Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

G.R.No.208587.July29,2015.

*

JM DOMINGUEZ AGRONOMIC COMPANY, INC., HELEN D.
DAGDAGAN, PATRICK PACIS, KENNETH PACIS, and
SHIRLEY DOMINGUEZ, petitioners, vs. CECILIA LICLICAN,
NORMAD.ISIP,andPURITADOMINGUEZ,respondents.

GraveAbuseofDiscretionGraveabuseofdiscretionmayarisewhen
a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law
or existing jurisprudence.We have previously ruled that grave abuse of
discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes
the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of
discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as
isequivalenttolackofjurisdiction.Theabuseofdiscretionmustbegraveas
wherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonof
passionorpersonalhostilityandmustbesopatentandgrossastoamountto
an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoinedbyortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.Thewordcapricious,
usually used in tandem with the term arbitrary, conveys the notion of
willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of
certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of
discretionisimperative.

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

339

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 339
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

Remedial Law Civil Procedure Prejudicial Questions A prejudicial


question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a criminal
actionarebothpending,andthereexistsintheformeranissuethatmustbe
preemptivelyresolvedbeforethelattermayproceed,becausehowsoeverthe
issueraisedinthecivilactionisresolvedwouldbedeterminativejurisetde
jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.As
jurisprudenceelucidates,aprejudicialquestiongenerallyexistsinasituation
whereacivilactionandacriminalactionarebothpending,andthereexists
in the former an issue that must be preemptively resolved before the latter
may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolvedwouldbedeterminativejurisetdejureoftheguiltorinnocenceof
the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle is to
avoidtwoconflictingdecisions,anditsexistencerestsontheconcurrenceof
two essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action and (ii) the
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
EmilianoL.Gayoforpetitioners.
AeneasEliS.DiazandAlA.Parreoforrespondents.
DionRexA.Africacocounselforrespondents.

VELASCO,JR.,J.:

NatureoftheCase

Petitioners,throughtheinstantPetitionforReviewonCertiorari
underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,seekthereversaloftheCourt
ofAppeals(CA)Decision1datedAugust30,2012

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 294312. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and


concurredinbyAssociateJusticesStephenC.CruzandMyraV.GarciaFernandez.

340

340 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

and its Resolution2 dated July 15, 2013 in C.A.G.R. S.P. No.
108617.SaidrulingsnullifiedtheOrdersauthorizingtheissuanceof
the assailed warrants of arrest against respondents for allegedly
havingbeenissuedingraveabuseofdiscretion.

TheFacts

During the annual stockholders meeting of petitioner JM
DominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.(JMD)heldonDecember29,
2007attheBaguioCityCountryClub,theelectionforitsnewsetof
directorswasconducted.Thiseventwaspresidedbythencompany
president, and herein respondent, Cecilia Liclican (Liclican), and
attended by her corespondents Norma Isip (Isip) and Purita
Rodriguez,andbypetitionersHelenDagdagan(Dagdagan),Patrick
Pacis,KennethPacis,andShirleyDominguez(Dominguez)aswell.
Conflict ensued when petitioners Patrick and Kenneth Pacis were
allegedly not allowed to vote on the ground that they are not
registeredstockholdersofJMD.Aspointedout,itwastheirmother
andgrandmother,bothdeceased,whoarethestockholdersinJMD,
and that there is still no settlement of their respective estates to
effectively transfer their shares in the company to Patrick and
KennethPacis.3
Tensions rose and respondents, allegedly, walked out of the
meeting. But since the remaining stockholders with outstanding
sharesconstitutedaquorum,theelectionofofficersstillproceeded,
whichyieldedthefollowingresult:4

Officers:
1.HelenD.DagdaganasPresident
2.PatrickD.PacisasVicePresident
3.KennethD.PacisasSecretary
4.ShirleyC.DominguezasTreasurer

_______________

2Id.,atpp.361362.
3Id.,atp.296.
4Id.,atp.320.

341

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 341
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

Afterstagingthewalkout,respondents,onevendate,executeda
Board Resolution certifying that in the stockholders meeting, the
followingwereelecteddirectorsandofficersofJMD:5

BoardofDirectors:
1.CeciliaD.LiclicanChairmanandPresidingOfficer
2.NormaD.Isip
3.PuritaC.Dominguez
4.TessieC.Dominguez,and
5.ShirleyC.Dominguez

Officers:
1.CeciliaD.LiclicanasPresidentandPresidingOfficer
2.NormaD.IsipasVicePresident
3.GeraldB.CabreraasCorporateSecretary/Treasurer,and
4.OscarAquinoFinancialConsultantAuditor


Inreactiontotheforegoingdevelopments,petitionersDagdagan,
Patrick and Kenneth Pacis, and Dominguez filed a Complaint
againstrespondentsbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofBaguioCity
(RTC) for nullification of meetings, election and acts of directors
andofficers,injunctionandotherreliefs,raffledtoBranch59ofthe
court. Docketed as Civil Case No. 6623R, the case, after a failed
mediation,wasreferredforappropriateJudicialDisputeResolution
(JDR) to Branch 7 of the RTC. Meanwhile, petitioner stockholders
immediately took hold of corporate properties, represented
themselvestoJMDstenantsasthetrueandlawfuldirectorsofthe
company,andcollectedanddepositedrentsduethecompanytoits
bankaccount.6

_______________

5Id.,atp.321.
6Id.,atpp.34.

342

342 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

Subsequently, JMD, represented by petitioners Dagdagan and


PatrickPacis,executedanAffidavitComplaint7datedDecember15,
2008 charging respondents Liclican and Isip with qualified theft.
Petitionersallegedinthecomplaint,docketedasI.S.No.3011with
theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorinBaguioCity,thatonJanuary2,
2008,LiclicanandIsip,withoutanyauthoritywhatsoever,conspired
to withdraw the amount of P852,024.19 from the corporations
savingsaccountwiththeEquitablePCIBankandthatthefollowing
day, they issued Check No. C00024899018 in the amount of
P200,000,payabletocash,andtobedrawnagainstJMDsaccount
withRobinsonsSavingsBank.9
In a separate complaint,10 docketed as I.S. No. 3118, the
corporation claimed that respondents Liclican and Isip likewise
issuedEquitablePCIBankCheckNo.32095311payabletooneAtty.
Francisco Lava, Jr. for P200,000 to be debited from the
corporationsaccount.

After due proceedings, the Office of the City Prosecutor of


BaguioCity,byJointResolutionofFebruary2,2009,recommended
thefilingofinformationsasfollows:12

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned recommends for


approval the attached Informations for Qualified Theft against LICLICAN
andISIPinI.S.No.3011andanotheragainstLICLICANinI.S.No.3118.


Whenfiled,theinformationswereeventuallyraffledtoBranch7
oftheRTC,thesamecourtoverseeingtheJDR,13

_______________

7Id.,atpp.247253.
8Id.,atp.252.
9Id.,atpp.247248.
10Id.,atpp.254259.
11Id.,atp.257.
12Id.,atp.260.
13Id.,atp.300.

343

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 343
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

presided over by Judge Mona Lisa V. TiongsonTabora (Judge


TiongsonTabora). The criminal cases for qualified theft were then
docketedasCriminal Case Nos. 29176R (based on I.S. No. 3118)
and29175R(basedonI.S.No.3111).
OnMarch10,2009,JudgeTiongsonTaboraissuedanOrder14in
CriminalCaseNo.29176R,findingprobablecausefortheissuance
ofawarrantofarrestagainstLiclican,thus:

WHEREFORE,theInformationfiledhereinisherebygivenduecourse.
Let the corresponding warrant of arrest be issued against the accused. As
recommended,thebailisherebyfixedasPhp80,000.00.
SOORDERED.

A similar Order,15 also dated March 10, 2009, was issued in


CriminalCaseNo.29175Rlikewisefindingprobablecauseagainst
respondentsLiclicanandIsip,viz.:
WHEREFORE,theInformationfiledhereinisherebygivenduecourse.
Let the corresponding warrant of arrest be issued against the accused. As
recommended,thebailisherebyfixedatPhp80,000.00each.
Considering that the address provided for accused Norma Isip is
Washington, U.S.A., the private complainants are hereby given fifteen (15)
days from receipt hereof to provide the Court with a local address for the
saidaccusedifshemaybefoundinthePhilippines.
SOORDERED.

Consequently, the corresponding warrants were issued for the


arrestsofIsipandLiclican.16
Induetime,respondentslodgedapetitionforcertiorariwiththe
CA,docketedasC.A.G.R.S.P.No.108617,toannul

_______________

14Id.,atp.271.
15Id.,atp.269.
16Id.,atpp.270,272.

344

344 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

andsetasidethetwo(2)March10,2009OrdersbytheRTCBranch
7,anchored,amongothers,ontheallegedexistenceofaprejudicial
question. According to respondents, petitioner stockholders, by
filingthecomplaintaffidavit,arealreadyassumingthattheyarethe
legitimate directors of JMD, which is the very issue in the intra
corporatedisputependingintheRTC,Branch59.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

In its assailed Decision, the CA granted the petition for
certiorari,disposingasfollows:

WHEREFORE, the challenged Orders both dated March 10, 2009 are
herebyANNULLED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave
abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.
SOORDERED.


TheappellatecourtheldthatJudgeTiongsonTaborashouldhave
refrainedfromdeterminingprobablecausesincesheiswellawareof
thependencyoftheissueonthevalidityofJMDselectionsinCivil
CaseNo.6623R.AsthejudgeoverseeingtheJDRofthesaidintra
corporatedispute,sheknewthattherewasstilldoubtastowhothe
rightfully elected directors of JMD are and, corollarily, who would
have the authority to initiate the criminal proceedings for qualified
theft.17
The CA further noted that even as corporate officers, as they
claimtobe,petitioners Dagdagan and Patrick Pacis cannot file the
ComplaintAffidavit in the exercise of corporate powers without
authorityfromtheboardofdirectorsunderSec.23,18inrelationto
Sec.2519oftheCorporation

_______________

17Id.,atp.307.
18Section23.Theboardofdirectorsortrustees.Unless otherwise provided
inthisCode,thecorporatepowersofallcorpora

345

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 345
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

Code.20 Any doubt cast on the validity of the board elections


wouldthennecessarilyextendtotheauthorityoftheofficerstoact.
AsfurtherheldbytheCA:

xxxSincethereisdoubtintheinstantcaseastothesufficiencyofthe
authority of a corporate officer, Judge TiongsonTabora should have
exercisedprudencebyholdingthecriminalcasesinabeyancependingreso

_______________

tions formed under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all
propertyofsuchcorporationscontrolledandheldbytheboardofdirectorsortrustees
tobeelectedfromamongtheholdersofstocks,orwherethereisnostock,fromamong
the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year until their
successorsareelectedandqualified.xxx
19Section25.Corporateofficers,quorum.Immediately after their election,
thedirectorsofacorporationmustformallyorganizebytheelectionofapresident,
whoshallbeadirector,atreasurerwhomayormaynotbeadirector,asecretarywho
shallbearesidentandcitizenofthePhilippines,andsuchotherofficersasmaybe
providedforinthebylaws.Anytwo(2)ormorepositionsmaybeheldconcurrentlyby
thesameperson,exceptthatnooneshallactaspresidentandsecretaryoraspresident
andtreasureratthesametime.
The directors or trustees and officers to be elected shall perform the duties
enjoined on them by law and the bylaws of the corporation. Unless the articles of
incorporationorthebylawsprovideforagreatermajority,amajorityofthenumberof
directorsortrusteesasfixedinthearticlesofincorporationshallconstituteaquorum
forthetransactionofcorporatebusiness,andeverydecisionofatleastamajorityof
thedirectorsortrusteespresentatameetingatwhichthereisaquorumshallbevalid
asacorporateact,exceptfortheelectionofofficerswhichshallrequirethevoteofa
majorityofallthemembersoftheboard.
Directorsortrusteescannotattendorvotebyproxyatboardmeetings.
20Rollo,p.309.

346

346 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

lution of the intracorporate dispute which private respondents themselves


instituted.21


Aggrieved, individual petitioners moved for reconsideration, on
the main contention that their election as officers and directors of
JMDhasalreadybeensustainedbythetrialcourtviaitsJudgmentin
Civil Case No. 6623R dated May 6, 2011. They likewise claimed
thattheissueonwhetherornottheRTC,Branch7committedgrave
abuse of discretion is already rendered moot and academic by the
judgesinhibitioninCriminalCaseNos.29175Rand29176R,and
the termination of the JDR proceedings in Civil Case No. 6623R.
Petitioners motion, however, proved futile as the appellate court
deniedthesameinitsJanuary13,2013Resolution.22
Hence,theinstantrecourse.

TheIssues

Plainly,theresolution of the extant case depends on whether or
notthereexistsaprejudicialquestionthatcouldaffectthecriminal
proceedingsforqualifiedtheftagainstrespondents.Intheconcrete,
theissuesare(i)whetherornotCivilCaseNo.6623Rconstituteda
prejudicialquestionwarrantingthesuspensionoftheproceedingsin
CriminalCaseNos. 29175R and 29176R and (ii) whether or not
grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the two assailed
March10,2009OrdersinCriminalCaseNos.29175Rand29176
R.

TheCourtsRuling

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

_______________

21Id.,atpp.314315.
22Id.,atp.361.

347

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 347
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

ThechallengedOrdersofthetrial
courtwereissuedingraveabuseof
discretion

We have previously ruled that grave abuse of discretion may


arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the
Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of
discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostilityandmustbesopatentandgrossastoamounttoanevasion
ofpositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoined
by or to act at all in contemplation of law. The word capricious,
usuallyusedintandemwiththetermarbitrary,conveysthenotion
ofwillfulandunreasoningaction.Thus,whenseekingthecorrective
handofcertiorari,aclearshowingofcapriceandarbitrarinessinthe
exerciseofdiscretionisimperative.23
In the case at bar, the CA correctly ruled that Judge Tiongson
Tabora acted with grave abuse of discretion when she ordered the
arrests of respondents Isip and Liclican despite the existence of a
prejudicialquestion.
As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question generally
exists in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are
both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be
preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinativejurisetdejureoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused
inthecriminalcase.24Therationalebehindtheprincipleistoavoid
twoconflicting

_______________
23Perezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.162580,January27,2006,480SCRA411,
416.
24Yapv.Cabales,G.R.No.159186,June5,2009,588SCRA426.

348

348 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

decisions,25 and its existence rests on the concurrence of two


essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimatelyrelatedtotheissueraisedinthecriminalactionand(ii)
theresolutionofsuchissuedetermineswhetherornotthecriminal
actionmayproceed.26
Here, the CA aptly observed that Civil Case No. 6623R, the
intracorporate dispute, posed a prejudicial question to Criminal
CaseNos.29175Rand29176R.Tobesure,CivilCaseNo.6623R
involves the same parties herein, and is for nullification of JMDs
meetings, election and acts of its directors and officers, among
others.Courtinterventionwassoughttoascertainwhobetweenthe
two contesting group of officers should rightfully be seated at the
companys helm. Without Civil Case No. 6623Rs resolution,
petitioners authority to commence and prosecute Criminal Case
Nos.29175Rand29176Ragainstrespondentsforqualifiedtheftin
JMDs behalf remained questionable, warranting the suspension of
thecriminalproceedings.
JudgeTiongsonTaboracannotdenyknowledgeofthependency
of Civil Case No. 6623R as the judge presiding over its JDR. As
correctlyheldbytheCA:

Judge TiongsonTabora is wellaware of the existence of said


prejudicial question that should have barred the filing of the criminal
complaint against petitioners Liclican and Isip, for the simple reason that a
juridical person can only act through its officers, and the issue in the main
case submitted for JDR before Judge TiongsonTabora is one for
nullification of meetings, election and act of directors and officers,
injunction and other reliefs. Thus, she knows for a fact that there is a
question as to who are the legitimate directors of JMD such that there
is doubt as to whether private respondents are in a position to act for
JMD.(emphasisadded)

_______________

25Id.
26RulesofCourt,Rule111,Sec.7.

349

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 349
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

Verily,theRTCoughttohavesuspendedtheproceedings,instead
ofissuingthechallengedOrdersissuedbytheRTC.

Thesubsequentresolutionofthe
prejudicialquestiondidnotcure
thedefect

It may be, as the petitioners pointed out in their motion for
reconsiderationfiledbeforetheCA,thatCivilCaseNo.6623Rwas
eventuallyresolvedintheirfavorthroughaJudgment27datedMay
6,2011renderedbytheRTC,Branch59,thedispositiveportionof
whichreads:

WHEREFORE, from all the foregoing disquisitions, the Court hereby


declares that the plaintiffs [petitioners herein] are the duly elected board
of directors and officers of the JM Dominguez Agronomic Company,
Inc. for the year 2008 and holdover capacity unless here had already
beenanelectionofnewofficers.
Consequently, all Corporate Acts which the defendants [herein
respondentsandoneGeraldCabreraandoneOscarAquino]havedoneand
performed and all documents they have executed and issued have no
forceandeffect.
Considering that the amount of Php850,000.00 which defendants have
withdrawn under the account of JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc.
fromtheEquitablePCIBank(nowBancodeOro)isthesamesubjectinCC
No. 29175R entitled Pp. v. Cecilia Liclican and Norma D. Isip for
QualifiedTheft,theCourtwillnolongerdwellonthesame.
xxxx
SOORDERED.(emphasisandwordsinbracketadded)

_______________

27Rollo,pp.353355.PennedbyJudgeIluminadaP.Cabato.

350

350 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

ThisJudgmenthas,onJune6,2011,becomefinalandexecutory,
as per the Notice of Entry of Judgment issued by the same trial
court.28Evidently,whatevercloudofdoubtloomedoverpetitioners
actuationshasalreadybeendispelled.Petitionersthenpostulatethat
thequestiononwhetherornotthechallengedOrderswereissuedin
grave abuse of discretion has already been rendered moot and
academic by the June 6, 2011 ruling and by Judge Tiongson
Taboras subsequent inhibition in the criminal proceedings.
Consequently, they argue that their motion for reconsideration
shouldhavebeengrantedbytheappellatecourt.
Wearenotconvinced.
Theresolutionoftheprejudicialquestiondidnot,incontext,cure
the grave abuse of discretion already committed. The fact remains
thatwhentheRTC,Branch7issueditschallengedOrdersonMarch
10,2009,theJudgmentinfavorofpetitionerswasnotyetrendered.
Consequently,therewasstill,atthattime,arealdisputeastowho
the rightful set of officers were. Plainly, Judge TiongsonTabora
should not have issued the challenged Orders and should have,
instead,suspendedtheproceedingsuntilCivilCaseNo.6623Rwas
resolvedwithfinality.
Togranttheinstantpetitionandrulethattheproceduralinfirmity
has subsequently been cured either by the Judgment or by Judge
TiongsonTaboras inhibition would mean condoning the
continuation of the criminal proceedings despite, at that time, the
existenceofaprejudicialquestion.Suchcondonationwouldcreatea
precedent that renders inutile the doctrine on prejudicial question,
such that the court trying the criminal case will be permitted to
proceedwiththetrialintheaberrantassumptionthattheresolution
of the prior instituted civil case would benefit the private
complainantinthecriminalproceedings.Toreiterate,therewasno
certaintyyetonhowtheRTC,Branch59wouldrulethus,no

_______________

28Id.,atp.356.

351

VOL.764,JULY29,2015 351
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

assumption on Civil Case No. 6623Rs resolution can be made


when the challenged Orders were issued. Indeed, had the RTC,
Branch 59 not given credence to petitioners arguments, it would
have led to an awkward situation wherein much time and effort is
wastedbytheRTC,Branch7intryingcriminalcasesitshouldnot
haveentertained.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it should be made clear that the
nullification of the March 10, 2009 Orders does not, under the
premises, entail the dismissal of the instituted criminal cases, but
wouldmerelyresultinthesuspensionoftheproceedingsinviewof
the prejudicial question. However, given the resolution of the
prejudicial question and Judge TiongsonTaboras inhibition,
CriminalCaseNos.29175Rand29176Rmayalreadyproceed,and
oughttobereraffledtoredeterminetheexistenceofprobablecause
fortheissuanceofwarrantsofarrestagainstrespondents.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DENIEDforlackofmerit.TheCourtofAppealsAugust30,2012
DecisionandJuly15,2013ResolutioninC.A.G.R.S.P.No.108617
areherebyAFFIRMED.
Criminal Case Nos. 29175R and 29176R are hereby
REMANDEDtotheExecutiveJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
BaguioCitytobereraffledtooneofitsbranchesotherthanBranch
7.
SOORDERED.

Peralta,Villarama,Jr.,Perez**andJardeleza,JJ.,concur.

Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.

352

352 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JMDominguezAgronomicCompany,Inc.vs.Liclican

Notes.A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a


situationwhereacivilactionandacriminalactionarebothpending
andthereexistsintheformeranissuewhichmustbepreemptively
resolvedbeforethelattermayproceed,becausehowsoevertheissue
raisedinthecivilactionisresolvedwouldbedeterminativejuriset
dejureoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccusedinthecriminalcase.
(Gaditanovs.SanMiguelCorporation,702SCRA191[2013])
Aprejudicialquestionisapriorissuewhoseresolutionrestswith
anothertribunal,butatthesametimeisnecessaryintheresolution
ofanotherissueinthesamecase.(SycamoreVenturesCorporation
vs.MetropolitanBankandTrustCompany,709SCRA559[2013])

o0o
_______________

**DesignatedactingmemberperSpecialOrderNo.2084datedJune29,2015.

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.