This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| There is also no dispute that it was only on 20 October 2000 when the PNCC Board approved a resolution expressly admitting PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans. This was the first Board Resolution admitting liability for the Marubeni loans, for PNCC never admitted liability for these debts in the past. Even Radstock admitted that PNCC's 1994 Financial Statements did not reflect the Marubeni loans.[37] Also, former PNCC Chairman Arthur Aguilar stated during the Senate hearings that "the Marubeni claim was never in the balance sheet x x x nor was it in a contingent account."[38] Miriam M. Pasetes, SVP Finance of PNCC, and Atty. Herman R. Cimafranca of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, confirmed this fact, thus:SEN. DRILON. x x x And so, PNCC itself did not recognize this as an obligation but the board suddenly recognized it as an obligation. It was on that basis that the case was filed, is that correct? In fact, the case hinges on - they knew that this claim has prescribed but because of that board resolution which recognized the obligation they filed their complaint, is that correct? | |||||
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Guided by the foregoing rules and jurisprudence, this Court agrees in the finding of the Court of Appeals that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit the Petition in Intervention of respondent.[17] | |||||