Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. ELPIDIO S. UY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 184295 2014-07-30	NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. ALPHAOMEGA INTEGRATED CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In any case, the Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal on the matter of AIC's entitlement to damages which the CA affirmed as being well supported by evidence and properly referred to in the record. It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the CA.[32]The CIAC possesses that required expertise in the field of construction arbitration and the factual findings of its construction arbitrators are final and conclusive, not reviewable by this Court on appeal.[33]
	GR No. 168313 2010-10-06	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA BRION, J.
In their Comment[17] to BPI's Opposition, First Union and Linda challenged BPI's reading of the law, charging that it lacked jurisprudential support.[18] First Union and Linda argued, invoking Public Estates Authority v. Elpidio Uy,[19] that "an initiatory pleading which does not contain a board resolution authorizing the person to show proof of his authority is equally guilty (sic) of not satisfying the requirements in the Certification against Non-Forum Shopping. It is as if though (sic) no certification has been filed."[20] Thus, according to First Union and Linda, BPI's failure to attach a board resolution "shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for dismissal of the case without prejudice x x x."[21] First Union and Linda likewise questioned the belated submission of the SPA, which in any case, "is not the board resolution envisioned by the rules since the plaintiff herein is a juridical person."[22]
	GR Nos. 147925-26 2010-07-07	ELPIDIO S. UY v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY NACHURA, J.
However, in order not to prejudice the deliberations of the Court's Second Division in G.R. Nos. 147925-26, it should be stated that the findings made in this case, especially as regards the correctness of the findings of the CIAC, are limited to the arbitral awards granted to respondent Elpidio S. Uy and to the denial of the counterclaims of petitioner Public Estates Authority. Our decision in this case does not affect the other claims of respondent Uy which were not granted by the CIAC in its questioned decision, the merits of which were not submitted to us for determination in the instant petition.[8]
	GR NOS. 147925-26 2009-06-08	ELPIDIO S. UY v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY NACHURA, J.
SO ORDERED.[19]
	GR NO. 147749 2006-06-22	SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CIR CORONA, J.
A corporation may exercise the powers expressly conferred upon it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied by or are incidental to its existence through its board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and agents.[9] Hence, physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by specific act of the board of directors.[10] In the absence of authority from the board of directors, no person, not even the officers of the corporation, can bind the corporation.[11]
	GR No. 153310 2004-03-02	MEGAWORLD GLOBUS ASIA v. DSM CONSTRUCTION TINGA, J,
Considering that the computations, as well as the propriety of the awards of the Arbitral Tribunal, are unquestionably factual issues that have been discussed and ruled upon by Arbitral Tribunal and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we cannot depart from such findings. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[82]