Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HOLIDAY INN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184622 2013-07-03	PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. VICTOR AFRICA BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan has been held not to extend even to a case involving a sequestered company notwithstanding that the majority of the members of the board of directors were PCGG nominees. The Court marked this distinction clearly in Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc. v. Sandiganbayan,[141] holding thusly:The subject-matter of petitioner's proposed complaint-in-intervention involves basically, an interpretation of contract, i.e., whether or not the right of first refusal could and/or should have been observed, based on the Addendum/Agreement of July 14, 1988, which extended the terms and conditions of the original agreement of January 1, 1976. The question of whether or not the sequestered property was lawfully acquired by Roberto S. Benedicto has no bearing on the legality of the termination of the management contract by NRHDC's Board of Directors. The two are independent and unrelated issues and resolution of either may proceed independently of each other. Upholding the legality of Benedicto's acquisition of the sequestered property is not a guarantee that HIP's management contract would be upheld, for only the Board of Directors of NRHDC is qualified to make such a determination.
	GR NOS. 159104-05 2007-10-05	RODOLFO M. CUENCA v. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT VELASCO, JR., J.
Likewise, petitioners cited Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc. v. Sandiganbayan,[39] which also involved a sequestered company, New Riviera Hotel and Development Co., Inc. (NRHDCI), where this Court held that there is a distinction between an action for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, as well as all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases, and cases filed by those who wish to question or challenge respondent PCGG's acts or orders in such cases vis-à-vis ordinary civil cases that do not pertain to the Sandiganbayan. As such, petitioners contend that the instant ordinary civil case for the enforcement or rescission of the 1978 contract between petitioners and respondents UHC and IRC is distinct from and has absolutely no bearing with the unrelated issue of the sequestration of respondents UHC and IRC. Thus, petitioners strongly contend that the trial court indeed had jurisdiction over the instant case. Besides, petitioners point out that PCGG was not impleaded as a defendant in Civil Case No. 91-2721, and that the Complaint "does not question the PCGG's alleged sequestration of respondent UHC x x x or any other act or order of the PCGG."[40]
	GR NO. 140301 2005-04-26	PAUL C. DEL MORAL v. REPUBLIC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to the third and fourth issues, petitioners argue that by virtue of this Court's ruling in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,[11] the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the present case because it does not concern or involve the question of sequestration, freezing or provisional takeover of property by the government; following this Court's pronouncements in San Miguel Corporation vs. Kahn[12] and Holiday Inn (Phils) vs. Sandiganbayan[13] it can be seen that not all civil cases filed by or against the Republic through PCGG fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; Lee assigned his shares in Mountain View to the Government, as such, the Republic merely became the stockholder of Mountain View; and in view of the doctrine that a corporation has its own personality separate and distinct from its stockholders, it must be Mountain View which should have filed the instant case as the real party-in-interest.[14]
	GR NO. 140301 2005-04-26	PAUL C. DEL MORAL v. REPUBLIC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is likewise not persuaded by petitioners' claim that our rulings in Holiday Inn vs. Sandiganbayan[34] and San Miguel Corporation vs. Kahn[35] apply to the present case.
	GR No. 111544 2004-07-06	VICENTE T. UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is interesting to note, at this point, the case of Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc. v. Sandiganbayan,[11] where the issue related to a management agreement terminated by the Board of Directors of a sequestered corporation, 2/3 of the members of such board being composed by PCGG nominees. The action for intervention was lodged with the Sandiganbayan in the main sequestration case. The petitioners in that case averred that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the action since the action to terminate the management agreement bears the imprimatur of the PCGG nominees sitting at the Board, making PCGG the real party-in-interest. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, ruled on the contrary, thus: This Court is of the view that its jurisdiction refers to acts of the PCGG acting as such whether alone or with other persons, natural or juridical, and not generally where PCGG representatives act as part of another juridical person or entity. A rule of thumb might be thus: if the PCGG can be properly impleaded on a cause of action asserted before this Court as a distinct entity, then this Court would generally exercise jurisdiction; otherwise, it would not, because, then the 'PCGG character' of the act or omission in question may, at best, be only incidental.