Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
Under the general law on agency as applied to insurance, an agency must be express in light of the need for a license and for the designation by the insurance company. In the present case, the Agreement fully serves as grant of authority to Tongko as Manulife's insurance agent.[17] This agreement is supplemented by the company's agency practices and usages, duly accepted by the agent in carrying out the agency.[18] By authority of the Insurance Code, an insurance agency is for compensation,[19] a matter the Civil Code Rules on Agency presumes in the absence of proof to the contrary.[20] Other than the compensation, the principal is bound to advance to, or to reimburse, the agent the agreed sums necessary for the execution of the agency.[21] By implication at least under Article 1994 of the Civil Code, the principal can appoint two or more agents to carry out the same assigned tasks,[22] based necessarily on the specific instructions and directives given to them.
	GR No. 168756 2009-12-07	SHRIMP SPECIALISTS v. FUJI-TRIUMPH AGRI-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
A corporation is vested by law with a personality separate and distinct from the people comprising it. Ownership by a single or small group of stockholders of nearly all of the capital stock of the corporation is not by itself a sufficient ground to disregard the separate corporate personality. Thus, obligations incurred by corporate officers, acting as corporate agents, are direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent.[43] In Uy v. Villanueva,[44] the Court explained: The general rule is that obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers, and employees, are its sole liabilities. However, solidary liability may be incurred, but only under the following exceptional circumstances:
	GR No. 166516 2009-09-03	EMMA VER REYES v. IRENE MONTEMAYOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law shall be raised in a Petition for Review before this Court. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, namely, (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when, in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[25]
	GR No. 178524 2009-01-30	PANFILO MACASERO v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL GASES PHILIPPINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that only questions of law shall be raised in an appeal by certiorari before this Court. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, namely, (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there isa grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[9] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 170625 2008-10-17	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA TINGA, J.
Moreover, petitioner attached to the motion for reconsideration certified true copies of the petition for rehabilitation and the annexes thereto, the verified comment, the omnibus comment and the comment on the receiver's recommendation filed by petitioner before the RTC. The subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance.[37] If the Court of Appeals opts to dismiss the petition outright and the petitioner files a motion for the reconsideration of such dismissal, appending thereto the requisite pleadings, documents or order/resolution with an explanation for the failure to append the required documents to the original petition, this would constitute substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. In that instance, then, the petition should be reinstated.[38]
	GR No. 172129 2008-09-12	CIR v. MIRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
As a matter of sound practice, the Court refrains from reviewing the factual determinations of the CA or reevaluate the evidence upon which its decision is founded. One exception to this rule is when the CA and the trial court diametrically differ in their findings,[16] as here. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the Court to review and determine if the CA might have overlooked, misunderstood, or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[17] In the instant case, the CTA, unlike the CA, doubted the veracity of OR No. 0189 and did not appreciate the same to support MPC's claim for tax refund or credit.