Documents

Expert Travel_v_CA digest.docx

Description
Expert Travel_v_CA digest.docx
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Expert Travel &Tours Inc. vs CA   GR 152392, May 26, 2005   Callejo Sr. J.   Facts:  Korean Air Lines (KAL) filed a complaint against Expert Travel & Tours Inc (ETI) with the RTC of Manila for collection of sum of money plus attorney’s fees and damages. The verification and certification against non-forum shopping was signed by  Atty. Mario Aguinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the resident agent and legal counsel of KAL and had caused the preparation of the complaint. ETI moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that said lawyer was not authorized to execute the  verification and certification against non-forum shopping as required by Section 5 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. KAL opposed the motion, contending that Atty. Aguinaldo was its resident agent and was reported as such with the SEC as required by the Corporation Code of the Philippines. Also, it further alleged that Atty. Aguinaldo was the Corporate Secretary of KAL.  At the hearing, Atty. Aguinaldo claimed that thru a resolution of KAL Board of Directors approved during a special meeting, he was authorized to file the complaint. Thru an affidavit submitted by its general manager, it was alleged that a special teleconference  was held and and in that same teleconference the Board approved a resolution authorizing him to execute the certification against non-forum shopping and to file the complaint. However, the general manager provided no written copy of the said resolution. The trial court gave due credence to the claim of Atty. Aguinaldo and the general manager. ETI filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the court cannot take  judicial notice of the said teleconference without any hearing, which was denied by the RTC. CA also denied the appeal. Issue:  Whether or not the court can take judicial notice of the said teleconference. Held: Things of “common knowledge” of which courts take judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestionable determination. As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge.  In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is interactive group communication through an electronic medium, bringing people together under one roof even though they are separated by hundreds of miles. In the Philippines, teleconferencing and videoconferencing of members of the board of directors of private corporation is is a reality, in light of RA 8792. The SEC issued SEC memorandum Circular No. 15, on November 30, 2001, providing the guidelines to be complied with related to such conferences. The Court is not convinced that one was conducted; even if there had been one, the Court is not inclined to believe that a board resolution was duly passed specifically authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to file the complaint and execute the required certification against non forum shopping. Petition granted.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks