Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
172
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 2 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
173
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 3 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition
1
for review assailing the Decision dated
October
2
7, 1997 and the Resolution dated February 16,
1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40933,
which affirmed the Decision of the Securities
3
and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in SEC-AC No. 539.
Respondent Iglesia ng Dios Kay Cristo Jesus, Haligi at
Suhay ng Katotohanan (Church4 of God in Christ Jesus, the
Pillar and Ground of Truth), is a non-stock religious
society or corporation registered in 1936. Sometime in
1976, one Eliseo Soriano and several other members of
respondent corporation disassociated themselves from the
latter and succeeded in registering on March 30, 1977 a
new non-stock religious society or corporation, named
Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng
Katotohanan.
On July 16, 1979, respondent corporation filed with the
SEC a petition to compel the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo
Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan to change its
corporate name, which petition was docketed as SEC Case
No. 1774. On May 4, 1988, the SEC rendered judgment in
favor of respondent, ordering the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo
Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan to change its
corporate name to another name that is not similar or
identical to any name already used by a corporation,
partnership 5 or association registered with the
Commission. No appeal was taken from said decision.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 57-68; penned Mr. Justice Cancio C. Garcia and concurred
in by Mesdames Justices Delilah Vidallion-Magtolis and Marina L.
Buzon.
2 Ibid., pp. 54-55.
3 Ibid., pp. 70-73.
4 Official English translation; see Rollo, p. 252.
5 Rollo, pp. 419-424.
174
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 4 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 5 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
_______________
6 Ibid., p. 430.
7 Ibid., pp. 78-79.
175
II
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 6 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
III
IV
_______________
176
10
Invoking the case of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,
petitioner insists that the decision of the Court of Appeals
and the SEC should be set aside because the negligence of
its former counsel of record, Atty. Joaquin Garaygay, in
failing to file an answer after its motion to dismiss was
denied by the SEC, deprived them of their day in court.
The contention is without merit. As a general rule, the
negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the
rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of
his general
11
or implied authority is regarded as an act of his
client. An exception to the foregoing is where the reckless
or gross negligence
12
of the counsel deprives the client of due
process of law. Said exception, however, does not obtain in
the present case.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 7 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
_______________
177
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 8 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
_______________
15 Salonga, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 269 SCRA 534, 546 [1997].
16 Aldovino, et al. v. Alunan III, et al., 230 SCRA 825, 833 [1994].
17 R.E. Agpalo, Comments on the Corporation Code of the Philippines,
74, (Fifth Edition, 1993), citing Universal Mills Corporation v. Universal
Textile Mills, Inc., 78 SCRA 62 (1977).
178
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 9 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 10 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
18 Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 206 SCRA 457, 467
[1992]; citing American Gold Stars Mothers, Inc. v. National Gold Star
Mothers, Inc., 89 App DC 269, 191 F 2d 488, 27 ALR 2d 948.
19 Rollo, p. 292.
20 Ibid., p. 430.
21 Rollo, pp. 487-491.
179
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 11 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
_______________
22 Supra.
23 Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.
180
SO ORDERED.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 12 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 372 3/22/22, 10:11 PM
··o0o··
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fb1f8d59ca33cf335000d00d40059004a/p/AST465/?username=Guest Page 13 of 13