FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199174. June 10, 2019.]

WISE HOLDINGS, INC., EDUARDO JOSE ALIÑO, AND VICENTE J.

CAMPA , petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO P. GARCIA, FRANCISCO VICENTE
V. GARCIA, MICHAEL ANGELO P. GARCIA, CYNTHIA T. ALARCON,
SALVACION M. MANALO, CESAR C. ARANETA, ROGELIUS CAESAR
MUNSAYAC, LEILA D. TORRES, AND MELISSA T. SAMIA , respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June
10, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199174 (Wise Holdings, Inc., Eduardo Jose Aliño, and Vicente
J. Campa v. Francisco P. Garcia, Francisco Vicente V. Garcia, Michael Angelo
P. Garcia, Cynthia T. Alarcon, Salvacion M. Manalo, Cesar C. Araneta, Rogelius
Caesar Munsayac, Leila D. Torres, and Melissa T. Samia) . — This is a petition for
review on certiorari 1 assailing the Order dated July 8, 2011 2 rendered by Branch 212,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City (RTC Branch 212) and the Order dated
October 20, 2011 3 rendered by Branch 213, RTC, Mandaluyong City (RTC Branch 213).
Petitioner Wise Holdings, Incorporated (Wise Holdings) is the parent company of
several wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries engaged in various industries,
including trading of industrial machinery and other products, real estate development
and insurance services. One of its subsidiaries, Wise Choice Foods, Inc. (Wise Foods), is
a company engaged primarily in the business of manufacturing and supply of
processed and raw food materials and ingredients, and tolling services to major food
manufacturers in the Philippines. 4
Petitioners Eduardo Jose Aliño (Aliño) and Vicente J. Campa (Campa) are
members of the Board of Directors of Wise Holdings and officers of Wise Foods. 5
On May 11, 2011, petitioners led a complaint 6 with application for temporary
restraining order ("TRO"), preliminary injunction, appointment of a receiver and
preliminary attachment, against respondents Francisco P. Garcia, Francisco Vicente V.
Garcia, Michael Angelo P. Garcia, Cynthia T. Alarcon, Salvacion M. Manalo, Cesar C.
Araneta, Rogelius Caesar Munsayac, Leila D. Torres and Melissa T. Samia with the RTC
in Mandaluyong City. It was originally docketed as Civil Case No. MC11-5414, but later
on re-docketed as SEC Case No. MC11-128 (First Complaint). CAIHTE

Petitioners averred that Wise Holdings, through Campa, incorporated and

organized Sunrich Manufacturing Corporation (Sunrich), which took over Wise Foods,
and transferred all of Wise Foods' assets — from xed assets such as machinery,
equipment, land, manufacturing and production facilities, and buildings, to raw
materials, inventories, accounts, contractual rights, receivables, prepayments, business
contracts, suppliers and customers, products, processes and services, as well as
licenses, privileges, and goodwill — to Sunrich in an asset-for-share swap. In turn,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Sunrich was obligated to issue all its shares of stock to Wise Holdings as the sole
stockholder of Wise Foods. 7 Wise Holdings added that Sunrich is substantially a
continuation of Wise Holdings' prior investment in Wise Foods. 8
Allegedly, Wise Holdings caused the registration of Sunrich's subscribed shares
under its trusted o cers in Wise Foods, namely: respondents Francisco P. Garcia,
Cynthia T. Alarcon, Salvacion M. Manalo, Cesar C. Araneta, Rogelius Caesar Munsayac,
Leila D. Torres and Melissa T. Samia. 9 Wise Holdings claimed that respondents are
mere trustees, nominees and/or representatives, who hold the stocks in their
respective names for and in behalf of Wise Holdings, which is the real bene cial owner
of the shares. 1 0
Sometime after Sunrich's incorporation, however, respondent Francisco Garcia's
group transferred the shares entrusted to them by Wise Holdings to respondents
Francisco Vicente V. Garcia and Michael Angelo P. Garcia, which resulted in the change
of composition of the shareholdings by May 7, 2010. 1 1
According to Wise Holdings, on March 9, 2011, it demanded from Francisco P.
Garcia, in his own capacity and in behalf of the other respondents, the conveyance of
the ownership, interests and bene ts pertaining to the subject shares of stock,
remittance and/or accounting of all the income and/or dividends due to the shares,
recording of the foregoing stock subscriptions in the name of Wise Holdings, and the
issuance to the latter of the corresponding certi cates of stock, but respondents
refused to comply with Wise Holdings' valid demands. 1 2 Thus, petitioners were
compelled to file the First Complaint.
The Clerk of Court of RTC of Mandaluyong City considered the First Complaint as
involving an Intra-Corporate Controversy and ra ed it to Branch 211 (RTC Branch 211),
a special commercial court. 1 3
RTC Branch 211 heard the application for TRO. Applying the Interim Rules of
Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies, 1 4 it subsequently rendered an Order
dated May 16, 2011 denying the TRO. 1 5
On May 19, 2011, petitioners led a manifestation 1 6 intimating that the First
Complaint was wrongly classi ed as an Intra-Corporate Controversy and erroneously
assigned to RTC Branch 211. According to petitioners, since the RTC Branch 211 can
only exercise jurisdiction as a commercial court, the First Complaint should be re-
assigned or re-ra ed to another branch acting as a regular court, and that, inasmuch as
the procedure of ra e and assignment are internal court matters, petitioners should
not be made to suffer the consequences of any mistake or misjudgment committed by
the Clerk of Court. 1 7
On May 23, 2011, respondents led their answer with prayer to dismiss
complaint 1 8 wherein they asserted that Sunrich has no relationship with Wise Foods
and that Sunrich was formed by Francisco Garcia with the help of other incorporators.
Respondents averred that Campa has no participation in the incorporation of Sunrich in
the election of its o cers or directors, and respondents, as shareholders of Sunrich,
are the true, legal and bene cial owners of their shares on their own behalf or as
nominees of Francisco Garcia. Respondents further alleged that no assets of Wise
Foods formed part of and served as contribution to the incorporation of Sunrich since it
was incorporated by Francisco Garcia and other respondents on their own and from
their own funds, and from personal loans obtained by Francisco Garcia. 1 9 In support of
their prayer for dismissal, respondents argued that: (i) the case should be dismissed
outright for improper venue because under the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Corporate Controversies, venue should be at the address of the corporation, which, in
this case, is Makati City where the o ce of Wise Holdings is located; (ii) the action over
the shares of stock is barred by prescription; (iii) petitioners have no cause of action
and there are no documents proving their allegations; (iv) petitioners evaded the
payment of the true amount of ling fees; and (v) the First Complaint is a nuisance suit
under the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies. 2 0 DETACa

On May 31, 2011, the RTC Branch 211 applied the Interim Rules of Procedure for
Intra-Corporate Controversies in its Order 2 1 dismissing the First Complaint for being a
nuisance suit and for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC Branch 211 ruled that petitioners'
allegations constitute a controversy arising out of intra-corporate relations between the
parties. Thus, it applied Section 5 2 2 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-
Corporate Controversies on the rule on venue. The RTC Branch 211 concluded that it
has no territorial jurisdiction over the case since the principal o ce of Wise Holdings is
in Makati City. The RTC Branch 211 added that since petitioners' claim of ownership of
shares in Sunrich has no basis, the case is considered a nuisance suit under Section 1
(b) 2 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies.
On June 6, 2011, barely six days after the promulgation of the Order dated May
31, 2011, petitioners re led the complaint 2 4 (Second Complaint) with the RTC of
Mandaluyong City. It was raffled to Branch 212, a court of general jurisdiction. 2 5
In their motion to dismiss 2 6 dated June 13, 2011, respondents challenged the
propriety of ling the Second Complaint by raising arguments relative to the Order
dated May 31, 2011 of the RTC Branch 211 dismissing the First Complaint. 2 7
The RTC Branch 212 eventually dismissed the Second Complaint in its Order
dated July 8, 2011. The RTC Branch 212 ruled that the Second Complaint involves an
intra-corporate matter, and that the RTC Branch 211's ruling is binding and applicable. It
dismissed the Second Complaint on the following grounds: (i) the ling of the Second
Complaint violated the rule against forum-shopping ; (ii) the Second Complaint is filed at
the wrong venue, in violation of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
Controversies; (iii) the ruling of RTC Branch 211 on the issue of Intra-Corporate
Controversy has not been overturned; (iv) the Second Complaint is a nuisance suit; and
(v) the Second Complaint is an unauthorized complaint for lack of signatures of the
Directors in the Director's Certificate. 2 8
On August 9, 2011, petitioners led a motion for reconsideration, which was
assigned for resolution to the RTC Branch 213 after the voluntary inhibition of the
presiding judge of the RTC Branch 212. 2 9
In an Order dated October 20, 2011, the RTC Branch 213 denied the motion for
reconsideration and a rmed the dismissal of the Second Complaint based on wrong
venue and supposed lack of authority of Wise Holdings to file the case. 3 0
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari before us, wherein petitioners raise
the following grounds for appeal:
I
RTC Branch 213, by erroneously relying on and adopting RTC Branch 212's
nding, gravely erred in ruling that the instant Complaint's principal cause of
action for "enforcement of trust" under the provisions of the Civil Code, and
within the jurisdiction of the ordinary court, is, instead, in the nature of an "intra-
corporate controversy" under the provisions of the Corporation Code and within
the special jurisdiction of the commercial court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 II
RTC Branch 213, by erroneously relying and adopting RTC Branch 212's nding
that this instant case is an intra-corporate controversy, erred in nding the
instant complaint as a nuisance suit by invoking the special rules for intra-
corporate controversy applicable only in Commercial Court proceedings.
III
RTC Branch 213, by erroneously relying on and adopting RTC Branch 212's
nding that instant case is an intra-corporate controversy and is the same
complaint that was actually dismissed but deemed (by RTC Branch 212 Court)
as still pending before Branch 211, compoundedly erred in concluding that
petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.
IV
RTC Branch 213 gravely erred in ruling that the instant complaint has been led
in the wrong venue. aDSIHc

V
RTC Branch 213 gravely erred in ruling that the institution of suit for Petitioner
Wise Holdings in the instant case is "unauthorized" for lack of the signatures
of all the directors of Wise Holdings in a purportedly required Director's
Certi cate, and that the otherwise Corporate Secretary's Certi cate attached to
the Complaint is legally insufficient.
VI
RTC Branch 213 erred in ruling on the dismissal of the entire complaint due to
lack of a purportedly required directors' certi cate for the corporate plaintiff ,
Wise Holdings, Inc., notwithstanding that there are other individual
plaintiffs/petitioners such as Aliño and Campa with separate causes of action
set forth in the Complaint, wherein a corporate directors' certi cate is surely not
required.
VII
RTC Branch 213 erred in resorting merely to technicalities and rigidly applying
the procedural rules in the case, given the meritorious claims of petitioners. 3 1
At bottom, the sole issue of this petition for review on certiorari is: whether the
cause of action in petitioners' complaints refers to an intra-corporate dispute under the
jurisdiction of commercial courts.
We answer in the negative.
When controversies involving intra-corporate disputes were still under the
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A, 3 2 the Court applied the "relationship test" to determine
whether an issue is intra-corporate and is within the SEC's competence to resolve. This
test requires the existence of any of the intra-corporate relationship between the
parties under Section 5 (b) of P.D. No. 902-A, which reads:
(b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations,
between and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are
stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their
individual franchise or right to exist as such entity; x x x
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Applying the relationship test in the 1981 case of Sunset View Condominium
Corp. v. Campos, Jr. , 3 3 the Court declared that the collection suit led by private
respondents who were not considered shareholders of the condominium corporation
for not having paid the condominium unit purchase price in full was not considered as a
controversy within the jurisdiction of the SEC.
In the 1983 case of Union Glass & Container Corporation v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 3 4 the Court articulated that the SEC can take cognizance of a
case provided that the controversy pertains to any of the following relationships: "(a)
between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (b) between the
corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members, or
o cers; (c) between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far
as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and [d] among the
stockholders, partners or associates themselves." 3 5
In 1984, however, DMRC Enterprises v. Este Del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc. 3 6
introduced the second test, or what is presently called as the "nature of the controversy
test." In DMRC, the Court found that DMRC has no intra-corporate relation with the
respondent corporation; in addition, the Court held that the cause of action does not
involve an intra-corporate matter. Thus, the Court said:
Considering the announced policy of PD 902-A, the expanded jurisdiction
of the respondent Securities and Exchange Commission under said decree
extends only and exclusively to matters arising from contracts involving
investments in private corporations, partnerships, and associations. Jurisdiction
over all other claims remains with the regular courts. A perusal of the
complaint, styled "sum of money," shows that the case at bar does not
involve intra-corporate matters as to make it fall within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange
Commission . It is clear that petitioner DMRC has no intra-corporate relation
with the respondent corporation. Nor can petitioner's cause of action be
said to involve or arise from an intra-corporate matter . The complaint
merely states that a contract of lease of heavy equipment was entered into by
the parties and that respondent lessee failed to pay the agreed consideration for
said lease, and petitioner now seeks to enforce the contract seeking payment
under Article 1657 (1) of the Civil Code of the Philippines to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
It must be stressed that the plaintiff-petitioner submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the lower court as creditor and the respondent did so as debtor.
The fact that the case involves shares of stock to be used as payment
for lease rentals does not convert it into an intra-corporate
controversy. In fact, the greater part of the petitioner's claim is in
terms of cash or money. To pass upon a money claim under a lease
contract would be beyond the competence of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and to separate the claim for money from the
claim for shares of stock would be splitting a single cause of action
resulting in a multiplicity of suits .
The purpose and the wording of the law escapes the respondent.
Nowhere in said decree do we nd even so much as an intimidation that
absolute jurisdiction and control is vested in the Securities and Exchange
Commission in all matters affecting corporations. x x x ETHIDa

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Respondent cites the case of PAIC Securities v. Securities and Exchange
Commission and Pedro Ong (G.R. No. 53981, June 11, 1980) claiming that with
an almost identical factual background to the case at bar, the jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission was upheld. The respondent overlooks a
singular fact which distinguishes it from the present controversy. The case of
Pedro Ong was not merely a simple money claim and action for speci c
performance arising from a contractual obligation. It emanated from stock
transactions between a stockholder (PAIC) and its client (Pedro Ong). De nitely,
such an action arising from the stock operations of a stockbroker comes within
the jurisdiction and control of the Commission. Said case may not be invoked to
support the respondent's contention. (Emphasis supplied.) 3 7
Thereafter, the Court declared it a "better policy" to consider both the relationship
of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy in
determining which body has jurisdiction over a dispute. 3 8
Even when the jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate disputes, with the
exception of those already submitted for decision, was already transferred to the RTCs
by virtue of Republic Act No. 8799, 3 9 the Court, nevertheless, continuously observes
the two-tier tests. 4 0
Applying the two tests in the present case, we rule that the cause of action in
petitioners' complaints is an ordinary civil case and not an Intra-Corporate Controversy.
First, there is no corporate relationship between petitioners and Sunrich, whose
shares of stock are the subject of the controversy. While Wise Holdings is asserting
real ownership of the shares of stock in Sunrich, Wise Holdings acknowledges that
such ownership is not registered in Sunrich's books. 4 1 Petitioners themselves alleged
that the composition of Sunrich's shareholdings as of May 7, 2010 is as follows: 4 2

No. of Shares Amount

Amount Paid-up
Subscribed Subscribed

Francisco P. Garcia 10,200 10,200,000.00 10,200,000.00

Francisco Vicente V.
Garcia 3,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

Michael Angelo P.
Garcia 3,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

Cynthia T. Alarcon 1,400 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00

Cesar C. Araneta 2 2,000.00 2,000.00

Leila D. Torres 1,400 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00

Melissa T. Samia 998 99,800.00 99,800.00

Total 20,000 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00

Even respondents, in their a rmative defenses, averred that they are the
registered owners in the stock and transfer book of Sunrich, and petitioners were never
recorded as owners of these shares. 4 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Since there is no issue as to the fact that petitioners are not registered
shareholders of Sunrich, we agree with petitioners that the complaint should have been
automatically removed from the rules on Intra-Corporate Controversies and the regular
courts should have been granted jurisdiction over it.
Second, the nature of the controversy in the present case does not refer to an
intra-corporate dispute.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a
case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which
comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of
action. 4 4 The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it,
is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. 4 5
The nature of the controversy test requires that the issue in the complaint must
refer to the enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and obligations under the
Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the
corporation. 4 6 cSEDTC

Here, the allegations of the complaint show on their face that the action is for
reconveyance of property in recognition of trust. Petitioners seek the return of all the
shares of stock of Sunrich, of which they are the real and bene cial owners. The
allegations assert the existence of a trust relationship, which petitioners allege was
created between the parties under the provisions of the Civil Code on implied trust, to
wit:
Art. 1453. When property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his
declared intention to hold it for, or transfer it to another or the grantor, there is an
implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated.
xxx xxx xxx
Art. 1455. When any trustee, guardian or other person holding a
duciary relationship uses trust funds for the purchase of property and causes
the conveyance to be made to him or to a third person, a trust is established by
operation of law in favor of the person to whom the funds belong.
Art. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person
obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the
benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
The applicable rule on venue, therefore, is not the Interim Rules of Procedure for
Intra-Corporate Controversies, but Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in
the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of
the plaintiff. (2[b]a)
As alleged in the Second Complaint, Campa, one of the petitioners, resides in
Mandaluyong City. 4 7 Thus, the RTC in Mandaluyong City has jurisdiction over the case.
The case being a civil action involving the issues of whether there is an implied
trust, whether petitioners are entitled to reconveyance, and whether petitioners' cause
of action had prescribed, should be resolved through a full-blown hearing for the
purpose before the RTC.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY
GRANTED . The Order dated July 8, 2011 of Branch 212 Regional Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City and the Order dated October 20, 2011 of Branch 213, Regional Trial
Court in Mandaluyong City are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Let the case be
REMANDED to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City for
re-ra e purposes. In this regard, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City shall DETERMINE the appropriate amount of docket fees and, in so
doing, ORDER the payment of any difference or, on the other hand, refund any excess.
SDAaTC

SO ORDERED ." Carandang, J. , on leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-48.

2. Id. at 51-54; penned by Honorable Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali.

3. Id. at 55-57; penned by Honorable Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela.
4. Id. at 13-14.
5. Id. at 12.
6. Id. at 102-124.

7. Id. at 106-107.
8. Id. at 109.
9. Id. at 107.
10. Id. at 108-109.
11. Id. at 111.

12. Id. at 112.

13. Id. at 17-18.
14. A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC, Promulgated on March 13, 2001.
15. Rollo, p. 18.

16. Id. at 149-156.

17. Id. at 154.
18. Id. at 353-368.
19. Id. at 357.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 20. Id. at 362-366.
21. Id. at 158-167.
22. Sec. 5. Venue. — All actions covered by these Rules shall be commenced and tried in the
Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the corporation,
partnership, or association concerned. Where the principal office of the corporation,
partnership or association is registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission as
Metro Manila, the action must be filed in the city or municipality where the head office is
located.
23. Sec. 1. (a) Cases covered. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx

  (b) Prohibition against nuisance and harassment suits. — Nuisance and harassment
suits are prohibited. In determining whether a suit is a nuisance or harassment suit, the
court shall consider, among others, the following:
  (1) The extent of the shareholding or interest of the initiating stockholder or member;

  (2) Subject matter of the suit;

  (3) Legal and factual basis of the complaint;
  (4) Availability of appraisal rights for the act or acts complained of; and
  (5) Prejudice or damage to the corporation, partnership, or association in relation to the
relief sought.
  In case of nuisance or harassment suits, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion,
forthwith dismiss the case.
24. Rollo, pp. 168-193.
25. Id. at 18-19.
26. Id. at 488-496.

27. Id. at 19.

28. Supra note 2.
29. Id. at 19.
30. Supra note 3.

31. Rollo, pp. 21-22. Emphasis and italics in the original.

32. Reorganization of the Securities and Exchange Commission with Additional Powers and
Placing the said Agency under the Administrative Supervision of the Office of the
President.
33. G.R. No. L-52361, April 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 295.

34. G.R. No. L-64013, November 28, 1983, 126 SCRA, 31.
35. Id. at 37-38.
36. G.R. No. L-57936, September 28, 1984, 132 SCRA 293.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 37. Id. at 298-301.
38. Viray v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92481, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 308, 323.
39. The Securities Regulation Code.
40. Belo Medical Group, Inc. v. Santos, G.R. No. 185894, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 142.

41. Rollo, p. 27.

42. Id. at 179-180.
43. Id. at 361.
44. Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 194024, April 25,
2012, 671 SCRA 461, 471.
45. City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority , G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, 656
SCRA 102, 119, citing Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA
693, 706.
46. Gulfo v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 175301, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 459, 466-467.
47. Rollo, p. 169.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com