In light of these considerations, the Court granted FDIP's motion, directing the Court of
Appeals to reinstate and admit FDIP's petition for certiorari and to proceed with the case promptly. This
ruling underscores the principle that cases should be decided on their merits rather than on
technicalities, particularly when substantial justice is at stake.