Download - Transportation Law 2015
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
1/23
TRANSPORTATION LAW; COMMON CARRIER’SVIGILANCE OVER THE GOODS
In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals [1], the Supreme Court held that:
Common carriers, “by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy” 2 are held to a
very high degree of care and diligence (“extraordinary diligence” in the carriage of goods as !ell as of
passengers" #he speci$c import of extraordinary diligence in the care of goods transported by a common
carrier is, according to %rticle &', “further expressed in %rticles &'),&'* and &')*, numbers *, + and
'” of the Civil Code"
%rticle &') establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods !hich they carry, “unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only :
(& lood, storm, earth-ua.e, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity/
(2 %ct of the public enemy in !ar, !hether international or civil/
( %ct or omission of the shipper or o!ner of the goods/
() #he character0of the goods or defects in the pac.ing or0in the containers/ and
(* 1rder or act of competent public authority"
It is important to point out that the above list of causes of loss, destruction or deterioration !hich
exempt the common carrier for responsibility therefor, is a closed list" Causes falling outside the foregoing
list, even if they appear to constitute a species of force majeure fall !ithin the scope of %rticle &'*, !hich
provides as follo!s:
In all cases other than those mentioned in numbers , !, ", # and $ of the preceding article, if the goods
are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed e%traordinary diligence as re-uired in %rticle &'"
(mphasis supplied
Sub3ect to certain exceptions enumerated under %rticle &')425 of the Civil Code, common
carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods" #he extraordinary
responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person !ho has a right to receive them"45 1!ing
to this high degree of diligence re-uired of them, common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to
have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed" #hat is,
unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods" In order to avoid
responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed such
high level of diligence"4)5 (&astern 'hipping (ines, Inc. vs. )*I+' I-'/A-C& C0/*., G./. -o. 1"123,
4anuary $, !5#, 67illarama, 4r., 48
ootnotes:
4&5 6ecember 22, &788
425 %9#" &')" Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods,
unless the same is due to any of the follo!ing causes only:
(& lood, storm, earth-ua.e, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity/
(2 %ct of the public enemy in !ar, !hether international or civil/
( %ct or omission of the shipper or o!ner of the goods/
() #he character of the goods or defects in the pac.ing or in the containers/ (* 1rder or act of competent
public authority"
45 %sian #erminals, Inc" v" hilam Insurance Co", Inc" (no! Chartis hilippines Insurance, Inc", ;"9"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
2/23
4)5 @elgian 1verseas Chartering and Shipping
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
3/23
osted in uly 2', 2?&)" 2 Comments
TRANSPORTATION LAW; DILIGENCEREQUIRED OF COMMON CARRIERS
#he diligence re-uired of a private carrier is only ordinary, that is, the diligence of a good father of the
family" In contrast, a common carrier is a person, corporation, $rm or association engaged in the business
of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, !ater, or air, for compensation, oFering
such services to the public"4&5 Contracts of common carriage are governed by the provisions on common
carriers of the Civil Code, the ublic Service %ct,425 and other special la!s relating to transportation" %
common carrier is re-uired to observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault or to have
acted negligently in case of the loss of the eFects of passengers, or the death or in3uries to passengers"
45 ('ps *ere9a vs. 'ps :arate, G./. -o. $;1;, August !1, !5!, 6)ersamin, 4.8
%9#" &'**" % common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, !ith a due regard for all the
circumstances"
%9#" &'**" % common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, !ith a due regard for all the
circumstances"
%9#" &'*+" In case of death of or in3uries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in articles &' and &'**"
#he Code Commission, in 3ustifying this extraordinary diligence re-uired of a common carrier, says the
follo!ing:
% common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
using the utmost deligence of very cautions persons, !ith due regard for all circumstances" #his
extraordinary diligence re-uired of common carriers is calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic
mishaps that fre-uently occur in connection !ith rapid modern transportation" #his high standard of care is
imperatively demanded by the precariousness of human life and by the consideration that every person
must in every !ay be safeguarded against all in3ury" (9eport of the Code Commission, pp" *0+” (adilla,
Civil Code of the hilippines, Aol" IA, &7*+ ed", p" &7'"
rom the above legal provisions, !e can ma.e the follo!ing restatement of the principles governing the
liability of a common carrier: (& the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its
obligation" #here is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each
case/ (2 a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger !ith the utmost diligence of a very cautious person,
having due regard for all the circumstances/ ( a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted
negligently in case of death of, or in3ury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised
extraordinary diligence/ and () the carrier is not an insurer against all ris.s of travel" ( Isaac vs. A.(.
Ammen
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
4/23
negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in %rticle &')"4+5 In those cases !here
the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in
order to overcome the presumption" ()ascos vs. CA, G./. -o. 5521, April ;, 11", 6Campos, 4r., 48
4&5%rticle &'2 of the Civil Code states:
%rticle &'2" Common carriers are persons, corporations, $rms or associations engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, !ater, or air, for compensation, oFeringtheir services to the public"
425Common!ealth %ct
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
5/23
bet!een the entruster and the entrustee, and the entruster in possession of the goods, documents or
instruments may, on or after default, give notice to the entrustee of the intention to sell, and may, not less
than $ve days after serving or sending of such notice, sell the goods, documents or instruments at public
or private sale, and the entruster may, at a public sale, become a purchaser" #he proceeds of any such
sale, !hether public or private, shall be applied (a to the payment of the expenses thereof/ (b to the
payment of the expenses of re0ta.ing, .eeping and storing the goods, documents or instruments/ (c to the
satisfaction of the entrusteeGs indebtedness to the entruster" #he entrustee shall receive any surplus butshall be liable to the entruster for any de$ciency" , Inc. vs. etroban , citing Abad vs. CA, supra #hus, the entruster has the right to:
&" @e entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the goods, documents or instruments released under atrust receipt to the entrustee to the extent of the amount o!ing to the entruster or as appears in thetrust receipt/
2" #he return of the goods, documents or instruments in case of non0sale/
" #he enforcement of all other rights conferred on him in the trust receipt provided such are notcontrary to the provisions of this 6ecree/
)" Cancel the trust and ta.e possession of the goods, documents or instruments sub3ect of the trust orof the proceeds realiHed therefrom at any time upon default or failure of the entrustee to comply!ith any of the terms and conditions of the trust receipt or any other agreement bet!een theentruster and the entrustee/
*" Sell the goods, documents or instruments at public or private sale, and the entruster may, at a
public sale, become a purchaser, !hen in possession of the goods, documents or instruments, on orafter default of the entrustee, and after notice to the latter of the intention to sell, not less than $vedays after serving or sending of such notice,
+" ntitled for any de$ciency in the aforementioned sale"
Section )" 46 &&*5 hat constitutes a trust receipts transaction"K% trust receipt transaction, !ithin the
meaning of this 6ecree, is any transaction by and bet!een a person referred to in this 6ecree as the
entruster, and another person referred to in this 6ecree as entrustee, !hereby the entruster, !ho o!ns or
holds absolute title or security interests over certain speci$ed goods, documents or instruments, releases
the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latterGs execution and delivery to the entruster of a
signed document called a “trust receipt” !herein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or other!ise dispose of the goods,documents or instruments !ith the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the
extent of the amount o!ing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or
instruments themselves if they are unsold or not other!ise disposed of, in accordance !ith the terms and
conditions speci$ed in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially e-uivalent to any of the
follo!ing:
&" In the case of goods or documents: (a to sell the goods or procure their sale/ or (b to manufacture or
process the goods !ith the purpose of ultimate sale: rovided, #hat, in the case of goods delivered under
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
6/23
trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale, the entruster shall
retain its title over the goods !hether in its original or processed form until the entrustee has complied full
!ith his obligation under the trust receipt/ or (c to load, unload, ship or transship or other!ise deal !ith
them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale/ or
2" In the case of instruments: (a to sell or procure their sale or exchange/ or (b to deliver them to a
principal/ or (c to eFect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a depository or
register/ or (d to eFect their presentation, collection or rene!al" #he sale of good, documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods, documents or
instruments for pro$t !ho, at the outset of transaction, has, as against the buyer, general property rights
in such goods, documents or instruments, or !ho sells the same to the buyer on credit, retaining title or
other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt
transaction and is outside the purvie! and coverage of this 6ecree" (-g vs. *eople, G./. -o. ;"15$, April
"5, !55, 67elasco, 4r.8
#rust 9eceipts Ba! !as created to “to aid in $nancing importers and retail dealers !ho do not have
suJcient funds or resources to $nance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and !ho may not be
able to ac-uire credit except through utiliHation, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased"”
(ibid
#he #rust 9eceipts Ba! !as enacted to safeguard commercial transactions and to oFer an additional layer
of security to the lending ban." #rust receipts are indispensable contracts in international and domestic
business transactions" #he prevalent use of trust receipts, the danger of their misuse andLor
misappropriation of the goods or proceeds realiHed from the sale of goods, documents or instruments held
in trust for entruster ban.s, and the need for regulation of trust receipt transactions to safeguard the rights
and enforce the obligations of the parties involved are the main thrusts of the #rust 9eceipts Ba!"4&5 ((andl
? Company @*hil>, Inc. vs. etroban, G./. -o. $13!!, 4uly "5, !55#, 6Bnares='antiago8
#he nature of trust receipt agreements and the damage caused to trade circles and the ban.ing
community in case of violation thereof !as explained in 7intola vs. I)AA [2] and echoed in *eople
vs" -itafan [3] , as follo!s:
“4t5rust receipt arrangements do not involve a simple loan transaction bet!een a creditor and a debtor0
importer" %part from a loan feature, the trust receipt arrangement has a security feature that is covered by
the trust receipt itself" #he second feature is !hat provides the much needed $nancial assistance to
traders in the importation or purchase of goods or merchandise through the use of those goods or
merchandise as collateral for the advancements made by the ban." #he title of the ban. to the security is
the one sought to be protected and not the loan !hich is a separate and distinct agreement"”
x x x x x x x x x
“#rust receipts are indispensable contracts in international and domestic business transactions" #he
prevalent use of trust receipts, the danger of their misuse andLor misappropriation of the goods or
proceeds realiHed from the sale of goods, documents or instruments held in trust for entruster0ban.s, and
the need for regulation of trust receipt transactions to safeguard the rights and enforce the obligations of
the parties involved are the main thrusts of "6" &&*" %s correctly observed by the Solicitor ;eneral, "6"
&&*, li.e @ata ambansa @lg" 22, punishes the act “not as an oFense against property, but as an oFense
against public order" x x x #he misuse of trust receipts therefore should be deterred to prevent any
possible havoc in trade circles and the ban.ing community" (citing BoHano vs" DartineH, &)+ SC9% 2
4&78+5/ 9ollo, p" *' It is in the context of upholding public interest that the la! no! speci$cally designates
a breach of a trust receipt agreement to be an act that “shall” ma.e one liable for estafa"” (etroban vs.
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
7/23
Simply stated, a trust receipt transaction is one !here the entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the
entruster the price of the sale, or if the merchandise is not sold, to return the merchandise to the entruster"
#here are, therefore, t!o obligations in a trust receipt transaction: the $rst refers to money received under
the obligation involving the duty to turn it over (entregarla to the o!ner of the merchandise sold, !hile
the second refers to the merchandise received under the obligation to “return” it (devolvera to the o!ner"
4*5 (ur
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
8/23
%s earlier stated, there must have been an absolute assurance on the part of the petitioner that it
!ill underta.e the issuing ban.Gs obligation as its o!n" Aerily, the loan agreement it entered into cannot be
categoriHed as an emphatic assurance that it !ill carry out the issuing ban.Gs obligation as its o!n" (supra
#he case of 'canlon v " Eirst -ational )an (supra perspicuously explained the relationship
bet!een the seller and the negotiating ban., viz :
It may buy or refuse to buy as it chooses" -ually, it must be true that it o!es no contractual dutyto!ard the person for !hose bene$t the letter is !ritten to discount or purchase any draft dra!n against
the credit"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
9/23
correspondent ban. !hich buys or discounts a draft under the letter of credit" Its liability is dependent
upon the stage of the negotiation" If before negotiation, it has no liability !ith respect to the seller but after
negotiation, a contractual relationship !ill then prevail bet!een the negotiating ban. and the seller"
(Scanlon v" irst
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
10/23
relationship of the parties or the nature of the question that is subject of their controversy " In
the absence of any one of these factors, the SC !ill not have 3urisdiction" urthermore, it does not
necessarily follo! that every conPict bet!een the corporation and its stoc.holders !ould involve such
corporate matters as only SC (no! the 9egional #rial Court can resolve in the exercise of its ad3udicatory
or -uasi03udicial po!ers" (mphasis ours
% revie! of relevant 3urisprudence sho!s a development in the CourtGs approach in classifying !hat
constitutes an intra0corporate controversy" Initially, the main consideration in determining !hether adispute constitutes an intra0corporate controversy !as limited to a consideration of the intra0corporate
relationship existing bet!een or among the parties" #he types of relationships embraced under Section
*(b x x x !ere as follo!s:
a bet!een the corporation, partnership or association and the public/
b bet!een the corporation, partnership or association and its stoc.holders, partners, members or oJcers/
c bet!een the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as its franchise, permit or
license to operate is concerned/ and
d among the stoc.holders, partners or associates themselves"
#he existence of any of the above intra0corporate relations !as suJcient to confer 3urisdiction to the SC
(no! the 9#C, regardless of the sub3ect matter of the dispute" #his came to be .no!n as the relationship
test"
Mo!ever, in the &78) case of D/C &nterprises v. &sta del 'ol ountain /eserve, Inc., the Court
introduced the nature of the controversy test" e declared in this case that it is not the mere existence of
an intra0corporate relationship that gives rise to an intra0corporate controversy/ to rely on the relationship
test alone !ill divest the regular courts of their 3urisdiction for the sole reason that the dispute involves a
corporation, its directors, oJcers, or stoc.holders" e sa! that there is no legal sense in disregarding or
minimiHing the value of the nature of the transactions !hich gives rise to the dispute"
Ender the nature of the controversy test, the incidents of that relationship must also be considered for the
purpose of ascertaining !hether the controversy itself is intra0corporate" #he controversy must not only be
rooted in the existence of an intra0corporate relationship, but must as !ell pertain to the enforcement of
the partiesG correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra0
corporate regulatory rules of the corporation" If the relationship and its incidents are merely incidental to
the controversy or if there !ill still be conPict even if the relationship does not exist, then no intra0
corporate controversy exists"
#he Court then combined the t!o tests and declared that 3urisdiction should be determined by considering
not only the status or relationship of the parties, but also the nature of the -uestion under controversy"
#his t!o0tier test !as adopted in the recent case of 'peed Distribution Inc. v. Court of AppealsF
Q#o determine !hether a case involves an intra0corporate controversy, and is to be heard and decided by
the branches of the 9#C speci$cally designated by the Court to try and decide such cases, t!o elements
must concur: (a the status or relationship of the parties, and (2 the nature of the -uestion that is the
sub3ect of their controversy
#he $rst element re-uires that the controversy must arise out of intra0corporate or partnership relations
bet!een any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership, or association of !hich they are not
stoc.holders, members or associates, bet!een any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or
association of !hich they are stoc.holders, members or associates, respectively/ and bet!een such
corporation, partnership, or association and the State insofar as it concerns the individual franchises" #he
second element re-uires that the dispute among the parties be intrinsically connected !ith the regulation
of the corporation" If the nature of the controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character,
necessarily, the case does not involve an intra0corporate controversy"G (Real vs !angu "hilippines#
$nc# %R &o 1'()*)# +anuary 1,# 2-11 [.e/ 0astillo# +]
osted in Corporation and tagged %BB%, %tty" Dar. " iad, bar examination -uestions, @ar
9evie!, Commercial Ba!, Dercantile Ba! on Darch &', 2?&)" Beave a comment
https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/category/corporation/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/alplaw/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/atty-mark-p-piad/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/bar-examination-questions/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/bar-review/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/bar-review/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/commercial-law/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/mercantile-law/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/corporation-two-tier-test-in-determining-the-existence-of-intra-corporate-controversies-1-relationship-test-2-nature-of-the-controversy-test/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/corporation-two-tier-test-in-determining-the-existence-of-intra-corporate-controversies-1-relationship-test-2-nature-of-the-controversy-test/#respondhttps://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/category/corporation/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/alplaw/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/atty-mark-p-piad/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/bar-examination-questions/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/bar-review/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/bar-review/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/commercial-law/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/tag/mercantile-law/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/corporation-two-tier-test-in-determining-the-existence-of-intra-corporate-controversies-1-relationship-test-2-nature-of-the-controversy-test/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/corporation-two-tier-test-in-determining-the-existence-of-intra-corporate-controversies-1-relationship-test-2-nature-of-the-controversy-test/#respond
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
11/23
CORPORATION; IF A DISPUTE INVOLVES INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSY !URISDICTION IS WITH THE RTC ACTING AS A SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURT"
#his case reprises the 3urisdictional conundrum of !hether a complaint for illegal dismissal is cogniHable
by the Babor %rbiter (B% or by the 9egional #rial Court (9#C" #he determination of !hether the dismissed
oJcer !as a regular employee or a corporate oJcer unravels the conundrum" In the case of the regular
employee, the B% has 3urisdiction/ other!ise, the 9#C exercises the legal authority to ad3udicate"
here the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a corporate oJcer, ho!ever, the controversy falls
under the 3urisdiction of the Securities and xchange Commission (SC, because the controversy arises
out of intra0corporate or partnership relations bet!een and among stoc.holders, members, or associates,
or bet!een any or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or association of !hich they are
stoc.holders, members, or associates, respectively/ and bet!een such corporation, partnership, or
association and the State insofar as the controversy concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as
such entity/ or because the controversy involves the election or appointment of a director, trustee, oJcer,
or manager of such corporation, partnership, or association" Such controversy, among others, is .no!n as
an intra0corporate dispute"
Section 2*" Corporate oJcers, -uorum"Immediately after their election, the directors of a corporation
must formally organiHe by the election of a president, !ho shall be a director, a treasurer !ho may or may
not be a director, a secretary !ho shall be a resident and citiHen of the hilippines, and such other
ocers as may be provided for in the by-laws" %ny t!o (2 or more positions may be held
concurrently by the same person, except that no one shall act as president and secretary or as president
and treasurer at the same time"
#he directors or trustees and oJcers to be elected shall perform the duties en3oined on them by la! and
the by0la!s of the corporation" Enless the articles of incorporation or the by0la!s provide for a greater
ma3ority, a ma3ority of the number of directors or trustees as $xed in the articles of incorporation shall
constitute a -uorum for the transaction of corporate business, and every decision of at least a ma3ority of
the directors or trustees present at a meeting at !hich there is a -uorum shall be valid as a corporate act,
except for the election of oJcers !hich shall re-uire the vote of a ma3ority of all the members of the
board"
6irectors or trustees cannot attend or vote by proxy at board meetings"
Conformably !ith Section 2*, a position must be expressly mentioned in the @y0Ba!s in order to be
considered as a corporate oJce" #hus, the creation of an oJce pursuant to or under a @y0Ba! enabling
provision is not enough to ma.e a position a corporate oJce" ;uerrea v" BeHama,the $rst ruling on the
matter, held that the only oJcers of a corporation !ere those given that character either by the
Corporation Code or by the @y0Ba!s/ the rest of the corporate oJcers could be considered only as
employees or subordinate oJcials" #hus, it !as held in &asycall Communications *hils., Inc. v. ing:
%n “oce” is created by the charter of the corporation and the oJcer is elected by the directors or
stoc.holders" 1n the other hand, an employee occupies no oJce and generally is employed not by the
action of the directors or stoc.holders but by the managing oJcer of the corporation !ho also determines
the compensation to be paid to such employee"
#hus, pursuant to the above provision (Section 2* of the Corporation Code, !hoever are the corporate
oJcers enumerated in the by0la!s are the exclusive 1Jcers of the corporation and the @oard has no
po!er to create other 1Jces !ithout amending $rst the corporate @y0la!s" However, the Board may
create appointive positions other than the positions of corporate Ocers, but the personsoccupying such positions are not considered as corporate ocers within the meaning of
Section ! of the "orporation "ode and are not empo!ered to exercise the functions of the corporate
1Jcers, except those functions la!fully delegated to them" #heir functions and duties are to be
determined by the @oard of 6irectorsL#rustees"
#he establishment of any of the relationships mentioned above !ill not necessarily al!ays confer
3urisdiction over the dispute on the SC to the exclusion of regular courts" #he statement made in one case
that the rule admits of no exceptions or distinctions is not that absolute" #he better policy in determining
https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/corporation-if-a-dispute-involves-intra-corporate-controversy-jurisdiction-is-with-the-rtc-acting-as-a-special-commercial-court/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/corporation-if-a-dispute-involves-intra-corporate-controversy-jurisdiction-is-with-the-rtc-acting-as-a-special-commercial-court/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/corporation-if-a-dispute-involves-intra-corporate-controversy-jurisdiction-is-with-the-rtc-acting-as-a-special-commercial-court/https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/corporation-if-a-dispute-involves-intra-corporate-controversy-jurisdiction-is-with-the-rtc-acting-as-a-special-commercial-court/
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
12/23
!hich body has 3urisdiction over a case !ould be to consider not only the status or relationship of the
parties but also the nature of the -uestion that is the sub3ect of their controversy"
In order that the SC (no! the regular courts can ta.e cogniHance of a case, the controversy must
pertain to any of the follo!ing relationships:
a bet!een the corporation, partnership or association and the public/
b bet!een the corporation, partnership or association and its stoc.holders, partners, members or oJcers/
c bet!een the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as its franchise, permit orlicense to operate is concerned/ and
d among the stoc.holders, partners or associates themselves"
atling $ndustrial and 0ommercial 0orporation vs 0oros# %R &o 1*)(-2# 4ctober 13# 2-1-#
[5ersamin# +]
osted in %BB%, %tty" Dar. " iad, @ar xams, Commercial Ba!, Corporation,
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
13/23
pesos per share: rovided, further, #hat the entire consideration received by the corporation for its no0par
value shares shall be treated as capital and shall not be available for distribution as dividends"
% corporation may, furthermore, classify its shares for the purpose of insuring compliance !ith
constitutional or legal re-uirements"
xcept as other!ise provided in the articles of incorporation and stated in the certi$cate of stoc., each
share shall be e-ual in all respects to every other share"
here the articles of incorporation provide for non0voting shares in the cases allo!ed by this Code, theholders of such shares shall nevertheless be entitled to vote on the follo!ing matters:
&" %mendment of the articles of incorporation/
2" %doption and amendment of by0la!s/
" Sale, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge or other disposition of all or substantially all of the corporate
property/
)" Incurring, creating or increasing bonded indebtedness/
*" Increase or decrease of capital stoc./
+" Derger or consolidation of the corporation !ith another corporation or other corporations/
'" Investment of corporate funds in another corporation or business in accordance !ith this Code/ and
8" 6issolution of the corporation"
xcept as provided in the immediately preceding paragraph, the vote necessary to approve a particular
corporate act as provided in this Code shall be deemed to refer only to stoc.s !ith voting rights"
Indisputably, one of the rights of a stoc.holder is the right to participate in the control or management of
the corporation"#his is exercised through his vote in the election of directors because it is the board of
directors that controls or manages the corporation"In the absence of provisions in the articles of
incorporation denying voting rights to preferred shares, preferred shares have the same voting rights as
common shares" Mo!ever, preferred shareholders are often excluded from any control, that is, deprived of
the right to vote in the election of directors and on other matters, on the theory that the preferred
shareholders are merely investors in the corporation for income in the same manner as bondholders"In
fact, under the Corporation Code only preferred or redeemable shares can be deprived of the right to
vote"Common shares cannot be deprived of the right to vote in any corporate meeting, and any provision
in the articles of incorporation restricting the right of common shareholders to vote is invalid"
#hus, +? percent of the “capital” assumes, or should result in, “controlling interest” in the
corporation" 9einforcing this interpretation of the term “capital,” as referring to controlling interest or
shares entitled to vote, is the de$nition of a “hilippine national” in the oreign Investments %ct of &77&,to
!it:
SC" " Denitions. %s used in this %ct:
a" #he term “*hilippine nationalH shall mean a citiHen of the hilippines/ or a domestic partnership or
association !holly o!ned by citiHens of the hilippines/ or a corporation organi%ed under the laws of
the 'hilippines of which at least si&ty percent +./ of the capital stoc0
outstanding and entitled to vote is owned and held by citi%ens of the 'hilippines/ o r a
corporation organiHed abroad and registered as doing business in the hilippines under the Corporation
Code of !hich one hundred percent (&?? of the capital stoc. outstanding and entitled to vote is !holly
o!ned by ilipinos or a trustee of funds for pension or other employee retirement or separation bene$ts,
!here the trustee is a hilippine national and at least sixty percent (+? of the fund !ill accrue to the
bene$t of hilippine nationals: *rovided, #hat !here a corporation and its non0ilipino stoc.holders o!n
stoc.s in a Securities and xchange Commission (SC registered enterprise, at least sixty percent (+?
of the capital stoc. outstanding and entitled to vote of each of both corporations must be o!ned and held
by citiHens of the hilippines and at least sixty percent (+? of the members of the @oard of 6irectors of
each of both corporations must be citiHens of the hilippines, in order that the corporation, shall be
considered a “hilippine national"” (mphasis supplied
In explaining the de$nition of a “hilippine national,” the Implementing 9ules and 9egulations of the
oreign Investments %ct of &77& provide:
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
14/23
b" “*hilippine nationalH shall mean a citiHen of the hilippines or a domestic partnership or association
!holly o!ned by the citiHens of the hilippines/ or a corporation organi%ed under the laws of the
'hilippines of which at least si&ty percent 1.2 of the capital stoc0 outstanding and entitled
to vote is owned and held by citi%ens of the 'hilippines/ or a trustee of funds for pension or other
employee retirement or separation bene$ts, !here the trustee is a hilippine national and at least sixty
percent 4+?5 of the fund !ill accrue to the bene$t of the hilippine nationals/ *rovided, that !here a
corporation its non0ilipino stoc.holders o!n stoc.s in a Securities and xchange Commission 4SC5registered enterprise, at least sixty percent 4+?5 of the capital stoc. outstanding and entitled to vote of
both corporations must be o!ned and held by citiHens of the hilippines and at least sixty percent 4+?5 of
the members of the @oard of 6irectors of each of both corporation must be citiHens of the hilippines, in
order that the corporation shall be considered a hilippine national" #he control test shall be applied for
this purpose"
"ompliance with the re3uired 4ilipino ownership of a corporation shall be determined on the
basis of outstanding capital stoc0 whether fully paid or not, but only such stoc0s which are
generally entitled to vote are considered5
4or stoc0s to be deemed owned and held by 'hilippine citi%ens or 'hilippine nationals, mere
legal title is not enough to meet the re3uired 4ilipino e3uity5 4ull bene$cial ownership of the
stoc0s, coupled with appropriate voting rights is essential5 (hus, stoc0s, the voting rights of
which have been assigned or transferred to aliens cannot be considered held by 'hilippine
citi%ens or 'hilippine nationals5
6ndividuals or 7uridical entities not meeting the aforementioned 3uali$cations are considered
as non-'hilippine nationals5 (mphasis supplied
Dere legal title is insuJcient to meet the +? percent ilipino0o!ned “capital” re-uired in the Constitution"
ull bene$cial o!nership of +? percent of the outstanding capital stoc., coupled !ith +? percent of the
voting rights, is re-uired" #he legal and bene$cial o!nership of +? percent of the outstanding capital stoc.
must rest in the hands of ilipino nationals in accordance !ith the constitutional mandate" 1ther!ise, the
corporation is “considered as non0hilippine national4s5"”
Ender Section &?, %rticle RII of the Constitution, Congress may “reserve to citiHens of the hilippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of !hose capital is o!ned by such citiHens, or such
higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments"” #hus, in numerous la!s
Congress has reserved certain areas of investments to ilipino citiHens or to corporations at least sixty
percent of the “capital” of !hich is o!ned by ilipino citiHens" Some of these la!s are: (& 9egulation of
%!ard of ;overnment Contracts or 9"%"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
15/23
In the example given, only the foreigners holding the common shares have voting rights in the election of
directors, even if they hold only &?? shares" #he foreigners, !ith a minuscule e-uity of less than ?"??&
percent, exercise control over the public utility" 1n the other hand, the ilipinos, holding more than 77"777
percent of the e-uity, cannot vote in the election of directors and hence, have no control over the public
utility" #his star.ly circumvents the intent of the framers of the Constitution, as !ell as the clear language
of the Constitution, to place the control of public utilities in the hands of ilipinos" It also renders illusory
the State policy of an independent national economy e6ectively controlled by ilipinos" #he example given is not theoretical but can be found in the real !orld, and in fact e7ists in the
present case. @ %amboa vs Teves# et al# %R &o 1)'*),# +une 2(# 2-11# [0arpio# +]
>
osted in %BB%, %tty" Dar. " iad, @ar xams, Commercial Ba!, Corporation, Dercantile Ba!,r" v" Court of %ppeals, ;"9"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
16/23
hen a signature is forged or made !ithout the authority of the person !hose signature it purports to be,
#he signature is !holly inoperative,
%nd no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof
against any party thereto can be ac-uired through or under such signature"
#he case of &atividad %empesaw vs The 8onorable 0ourt of 9ppeals and "hilippine
5an: of 0ommunications [1], the Supreme Court, spea.ing through >ustice Campos laid do!n a detaileddiscussion on the nature and eFect of forgery, to !it:
“Ender the aforecited provision, forgery is a real or absolute defense by the party !hose signature
!as forged" % party !hose signature to an instrument !as forged !as never a party and never gave his
consent to the contract !hich gave rise to the instrument" Since his signature does not appear in the
instrument, he cannot be held liable thereon by anyone, not even by a holder in due course" #hus, if a
personGs signature is forged as a ma.er of a promissory note, he cannot be made to pay because he never
made the promise to pay" 1r !here a personGs signature as a dra!er of a chec. is forged, he cannot
charge the amount thereof against the dra!erGs account because he never gave the ban. the order to
pay" %nd said section does not refer only to the forged signature of the ma.er of a promissory note and of
the dra!er of a chec." It covers also a forged indorsement, i.e., the forged signature of the payee or
indorsee of a note or a chec." Since under said provision a forged signature is “!holly inoperative”, no one
can gain title to the instrument through such forged indorsement" Such an indorsement prevents any
subse-uent party from ac-uiring any right as against any party !hose name appears prior to the forgery"
%lthough rights may exist bet!een and among parties subse-uent to the forged indorsement, not one of
them can ac-uire tights against parties prior to the forgery" Such forged indorsement cuts oF the rights of
all subse-uent parties as against parties prior to the forgery" Mo!ever, the la! ma.es an exception to
these rules !here a party is precluded from setting up forgery as a defense"”
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT; WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FORGERY ON THE INSTRUMENT%
hen a signature is forged or made !ithout the authority of the person !hose signature
it purports to be,
#he signature is !holly inoperative,
%nd no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce
payment thereof against any party thereto can be ac-uired through or under such
signature"
#he case of &atividad %empesaw vs The 8onorable 0ourt of 9ppeals and "hilippine 5an: of 0ommunications [1], the Supreme Court, spea.ing through >ustice
Campos laid do!n a detailed discussion on the nature and eFect of forgery, to !it:
“Ender the aforecited provision, forgery is a real or absolute defense by the party
!hose signature !as forged" % party !hose signature to an instrument !as forged !as
never a party and never gave his consent to the contract !hich gave rise to the
instrument" Since his signature does not appear in the instrument, he cannot be held
liable thereon by anyone, not even by a holder in due course" #hus, if a personGs
signature is forged as a ma.er of a promissory note, he cannot be made to pay because
he never made the promise to pay" 1r !here a personGs signature as a dra!er of a chec.is forged, he cannot charge the amount thereof against the dra!erGs account because he
never gave the ban. the order to pay" %nd said section does not refer only to the forged
signature of the ma.er of a promissory note and of the dra!er of a chec." It covers also
a forged indorsement, i.e., the forged signature of the payee or indorsee of a note or a
chec." Since under said provision a forged signature is “!holly inoperative”, no one can
gain title to the instrument through such forged indorsement" Such an indorsement
prevents any subse-uent party from ac-uiring any right as against any party !hose
https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/page/3/#_ftn1https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/negotiable-instrument-what-is-the-effect-of-forgery-on-the-instrument/https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=530365511115753182#_ftn1https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/page/3/#_ftn1https://attymarkpiad.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/negotiable-instrument-what-is-the-effect-of-forgery-on-the-instrument/https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=530365511115753182#_ftn1
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
17/23
name appears prior to the forgery" %lthough rights may exist bet!een and among
parties subse-uent to the forged indorsement, not one of them can ac-uire tights
against parties prior to the forgery" Such forged indorsement cuts oF the rights of all
subse-uent parties as against parties prior to the forgery" Mo!ever, the la! ma.es an
exception to these rules !here a party is precluded from setting up forgery as a
defense"”
4&5 ;"9"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
18/23
credit"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
19/23
had issued the letter of credit" (Shaterian, xport0Import @an.ing, p" 27), cited in%gbayani Commercial Ba!s of the hilippines, Aol" &, p" '' % notifying ban. is not a privy to the contract of sale bet!een the buyer and theseller, its relationship is only !ith that of the issuing ban. and not !ith the bene$ciary to!hom he assumes no liability" It follo!s therefore that !hen the petitioner refused tonegotiate !ith the private respondent, the latter has no cause of action against thepetitioner for the enforcement of his rights under the letter" ('ee Nronman and Co", Inc"v" ublic
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
20/23
In etropolitan Jaterwors and 'ewerage 'ystem vs. Daway [;], !e have also de$ned a letter of credit as
an engagement by a ban. or other person made at the re-uest of a customer that the issuer shall honor
drafts or other demands of payment upon compliance !ith the conditions speci$ed in the credit"4*5
#he letter of credit evolved as a mercantile specialty, and the only !ay to understand all its facets is to
recogniHe that it is an entity unto itself" #he relationship bet!een the bene$ciary and the issuer of a letter
of credit is not strictly contractual, because both privity and a meeting of the minds are lac.ing, yet strict
compliance !ith its terms is an enforceable right"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
21/23
ydro Corporation, et al., G./. -o. #3;;, -ovember !!, !55#, 6
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
22/23
the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are re-uired
of it" (-uitable @an.ing Corporation, Inc" vs" Special Steel roducts, ;"9"
-
8/17/2019 Transportation Law 2015
23/23
In the case of /izal Commercial )aning Corporation vs. i=ustice Sereno held that: “the mere issuance of a managerGs chec. does not ipso
fact !or. as an automatic transfer of funds to the account of the payee" In case the procurer of the
managerGs or cashierGs chec. retains custody of the instrument, does not tender it to the intended payee,
or fails to ma.e an eFective delivery, !e $nd the follo!ing provision on undelivered instruments under the