Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOHN GOKONGWEI v. SECURITIES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 163356-57 2015-07-01	JOSE A. BERNAS v. JOVENCIO F. CINCO PEREZ, J.
It is ineluctably clear that the fiduciary relation is between the stockholders and the board of directors and who are vested with the power to manage the affairs of the corporation. The ordinary trust relationship of directors of a corporation and stockholders is not a matter of statutory or technical law.[26] It springs from the fact that directors have the control and guidance of corporate affairs and property and hence of the property interests of the stockholders.[27] Equity recognizes that stockholders are the proprietors of the corporate interests and are ultimately the only beneficiaries thereof.[28] Should the board fail to perform its fiduciary duty to safeguard the interest of the stockholders or commit acts prejudicial to their interest, the law and the by-laws provide mechanisms to remove and replace the erring director.[29]
	GR No. 178630 2012-11-27	ROSA F. MERCADO v. COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION PEREZ, J.
Rather than remanding this case to the Court of Appeals, however, this Court chooses to herein resolve petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. In doing so, We only exercise a procedural policy, already established by a catena of decided cases[87] no less, that empowers this Court to bring final resolution to a case when it could, instead of remanding it and allowing it to "bear the seeds of future litigation."[88] After all, the voluminous documentary evidence existing in the records of this case already affords this Court with more than enough foundation to make a ruling on the merits. Undoubtedly, the ends of justice as well as the interest of all parties would be better served, if this otherwise protracted case can be brought to its conclusion without any further delay.
	GR No. 177066 2009-09-11	JOSELITO MUSNI PUNO v. PUNO ENTERPRISES NACHURA, J.
The stockholder's right of inspection of the corporation's books and records is based upon his ownership of shares in the corporation and the necessity for self-protection. After all, a shareholder has the right to be intelligently informed about corporate affairs.[13] Such right rests upon the stockholder's underlying ownership of the corporation's assets and property.[14]
	GR No. 156302 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that remand of a case to a lower court does not follow if, in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court itself can resolve the dispute based on the records before it. As a rule, remand is avoided in the following instances: (a) where the ends of justice would not be subserved by a remand; or (b) where public interest demands an early disposition of the case; or (c) where the trial court has already received all the evidence presented by both parties, and the Supreme Court is in a position, based upon said evidence, to decide the case on its merits.[49] In Lao v. People,[50] the Supreme Court, in consideration of the years that it had taken for the controversy therein to reach it, concluded that remand of the case to a lower court was no longer the more expeditious and practical route to follow, and it then decided the said case based on the evidentiary record before it.
	GR No. 159404 2008-06-27	RIZZA LAO v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that remand of a case to a lower court does not follow if, in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court itself can resolve the dispute based on the records before it.[21] As a rule, remand is avoided in the following instances: (a) where the ends of justice would not be subserved by a remand; or (b) where public interest demands an early disposition of the case; or (c) where the trial court had already received all the evidence presented by both parties, and the Supreme Court is in a position, based upon said evidence, to decide the case on its merits.[22]