THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212493. June 1, 2016.]

GABRIEL YAP, SR. duly represented by GILBERT YAP and

also in his personal capacity, GABRIEL YAP, JR., and HYMAN
YAP, petitioners, vs. LETECIA SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN
SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO and HONEYLET
SIAO, respondents.

[G.R. No. 212504. June 1, 2016.]

CEBU SOUTH MEMORIAL GARDEN, INC., petitioner, vs.

LETECIA SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE
SIAO, SHELETT SIAO and HONEYLET SIAO, respondents.

DECISION

PEREZ, J : p

Before this court are two consolidated cases involving two petitions for
Review on Certiorari. These petitions assail the Decision 1 dated 9 October
2013 and Resolution 2 dated 26 March 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 02037.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 212493 are deceased Gabriel Yap, Sr.,
represented by his son and the President of Cebu South Memorial Garden,
Inc., Gilbert Yap; Gabriel Yap, Jr., in his capacity as Treasurer; and Hyman
Yap, as one of the directors, while petitioner in G.R. No. 212504 is Cebu
South Memorial Garden, Inc. Respondents in both cases are Letecia Siao and
her children, Lynel, Janelyn, Eleonor, Shellett and Honeylet.
These consolidated cases arose from a Complaint for Specific
Performance filed by petitioners Cebu South Memorial Gardens, Inc. and
Gabriel Yap, Sr., both represented by Gilbert Yap against respondents
Honeylet Siao and Letecia Siao on 27 April 1999. Gilbert Yap, in his own
behalf, Gabriel Yap, Jr. and Hyman Yap joined the plaintiffs in their
Supplemental Complaint. In their Second Amended Complaint, the
petitioners alleged that Gabriel Yap, Sr. and Letecia Siao entered into a
Certificate of Agreement where the parties agreed on the following terms:
1. To convert the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 66716, 66714
and 66713, registered in the names of Spouses Sergio and
Letecia Siao, into memorial lots;
2. To organize themselves into a corporation;
3. To transfer ownership of the parcels of land to Gabriel Yap who
will transfer ownership thereof to the corporation;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 4. To give advance payment to Letecia Siao in the amount of
P100,000.00 per month until Letecia Siao is financially stable to
support herself and her family. 3
As a backgrounder, respondent Letecia Siao's husband Sergio Siao was
indebted to petitioner Gabriel Yap, Sr. Petitioners claim that the titles to the
subject parcels of land were in the possession of Gabriel Yap, Sr. as
collateral for the loan. In consideration of condoning the loan, Gabriel Yap,
Sr. returned the titles to Letecia Siao on the condition that the parcels of
land covered by the titles would be developed into memorial lots. 4
Petitioners claimed that respondents refused to transfer the ownership
of the three parcels of land to Cebu South Memorial Garden, Inc., causing
them to be exposed to numerous lawsuits from the buyers of the burial plots.
Respondents argued that Letecia Siao was coerced to sign the
Certificate of Agreement, rendering it null and void. AIDSTE

A panel of commissioners was appointment to determine the financial

standing of petitioner corporation and the actual money received by Letecia
Siao.
On 31 January 2000 and during the pendency of the case before the
commissioners, respondents filed a Motion for Payment of Monthly Support 5
for Leticia Siao's family and herself. Respondents relied on the agreement
made by the parties during the preliminary conference to abide by the terms
of the Certificate of Agreement. In a Resolution 6 dated 5 April 2000, the RTC
granted the motion for monthly support and ordered Gabriel Yap, Sr. to pay
immediately Letecia Siao the amount of P1,300,000.00. Resultantly,
petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 7 on 24 May 2002 alleging
that respondents had abandoned their defense of the nullity of the
Certificate of Agreement when they agreed to implement its provisions.
Petitioners submitted that the trial court may render a summary judgment
or judgment on the pleadings based on the admitted facts.
On 1 August 2002, Judge Generosa G. Labra of Branch 23 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City issued an Order denying the motion
and holding that there were no existing admissions or admitted facts by
respondents to be considered. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but it was denied on 11 September 2002. Petitioners elevated the matter to
the Court of Appeals.
On 10 October 2003, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73850, 8
through Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, reversed the trial court's
decision and ordered its judge to render summary judgment in favor of
petitioners. The appellate court ruled that by claiming benefits arising from
the Certificate of Agreement, respondents had invoked the validity and
effectiveness of the Agreement.
Respondents sought for reconsideration but it was denied by the
appellate court. Respondents did not file an appeal before the Supreme
Court within the reglementary period. Thus, the Decision became final and
executory on 7 June 2004 and the same had been recorded in the Book of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Entries of Judgment. 9

In compliance with the Order that had become final, on 7 February

2006, RTC Branch 13 of Cebu City Judge Meinrado P. Paredes rendered a
Summary Judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered directing
defendants to transfer to the plaintiff-movant the three (3) parcels of
land covered by TCT Nos. 66714, 66713 and 66716 after this
judgment shall have become final and executory.
Should defendants fail to do so, the Branch Clerk of Court is
directed to prepare a deed of conveyance or transfer of the said titles
to the plaintiff CSMG, Inc. at the expense of defendants. 10
The motion for reconsideration filed by respondents was denied. Once
again, respondents filed an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
seeking to reverse and set aside the Summary Judgment rendered by the
RTC.
On 9 October 2013, the Court of Appeals set aside the Summary
Judgment on a technicality. The appellate court found that the certification
against forum-shopping appended to the complaint is defective because
there was no board resolution and special power of attorney vesting upon
Gilbert Yap the authority to sign the certification on behalf of petitioner
corporation and individual petitioners. The appellate court added that the
procedural defects affected the jurisdiction of the court in that the court
never acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complaints are
considered not filed and are ineffectual. Petitioners filed their separate
motions for reconsideration but they were denied by the appellate court.
The following errors are grounds for the allowance of these petitions: AaCTcI

1. The Honorable Court of Appeals made an error in applying the

law when the same resolved to reverse the decision the [c]ourt a
quo on the ground that even if Gilbert Yap is the president of
petitioner corporation the same had no authority to institute the
complaint unless he can produce a board resolution showing his
authority.
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals also erred when it entertained
the issue on lack of Certificate of Non-forum shopping when the
raising of said grounds is already barred by the Rules on Pleading
and Omnibus Motion Rule. 11
3. The Court of Appeals gravely erred and acted contrary to law in
reversing the summary judgment and dismissing the complaints
filed by petitioner on ground that the RTC Cebu had no
jurisdiction over the complaint and plaintiff because the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by the
president of the corporation was not accompanied by a board
resolution considering that:
3.1 Gilbert Yap, as President of petitioner, can sign the
verification and certification even without a board
resolution. Hence, his verification and certification is valid.
Consequently, the complaint and second amended
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 complaint are likewise valid.
3.2 The Court of Appeals gravely erred and acted contrary to
law in ruling that the subsequent submission of petitioner's
board resolution cannot be deemed as substantial
compliance to the rule on verification and certificate of
non-forum shopping.
3.3 The execution of a verification and certification of non-
forum [shopping] is a formal, not a [jurisdictional] issue. It
may be waived if not raised on time. In the instant case,
respondents waived the alleged [defect] when they failed
to raise it in a motion to dismiss or answer.
3.4 The assailed decision resolved an issue beyond its
jurisdiction. Thus, it is void under the principle of coram
non judice.
3.5 The validity of the complaints have been settled with
finality. In its decision dated 10 October 2013, the Court of
Appeals thru the another division (nineteenth division)
directed RTC Cebu to render summary judgment there
being no genuine issues to be tried. The Court of Appeals
(Fifth Division) in the present case violated the doctrine of
immutability of judgment when it dismissed the
complaints, thereby effectively directing the trial court not
to render any summary judgment.
4. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the summary
judgment despite the fact the same is consistent with the
Certificate of Agreement. 12
Petitioner Yaps, in G.R. No. 212493 maintain that the signature of the
President of the corporation is sufficient to vest authority on him to
represent the corporation sans a board resolution. Petitioners stress that the
Special Power of Attorney categorically granted Gilbert Yap the full authority
to appear and represent Gabriel Yap, Sr. With respect to the failure of
Gabriel Yap, Jr. and Hyman Yap to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping,
petitioners assert that while the two men share a common interest with
petitioner corporation and Gabriel Yap, Sr., these are not indispensable
parties, thus their signatures are not necessary. Petitioners also submit that
the issue of a defective certification of non-forum shopping was belatedly
raised, thus should not have been considered. 13
Petitioner in G.R. No. 212504 adds that the appellate court should have
considered the subsequent submission of the board resolution as substantial
compliance with the Rules. Petitioner also argues that the appellate court
violated the doctrine of immutability of judgment when it dismissed the
complaints thereby effectively directing the trial court not to render any
summary judgment. 14
Respondents filed one Comment on both petitions. They argue that
petitioners, except for Gabriel Yap, Sr. are not parties to the Certificate of
Agreement, thus the petitions should be dismissed because as against them
no rights were violated. Respondents insist that the Certificate of Agreement
is void because it involved unliquidated community properties. Respondents
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 further claim that petitioners, other than Cebu South Memorial Garden, did
not appeal the Summary Judgment before the Court of Appeals, hence, they
are all bound by the denial of their Motion for Summary Judgment by the
RTC. With respect to the alleged defect in the Certification of Non-forum
shopping, respondents echoed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. 15
We will first discuss the procedural aspect of this case where the Court
of Appeals wholly based its decision. The appellate court ruled that the
certification against forum-shopping is defective because it was signed by
Gilbert Yap without a valid board resolution. In the leading case of Cagayan
Valley Drug Corporation v. Commission of Internal Revenue , 16 the Court, in
summarizing numerous jurisprudence, rendered a definitive rule that the
following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and
certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the
Board of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation, (3) the General
Manager or Acting General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an
Employment Specialist in a labor case. The rationale behind the rule is that
these officers are "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of
the allegations in the petition." 17 EcTCAD

In Cebu Metro Pharmacy, Inc. v. Euro-Med Laboratories, Pharmacy,

Inc. , 18 the President and Manager of Cebu Metro was held by the Court as
having the authority to sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping even without the submission of a written authority from the board.
The Court went on to say:
As the corporation's President and Manager, she is in a position
to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the
petition. In addition, such an act is presumed to be included in the
scope of her authority to act within the domain of the general
objectives of the corporation's business and her usual duties in the
absence of any contrary provision in the corporation's charter or by-
laws. 19
Cebu Metro also cited cases wherein the Court allowed officers of a
corporation to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping
even without a board resolution, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo , we held that the lone
signature of the University President was sufficient to fulfill the
verification requirement, because such officer had sufficient
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.
In People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. CA , we held
that in the absence of a charter or by-law provision to the contrary,
the president of a corporation is presumed to have the authority to
act within the domain of the general objectives of its business and
within the scope of his or her usual duties. Moreover, even if a certain
contract or undertaking is outside the usual powers of the president,
the corporation's ratification of the contract or undertaking and the
acceptance of benefits therefrom make the corporate president's
actions binding on the corporation. 20

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Bolstering our conclusion that the certification of non-forum shopping
is valid is the subsequent appending of the board resolution to petitioners'
motion for reconsideration. The Board Resolution reads:
BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 01
Series of 2013
WHEREAS, the corporation is presently facing a Civil Case
entitled Cebu South Memorial Garden, Inc. versus Letecia Siao, Lynel
Siao, Janelyn Siao, Eleanor Faye Siao, Shelett Siao and Honeylet Siao,
and docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-23707 before the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, and is mostly like to [raise] to the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court by our corporation or by the
opposing party depending on the outcome of the said case.
WHEREAS, the corporation needs to appoint its authorized
representative who will be vested with the authority to sign the
Verification and Certificate of Forum Shopping for any and all
pleadings to be filed before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court as the need of the case requires.
WHEREAS, the corporation also needs to ratify the action taken
by the president of the corporation in the person of Gilbert Yap who
signed the Verification and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping in
the Complaint filed by this corporation before the Regional Trial Court
of Cebu City last April 27, 1999 and docketed as [Civil Case No. CEB-
23707].
WHEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that:
1. The action of the president Gilbert Yap in signing the
Verification and Certificate of Non-forum Shopping in [Civil Case No.
CEB-23707] filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City on April
27, 1999 is hereby ratified/affirmed by this Board with all legal effects
and consequences.
2. The corporate president Gilbert Yap is given full authority to
sign the Verification and Certificate on Non-forum Shopping for all
pleadings to be filed with the Court of Appeals and after with the
Supreme Court of the Philippines. 21
The Board of Directors of Cebu South Memorial Garden, through a
Board Resolution, not only authorized the President of the corporation to sign
the Certificate of Forum-Shopping but it ratified the action taken by Gilbert
Yap in signing the forum-shopping certificate.
In Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of
Manila, 22 we held that the belated submission of a Secretary's certification
constitutes substantial compliance with the rules, thus:
Clearly, this is not an ordinary case of belated submission of
proof of authority from the board of directors. Petitioner-corporation
ratified the authority of Ms. Beleno to represent it in the Petition filed
before the RTC, particularly in Civil Case No. 03-108163, and
consequently to sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping on behalf of the corporation. This fact confirms and affirms
her authority and gives this Court all the more reason to uphold that
authority. 23
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 In Cosco Philippine Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance, 24 we cited
instances wherein the lack of authority of the person making the certification
of non-forum shopping was remedied through subsequent compliance by the
parties therein:
In China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International
Philippines, Inc., the CA dismissed the petition filed by China Bank,
since the latter failed to show that its bank manager who signed the
certification against non-forum shopping was authorized to do so. We
reversed the CA and said that the case be decided on the merits
despite the failure to attach the required proof of authority, since the
board resolution which was subsequently attached recognized the
pre-existing status of the bank manager as an authorized signatory.
HSAcaE

In Abaya Investments Corporation v. Merit Philippines, where

the complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila was
instituted by petitioner's Chairman and President, Ofelia Abaya, who
signed the verification and certification against non-forum shopping
without proof of authority to sign for the corporation, we also relaxed
the rule. We did so taking into consideration the merits of the case
and to avoid a re-litigation of the issues and further delay the
administration of justice, since the case had already been decided by
the lower courts on the merits. Moreover, Abaya's authority to sign
the certification was ratified by the Board. 25
In Lim v. Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station 26 it was ruled that the
Assistant Vice-President for BPI Northern Mindanao, who was then the
highest official representing the bank in the Northern Mindanao area, is in a
position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the
subject complaint, signifying his authority in filing the complaint and to sign
the verification and certification against forum shopping.
In Fuji Television Network v. Espiritu , 27 we highlighted two rules
relative to certification against forum-shopping:
xxx xxx xxx
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-
compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction
thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed
by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did
not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the
certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the
Rule.
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, a defect in the certification is allowed on the ground of
substantial compliance as in this case.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Applying the above-mentioned rule, the signatures of petitioners
Gabriel Yap, Jr. and Hyman Yap are not indispensable for the validity of the
certification. These petitioners indeed share a common cause of action with
Gilbert Yap in that they are impleaded as officers and directors of Cebu
South Memorial Garden, the very same corporation represented by Gilbert
Yap. AScHCD

At any rate, any objection as to compliance with the requirement of

verification in the complaint should have been raised in the proceedings
below, and not in the appellate court for the first time. 28
In Young v. John Keng Seng , 29 it was also held that the question of
forum shopping cannot be raised in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme
Court, since such an issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity in a
motion to dismiss or a similar pleading.
The Court of Appeals relied on procedural rules rather than on the
merits of the case. On this score, we can remand the case to the Court of
Appeals for an opportunity to rule on the substance of the case. The Court, in
the public interest and expeditious administration of justice, has resolved
action on the merits, instead of remanding them for further proceedings, as
where the ends of justice would not be sub-served by the remand of the case
or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties.
Briefly stated, a remand of the instant case to the Court of Appeals would
serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of
fair play. 30
Considering that this case has dragged on for 15 years with no
concrete solution in sight, we shall proceed to discuss the merits.
We reiterate the ruling penned by Justice Labitoria of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73850 31 directing the trial court to render a
summary judgment. The issues and arguments posed by respondents have
already been passed upon and resolved by the Court of Appeals. By
appealing the summary judgment, respondents are in effect asking the Court
of Appeals to revisit the same issues. We cannot allow this under the
principle of the "law of the case."
The "law of the case" doctrine applies in a situation where an appellate
court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the
case to the lower court to effect the ruling; the question settled by the
appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower court and in any
subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is irrevocably established as the
controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or
not, so long as the facts on which the legal rule or decision was predicated
continue to be the facts of the case before the court. 32
The rationale behind this rule is to enable an appellate court to
perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently, which would be impossible if
a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in
the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal. Without it, there
would be endless litigation. Litigants would be free to speculate on changes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 in the personnel of a court, or on the chance of having propositions rewritten
once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed down as the law of a
given case. 33
In the Labitoria decision, the Court of Appeals directed the trial court to
render a summary judgment on the ground that there was no longer any
legal controversy regarding the Certificate of Agreement when respondents
relied on the same agreement to ask for support. This ruling became the law
of the case between the parties which cannot be disturbed. Respondents
cannot raise this same issue in another petition.
In any case, we affirm the summary judgment rendered by the trial
court, as directed by the Court of Appeals. A summary judgment is permitted
only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is proper
if, while the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, the affidavits,
depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such
issues are not genuine. 34
A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of
evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.
When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is
no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment
is called for. The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of
demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the
issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute
a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render
summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine
issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are
disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the
place of trial. 35
Petitioners' complaint seeks for specific performance from
respondents, i.e., to transfer ownership of the subject properties to petitioner
corporation based on the Certificate of Agreement. As their defense,
respondents challenge the validity of the Agreement. However, respondents
filed a motion for support relying on the same Agreement that they are
impugning. In view of this admission, respondents are effectively banking on
the validity of the Agreement. Thus, there are no more issues that need to
be threshed out. As aptly explained by the appellate court:
Clearly, there is no longer any legal controversy in this case
which would justify trial. By claiming benefits arising from the
Certificate of Agreement, private respondents had invoked the
validity and effectiveness of the Certificate of Agreement which
according to them is the law between the parties. AcICHD

After invoking the validity and effectiveness of the Certificate of

Agreement, private respondents cannot now be heard claiming that
they could not be required to perform their obligations under the
Certificate of Agreement because the said contract is void or that
because private respondent Leticia Siao had no authority to bind the
other private respondents.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 The application of the principle of estoppel is proper and timely
in heading off private respondents efforts at renouncing their
previous acts to the prejudice of petitioner. The principle of equity
and natural justice, as expressly adopted in Article 1431 of the Civil
Code, and pronounced as one of the CONCLUSIVE presumption under
rule 131, Section 3 (a) of the Rules of Court, as follows: "Whenever a
party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true, and
to act upon such a belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it."
Private respondents, having performed affirmative acts upon
which the petitioner and public respondent based their subsequent
actions, cannot thereafter refute their acts or renege on the effects of
the same, to the prejudice of the latter. To allow private respondents
to do so would be tantamount to conferring upon them the liberty to
limit their liability at their whims and caprices, which is against the
very principles of equity and natural justice. 36 (Emphasis Supplied)
Considering the foregoing, we grant the petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals'
Decision dated 9 October 2013 and Resolution dated 26 March 2014 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 02037 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Summary Judgment
in Civil Case No. CEB-23707 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13,
Cebu City is AFFIRMED. caITAC

SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, * J., is on wellness leave.

Footnotes

* On Wellness Leave.
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 212493), pp. 68-81; Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa
Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Edgardo Delos Santos and Pamela Ann
Abella Maxino concurring.

2. Id. at 111-121.
3. Rollo (G.R. No. 212504), p. 154.
4. Id. at 157.
5. Id. at 135-136.
6. Id. at 137-141.

7. Id. at 174-180.
8. Id. at 187-195.
9. Id. at 198-216.
10. Id. at 216.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 11. Rollo (G.R. No. 212493), pp. 49 and 58.
12. Rollo (G.R. No. 212504), pp. 41-43.
13. Rollo (G.R. No. 212493), pp. 50-55.
14. Rollo (G.R. No. 212504), pp. 41-43.
15. Rollo (G.R. No. 212493), pp. 210-232.

16. 568 Phil. 572, 581 (2008).

17. Id. at 582.
18. 647 Phil. 642 (2010).
19. Id. at 653.
20. Id. at 651-652 citing Hutama RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V. v. KCD Builders Corp.,
628 Phil. 52, 61 (2010).
21. Rollo (G.R. No. 212493), pp. 104-105.

22. G.R. No. 181277, 3 July 2013, 700 SCRA 428.

23. Id. at 437.

24. 686 Phil. 327 (2012).

25. Id. at 338-339 citing Rep. v. Coalbrine Int'l. Phils., Inc., 631 Phil. 487, 499
(2010).

26. G.R. No. 192615, 30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 705, 712-713.
27. G.R. No. 204944-45, 3 December 2014.

28. S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Parada, G.R. No.
183804, 11 September 2013, 705 SCRA 584, 596.
29. 446 Phil. 823, 826 (2003).

30. Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 497, 516-517 (2007).

31. Rollo (G.R. No. 212504), pp. 187-195.

32. Export Processing Zone v. Pulido, et al., 671 Phil. 834, 843 (2011).

33. Sy v. Young , G.R. No. 169214, 19 June 2013, 699 SCRA 8, 14.
34. Spouses Ong v. Roban Lending Corp. , 579 Phil. 769, 779 (2008).

35. Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. v. C. Alcantara and Sons, Inc., 474 Phil. 259, 267
(2004) citing Evadel Realty and Development Corp. v. Spouses Soriano , 409
Phil. 450, 461 (2001).
36. Rollo (G.R. No. 212493), pp. 126-129.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com