Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/194961388/Expert-Travel-v-CA
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:11:39+00:00

Document:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 152392 May 26, 2005 EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC.
. Su1 /. voted upon and approved the follo!in+ resolution !hich is no! in full force and effect. durin+ !hich it approved a resolution as 7uoted in the sub*itted affidavit. No. of 9anuar.a. . prior hearin+. that the corporation had no !ritten cop. elected and appointed Corporate Secretar. ">2">4>4. or+ani6ed and e-istin+ under and b. Mario #.oo /i* also alle+ed.IN#0DO Resident #+ent S. in the Cit.#RA5SBRESIDEN.I<IC#. 34F #. !orded as follo!s@ SECRE.E /NOC #00 MEN A .DESE PRESEN. $S+d.in+ the *otion to dis*iss. 3))). . #+uinaldo dated 9anuar.A. si+nature this ") th da.ravel E . 0P0 Pla6a uildin+. #+uinaldo e-hibitin+ to *e his Co**unit.% M#RIO #. of Manila.oo /i* that the /#0 oard of Directors indeed conducted a teleconference on 9une 34. . to the filin+ and prosecution of said clai* in Court. E. Public Series of 3))).he.. /#0 appended a certificate si+ned b. appointed and authori6ed to ta1e !ith !hatever le+al action necessar. "222.5S CER.Certificate No. +ivin+ credence to the clai*s of #tt. #+uinaldo and Su1 /. #D#S# oo1 No.I then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus. <ilipino. and Resident #+ent of /ORE#N #IR0INES. 3))) at Manila. ").ntil Dece*ber =". contendin+ that it !as inappropriate for the court to ta1e ?udicial notice of the said teleconference !ithout an..S@ I.I filed a *otion for the reconsideration of the Order. I have hereunto affi-ed *. . "222. to !it@ RESO0VED.. "222 at !hich a 7uoru* !as present. are hereb. ho!ever.I<A that durin+ a special *eetin+ of the oard of Directors of the Corporation held on 9une 34. #'EN. and dul. ""2F $S+d. specificall. DENRA D. passed. of 9anuar. authori6ed to prosecute. 8. SCRI ED #ND SCORN to before *e this ") th da. #'. E. #+uinaldo. #tt.rial Proceedin+s and enter into a co*pro*ise a+ree*ent relative to the above& *entioned clai*.ours. Salcedo Villa+e.% Pa+e No. On #pril "3.he trial court denied the *otion in its Order4dated #u+ust :. defend..R H::24:=BM0# "B=B3)))( . to effect the collection of the unpaid account of E-pert . liti+ate. that Mario #. of le+al a+e. 3))) P.. Philippines. of its la!. Ma1ati Cit. "222.NESS CDEREO<. 3))). IN CI. #+uinaldo E #ssociates or an. "3> #lfaro St. the trial court issued an Order> den.#. Doc.. DERE A CER. 3))). #+uinaldo and his la! fir* M. re+istered and authori6ed to do business in the Philippines. docu*ent or paper necessar. GGIV Notar. a forei+n corporation dul. #tt. issued on 9anuar. In its co**ent on the petition. Philippines.the co*plaint.ers are hereb. attend the Pre&.. Mario #. !ith office address at 'round <loor. virtue of the la!s of the Republic of /orea and also dul. si+n and e-ecute an. of the aforesaid resolution.C. assailin+ the orders of the R. the said oard unani*ousl.
nor an.. "222.he respondent. #tt.. <ROM . is authori6ed to si+n and e-ecute the certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ re7uired b.elephone Co*pan.#0 CO.he respondent insists that Ktechnolo+ical advances in this ti*e and a+e are as co**onplace as da. docu*ents or pleadin+s outside thereof. .ES. the board resolution approved on 9une 34. In its repl. E.ES.he respondent posits that the courts are a!are of this develop*ent in technolo+.IONED RESO0.ED #ND . the courts *a. O< #PPE#0S DEP#R.ION.#N.DE INS. it insists that #tt. Even if such hearin+ is re7uired. no! the petitioner.I filed a *otion for reconsideration of the said decision. E. *a. of co**ent or opposition thereto. #s such. as !ell as the Secretar. and the C# erred in considerin+ the affidavit of the respondent5s +eneral *ana+er..On Dece*ber ":..S I.C cannot ta1e ?udicial notice of the said teleconference !ithout prior hearin+. 0IC RESPONDEN.ED I.RSE O< 9. Inc. had provided a record of corporate conferences and *eetin+s throu+h <iberNet usin+ fiber&optic trans*ission technolo+. as the resident a+ent and corporate secretar. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. CO..F hence. On the *erits of the petition. is used in the field of business is a factual issueF hence. #+uinaldo !as sufficient co*pliance !ith the Rules of Court.IONED DECISION #ND CDEN I. rulin+ that the verification and certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ e-ecuted b. the trial court co**itted +rave abuse of discretion a*ountin+ to e-cess of ?urisdiction..he petitioner reiterates its sub*ission that the teleconference and the resolution adverted to b. the C# rendered ?ud+*ent dis*issin+ the petition.. PE.brea1. and !as the resident a+ent of /#0. avers that the issue of !hether *odern technolo+. the respondent !as a *ere fabrication.K Dence. !a.he petitioner asserts that co*pliance !ith Section 4.I. !a. allo!in+ for cost&cuttin+ in ter*s of travel concerns. Section 4. RENDERED I. as proof of co*pliance !ith the re7uire*ents of Section 4. fro* the contents of the co*plaint and not b. #+uinaldo. #ccordin+ to the appellate court.S. . cannot be raised in a petition for revie! on certiorari under Rule >4 of the Rules of Court. .DE #CCEP.IONJ8 .DICI#0 PROCEEDIN'S CDEN I. . of the Rules of Court can be deter*ined onl. for its part. the petitioner pointed out that there are no rulin+s on the *atter of teleconferencin+ as a *eans of conductin+ *eetin+s of board of directors for purposes of passin+ a resolutionF until and after teleconferencin+ is reco+ni6ed as a le+iti*ate *eans .5sBResident #+ent5s Certification and the resolution of the board of directors contained therein. . #tt. . ta1e ?udicial notice thereof !ithout need of hearin+s. ISS.hus.R. co*es to the Court b. ta1e ?udicial notice that the Philippine 0on+ Distance .S I. It points out that even the E&Co**erce 0a! has reco+ni6ed this *odern technolo+. and that such technolo+. is allo!ed to file pleadin+s b. #NNEGES # #ND O< . Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.C could not be faulted for ta1in+ ?udicial notice of the said teleconference of the /#0 oard of Directors.. of petition for revie! on certiorari and raises the follo!in+ issue@ DID P.I. *otion therefor. 3))". the re7uire*ent is nevertheless satisfied if a part. !hich the C# denied. #+uinaldo had been dul.he petitioner also *aintains that the R. the R. Dence. on top of the board resolution approved durin+ the teleconference of 9une 34. facilitates voice and i*a+e trans*ission !ith easeF this *a1es constant co**unication bet!een a forei+n&based office and its Philippine&based branches faster and easier. Rule 8. "222. authori6ed b..
filed there!ith@ $a% that he has not theretofore co**enced an. Certification against forum shopping. .he petitioner further avers that the supposed holdin+ of a special *eetin+ on 9une 34. . the C# and this Court. or his counsel clearl.— . the court. the sa*e shall be +round for su**ar. under oath in the co*plaint or other initiator.he petitioner insists that the teleconference and resolution adverted to b. the plaintiff5s counsel !ill not suffice. !ith this re7uire*ent cannot be e-cused.s therefro* to the court !herein his aforesaid co*plaint or initiator.he sub*ission of a false certification or non&co*pliance !ith an. It further proposes possible a*end*ents to the Corporation Code to +ive reco+nition to such *anner of board *eetin+s to transact business for the corporation. Even assu*in+ that there !as such a teleconference. an assurance +iven to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pendin+ cases involvin+ basicall. <ailure to co*pl. . tribunal or 7uasi&?udicial a+enc. If the acts of the part. hi*self because he has actual 1no!led+e of !hether or not he has initiated si*ilar actions or proceedin+s in different courts or tribunals. shall certif. .he plaintiff or principal part. action or filed an. is a farce.he certification is a peculiar and personal responsibilit. *ere a*end*ent of the co*plaint or other initiator. !ith the fore+oin+ re7uire*ents shall not be curable b. Dence.he petition is *eritorious. the respondent in its pleadin+s !ere *ere fabrications foisted b. the respondent and its counsel on the R. court. the certification *ust be acco*plished b. *ischief on the public or to protect the +eneral public fro* an. record thereof. +iven such an authorit. or in a s!orn certification anne-ed thereto and si*ultaneousl.C. the sa*e parties. the part. he shall report that fact !ithin five $4% da. dis*issal !ith pre?udice and shall constitute direct conte*pt. !hether in this countr. clai* involvin+ the sa*e issues in an. Even his counsel *a. of the underta1in+s therein shall constitute indirect conte*pt of court. teleconferencin+ cannot be the sub?ect of ?udicial notice. possible fraud. no such other action or clai* is pendin+ thereinF $b% if there is such other pendin+ action or clai*. unless other!ise provided.of +atherin+ a 7uoru* of board of directors. It insists that the Corporation Code re7uires board resolutions of corporations to be sub*itted to the SEC.. pleadin+ has been filed. be una!are of such facts. pleadin+ but shall be cause for the dis*issal of the case !ithout pre?udice. 4. : and that the failure to co*pl. as !ell as a cause for ad*inistrative sanctions. constitute !illful and deliberate foru* shoppin+. It is settled that the re7uire*ent to file a certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ is *andator. and. It asserts that safe+uards *ust first be set up to prevent an. . issues and causes of action. "222 throu+h teleconferencin+ !here #tt. a co*plete state*ent of the present status thereofF and $c% if he should thereafter learn that the sa*e or si*ilar action or clai* has been filed or is pendin+. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides@ SEC. it !ould be a+ainst the provisions of the Corporation Code not to have an. such cannot be ta1en ?udicial notice of b. to the best of his 1no!led+e.2 Dence.") . Section 4. the petitioner asserts. pleadin+ assertin+ a clai* for relief. considerin+ that there !as no *ention of !here it !as held.. or other related corporate *attersF until then. #+uinaldo !as supposedl. or else!here. the re7uisite certification e-ecuted b. of the part. !ithout pre?udice to the correspondin+ ad*inistrative and cri*inal actions. upon *otion and after hearin+.
be si+ned.&authori6ed officers and a+ents. corporate b. #+uinaldo of le+al a+e. #+uinaldo reads@ I. or are incidental to its e-istence. <ilipino. a+ents of its selectionF and e-cept so far as li*itations or restrictions !hich *a. ho!ever.sical acts. its officers andBor a+ents. throu+h properl. #+uinaldo to e-ecute the re7uisite verification and certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ as the resident a+ent and counsel of the respondent. authori6ed person. L ."" as follo!s@ . or statutor. the Court inNational Steel Corporation v. the sa*e +eneral principles of la! !hich +overn the relation of a+enc. P. the certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ *a. Manila. to alle+e and establish that #tt. !ith office address at Suite 3") 'edisco Centre. K#ll acts !ithin the po!ers of a corporation *a. Mabini cor. perfor* ph.he verification and certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ !hich !as incorporated in the co*plaint and si+ned b.C. I a* the Resident #+ent and 0e+al Counsel of the plaintiff in the above entitled case and have caused the preparation of the above co*plaintF 3.nli1e natural persons. allo! subse7uent co*pliance !ith the rule. of a part.&la!. the certification *a..he respondent. deposes and sa.he reason !as e-plained b. . 'il Sts. be perfor*ed b. It !as. the for*er is re7uired to sho! proof of such authorit. li1e its board chair*an and president. of !hatever status or ran1. b. I have read the co*plaint and that all the alle+ations contained therein are true and . includin+ its retained counsel. not even 1no! the details re7uired therein. or the dis*issal of a co*plaint based on its non& co*pliance !ith the rule. the petitioner. for and on behalf of the said corporation. or representation. can be perfor*ed onl. Mario #. special charter. .. as the defendant in the R. as the plaintiff. the docu*ents. #+uinaldo had such authorit. Court of Appeals. & ". are sub?ect to the sa*e rules.@ .he rule is that co*pliance !ith the rule after the filin+ of the co*plaint. or *e*bers actin+ in their stead.K L L <or !ho else 1no!s of the circu*stances re7uired in the Certificate but its o!n retained counsel. *a. be incorporated in the co*plaint or appended thereto as an inte+ral part of the co*plaint. corporations *a. failed to do so.. Its re+ular officers. b. In turn.. Er*ita.In a case !here the plaintiff is a private corporation. b.he corporation. the court *a. specific act of the board of directors. after havin+ s!orn to in accordance !ith la! hereb. a corporation e-ercises said po!ers throu+h its board of directors andBor its dul.sical actions onl. "3 If the authorit. li1e the si+nin+ of docu*ents. Ph.D#. !ho has personal 1no!led+e of the facts re7uired to be established b.&la!s or b. a specificall. assailed the authorit. conferred on it b. is i*per*issible. incu*bent upon the respondent. . in respect to his po!er to act for the corporationF and a+ents once appointed. liabilities and incapacities as are a+ents of individuals and private persons. the adverse part. such as the petitioner. "4(> #. natural persons dul. to e-ecute the re7uisite verification and certification for and in its behalf. thus. of #tt. Indeed... for a natural person +overn the officer or a+ent of a corporation. #tt. the Corporation Code and those that are i*plied b. In this case. be i*posed b. has no po!ers e-cept those e-pressl. in e-ceptional circu*stances. provisions. . dele+ated individualsF na*el.5s counsel to e-ecute a certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ is disputed b. Do!ever.&authori6ed for the purpose b.
. the Court of #ppeals. or an.&authori6ed officers of the forei+n corporation as . the Court of #ppeals. learned that a si*ilar action or proceedin+ has been filed or is pendin+ before the Supre*e Court.correct based on the records on filesF =. he *ust be of +ood *oral character and of sound financial standin+. Doc. "B>B22"= #s +leaned fro* the afore7uoted certification. No. in relation to Section "3: of the Corporation Code.Certificate No. either be an individual residin+ in the Philippines or a do*estic corporation la!full. that I have not co**enced an. SEC.a. of #u+ust.% Pa+e No.s fro* such noticeB1no!led+e. the court. the authorit.IN#0DO #ffiant CI. #D#S# oo1 No. "222. desi+natin+ so*e persons !ho *ust be a resident of the Philippines.. "222 at Manila. affiant e-hibitin+ to *e his Co**unit.nder Section "38. an.. Public Series of "222.% M#RIO #. I !ill notif. . there !as no alle+ation that #tt. "38.. su**ons and other le+al processes *a. services and other le+al processes in all actions and other le+al proceedin+s a+ainst such corporation. Chile #tt. M . !ithin five $4% da..ntil Dece*ber =". esident agent! service of process. GGI Notar. 8. or an.O before *e this =) th da. "2:F #. 3))) P.he Securities and E-chan+e Co**ission shall re7uire as a condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact business in the Philippines b. and consentin+ that service upon such resident a+ent shall be ad*itted and held as valid as if served upon the dul. "3:. SCRI ED #ND SCORN . "))4F $S+d.hat in the case of an individual. . Philippines. on !ho* an. I hereb. or different divisions thereof. be served in all actions or other le+al proceedin+s a+ainst such corporation. for and in behalf of the forei+n corporation. ))(8")>8 issued on 9anuar. $S+d. If I subse7uentl. #+uinaldo had been authori6ed to e-ecute the certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ b. tribunal or a+enc. – # resident a+ent *a. further certif. #+uinaldo is the resident a+ent of the respondent in the Philippines. of the resident a+ent of a forei+n corporation !ith license to do business in the Philippines is to receive.A O< M#NI0# S. other tribunal or a+enc. other action or proceedin+ involvin+ the sa*e issues in the Supre*e Court. thus@ SEC. no such board resolution !as appended thereto or incorporated therein.. =3)4)" Mla.R No. . this does not *ean that he is authori6ed to e-ecute the re7uisite certification a+ainst foru* shoppin+. or different divisions thereof. the respondent5s oard of DirectorsF *oreover.A. Who may be a resident agent. #'. transactin+ business in the Philippines@ Provided. forei+n corporation that such corporation file !ith the Securities and E-chan+e Co**ission a !ritten po!er of attorne. tribunal or a+enc. DENRA D.
are of such universal notoriet. *an1ind as true and are capable of read. the oard of Directors of the resolution authori6in+ #tt.he respondent 1ne! that its counsel. "ut a court cannot ta#e $udicial notice of any fact %hich. 3))) Order. settled and not doubtful or uncertainF and $=% it *ust be 1no!n to be !ithin the li*its of the ?urisdiction of the court. resortin+ to sources !hose accurac. ta1e ?udicial notice that business . . li1e!ise. #+uinaldo and Su1 /. 3))).K of !hich courts ta1e ?udicial *atters co*in+ to the 1no!led+e of *en +enerall. noticed as bein+ *atters of co**on 1no!led+e..he principal +uide in deter*inin+ !hat facts *a. In its #pril "3..C too1 ?udicial notice that because of the onset of *odern technolo+. .oo /i* in attendance. persons in one location *a. of particular facts have been ?udiciall. #+uinaldo5s certification. its oard of Directors durin+ a teleconference held on 9une 34.N"4O Moreover. and... 1no!n. as contained in the affidavit of Su1 /.. a !ide variet. #+uinaldo had a teleconference !ith the respondent5s oard of Directors in South /orea on 9une 34. authori6ed to e-ecute a certificate of non&foru* shoppin+ as re7uired b. alle+edl. 'enerall. provided. e-periences of life. be found in enc. as its resident a+ent. a+ainst a Philippine re+istered corporation or a <ilipino citi6en. be 7uestionable. are ?udiciall. based on the said pre*ise. *a.nder the la!. facts !hich are universall. a ?udiciall. noticed. !as not specificall. #tt.hin+s of Kco**on 1no!led+e. . cannot reasonabl. #s the co**on 1no!led+e of *an ran+es far and !ide. spea1in+. dictionaries or other publications. is dependent on the e&istence or non'e&istence of a fact of %hich the court has no constructive #no%ledge. in part. 1no!n !ithin the territorial ?urisdiction of the trial courtF or $3% capable of accurate and read. !hether in the Philippines a+ainst a do*estic corporation or private individual. the.oo /i*. !here such corporation !as or+ani6ed and re+istered. as !ell as #tt.he C#. or in the countr."( . on its clai* that such a teleconference !as held. Section 4. be re+arded as for*in+ part of the co**on 1no!led+e of ever. on March (.its ho*e office. 1no!n is that of notoriet. noticed fact *ust be one not sub?ect to a reasonable dispute in that it is either@ $"% +enerall."8 In this a+e of *odern technolo+. Dence. #+uinaldo to e-ecute the certificate of non&foru* shoppin+. the R.. and un7uestioned de*onstration. confer !ith other persons in other places. . its principal. !ith #tt.his is because !hile a resident a+ent *a.clopedias. such resident *a. but also on the approval b. person.. a resolution purportin+ to have been approved b. *a. "222. be assu*ed to be ?udiciall. "222. authori6ed to e-ecute the said certification. be *atters !hich are +enerall. be a!are of actions filed a+ainst his principal $a forei+n corporation doin+ business in the Philippines%. #+uinaldo !as not specificall. It atte*pted to sho! its co*pliance !ith the rule subse7uent to the filin+ of its co*plaint b.. #+uinaldo. and so +enerall. understood that the. such atte*pt of the respondent casts veritable doubt not onl."> ..oo /i* and #tt. #tt. or the. public records and facts of +eneral notoriet. . and !hich *a.. *atters of ?udicial notice have three *aterial re7uisites@ $"% the *atter *ust be one of co**on and +eneral 1no!led+eF $3% it *ust be !ell and authoritativel. sub*ittin+. concluded that Su1 /.hus. the courts *a. Do!ever. it can be said that ?udicial notice is li*ited to facts evidenced b. not be a!are of actions initiated b. accepted b. in the course of the ordinar. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. +ave credence to the respondent5s clai* that such a teleconference too1 place. deter*ination b.
be used in a nu*ber of !a.. (. !hich !as re+arded as *ore of a novelt. of +roup co**unication. for tele!ritin+ or telecop. >.echnical failures !ith e7uip*ent. . attend a distant <. >. 4.< *eetin+. In +eneral ter*s. #t that ti*e.in+. teleconferencin+ can onl. !ith the e7uip*ent.< *eetin+ can participate. than as an actual *eans for ever.< *eetin+F therefore. 'reater participant preparation ti*e needed. purpose of the *eetin+.33 Indeed. 'roup *e*bers participate *ore e7uall. Sociali6in+ is *ini*al co*pared to an <. to create an at*osphere of +roup rapport. necessitate teleconferencin+. 3. be easier to co**unicate via . saved. #lthou+h it *a. location e7uipped !ith a telephone. Co**unication bet!een the ho*e office and field staffs is *a-i*i6ed. teleconferencin+ can brin+ people to+ether under one roof even thou+h the. the *onthl. #coustical proble*s !ithin the teleconferencin+ roo*s. So*e routine *eetin+s are *ore effective since one can audio&conference fro* an. :.<% *eetin+s. I*personal."2 # teleconference represents a uni7ue alternative to face&to&face $<. for si*ple proble*&solvin+. It !as first introduced in the "2()5s !ith #*erican . =. less eas.pe of +roup co**unication *a.da. 2. hundreds of *iles. facilitate the lin1in+ of peopleF it does not alter the co*ple-it.eleconferencin+ is interactive +roup co**unication $three or *ore people in t!o or *ore locations% throu+h an electronic *ediu*. social interaction not possible. people found it advanta+eous to hold teleconferencin+ in the course of business and corporate +overnance. in !ell&*oderated teleconferences than an <. Difficult. =. 0ac1 of participant fa*iliarit.pes@ $"% video conferencin+ & television&li1e co**unication au+*ented !ith soundF $3% co*puter conferencin+ & printed co**unication throu+h 1e.transactions *a. other private corporations opt not to hold teleconferences because of the follo!in+ disadvanta+es@ ". Infor*al. and have three basic t. :. better prepared than for <. for co*ple. People $includin+ outside +uest spea1ers% !ho !ouldn5t nor*all. and procedural tas1s.ele+raph5s Picturephone.ravel costs !ere reasonable and consu*ers !ere un!illin+ to pa.board ter*inals. .3" On the other hand.nsatisfactor. *eetin+s are shorter and *ore oriented to the pri*ar. 8. such as ne+otiation or bar+ainin+. Severe cli*ate andBor unreliable transportation *a. includin+ connections that aren5t *ade. It is particularl.3) In ti*e.s. service char+e for usin+ the picturephone. ": . one person *onopoli6es the *eetin+. and *eetin+ s1ills.elephone and . in deter*inin+ participant spea1in+ orderF fre7uentl. co**unication. <ollo!&up to earlier *eetin+s can be done !ith relative ease and little e-pense.his t.< *eetin+s.interpersonal co**unication. . a*on+ other advanta+es include@ ". no de*and e-isted for the ne! technolo+. the *ediu* itself. 3. infor*ation e-chan+e. . satisfactor. 8. be *ade b. (. are separated b. one&to&one. Participants are +enerall. ho!ever. 4. because of the *one. and $=% audio& conferencin+&verbal co**unication via the telephone !ith optional capacit. individuals throu+h teleconferencin+.
throu+h #tt. statin+. Even the identification card34 of #tt.3: It !as on the said date that the respondent sub*itted an affidavit of its +eneral *ana+er Su1 /. failed to establish its clai* that #tt. .he court +ranted the *otion. durin+ the hearin+ of 9anuar. attend the Pre&trial Proceedin+s and enter into a co*pro*ise a+ree*ent relative to the above& *entioned clai*.#.s to sub*it the said resolution. !ith Section 4. inter alia.. authori6ed to sue in its behalf. liti+ate. the Court is not inclined to believe that a board resolution !as dul.er of the respondent5s Manila Re+ional Office.he respondent.. .pe of *eetin+. authori6in+ hi* to file the co*plaint and e-ecute the re7uired certification a+ainst foru* shoppin+.. that #tt. the Court is not convinced that one !as conductedF even if there had been one.he respondent a+ain pra. also be easier to *isco**unicate. 3))) *otion for e-tension of ti*e to sub*it the 7uestioned resolution that it !as in the custod.oo /i*...ours. Su1 /. #+uinaldo to file the co*plaint and e-ecute the re7uired certification a+ainst foru* shoppin+. approved the follo!in+ resolution@ RESO0VED. Even +iven the possibilit. #+uinaldo. #+uinaldo attended the said teleconference on 9une 34. it *a.3> . providin+ the +uidelines to be co*plied !ith related to such conferences... the Court a+rees !ith the R. the individual needs of ever. authori6in+ #tt. :823.3( . 3))".ravel E .eleconferencin+ cannot satisf. "222.32 ut then.. failed to co*pl. or until <ebruar. 3:. #+uinaldo and Su1 /. . on its contention that #tt. announced the holdin+ of the teleconference onl.he court +ranted the *otion per its Order 38 dated <ebruar. #+uinaldo. la!. until March (.teleconferencin+. to the filin+ and prosecution of said clai* in Court.he respondent opposed the *otion on Dece*ber ". in the sa*e affidavit. . !as dul. .he respondent +ave the trial court .ed for ten da. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.he Securities and E-chan+e Co**ission issued SEC Me*orandu* Circular No. contendin+ that it !as !ith its *ain office in /orea.ed for an e-tension !ithin !hich to sub*it the said resolution. sho!ed that he is the co*pan. that he and #tt. . "). . of its *ain office in /orea. ho!ever. of the aforesaid ResolutionK because no records of board resolutions approved durin+ teleconferences !ere 1ept. on Nove*ber =). !ithin !hich to sub*it the board resolution purportedl. . #+uinaldo and his la! fir* M.s.ed for "4 *ore da. passed specificall. t. appointed and authori6ed to ta1e !ith !hatever le+al action necessar. and instead pra. 3))). . specificall.ers are hereb. in li+ht of Republic #ct No. its resident a+ent.. "222. "4.he respondent. #+uinaldo then pra. . docu*ent or paper necessar. !here the oard of Directors supposedl. #+uinaldo !as its resident a+ent in the Philippines. . si+n and e-ecute an.he records sho! that the petitioner filed a *otion to dis*iss the co*plaint on the +round that the respondent failed to co*pl. #+uinaldo E #ssociates or an.C that persons in the Philippines *a.he.oo /i* declared that the respondent KdoNesO not 1eep a !ritten cop. . :.his belied the respondent5s earlier alle+ation in its <ebruar. that Mario #. "". to effect the collection of the unpaid account of E-pert . defend.oo /i* participated in a teleconference alon+ !ith the respondent5s oard of Directors. of its la!. are hereb.. 3))). #+uinaldo !hich the respondent appended to its pleadin+ *erel.he respondent.hus. ho!ever. 3)))F #tt. teleconferencin+ and videoconferencin+ of *e*bers of board of directors of private corporations is a realit. 3))). have a teleconference !ith a +roup of persons in South /orea relatin+ to business transactions or corporate +overnance. authori6ed to prosecute.3= In the Philippines.
ORDERED to dis*iss. pp.ED. and that the resolution alle+edl. 3(. #+uinaldo in attendance% is incredible. no such resolution !as appended to the said certificate. and . to alle+e later $via the affidavit of Su1 /.. SO OR+ERE+. onl. Acting C.Chairman/. Moreover.et !as notari6ed one . lon+ before the co*plaint !as filed. = ollo. of the resolution 1ept in /orea. pp. . at >8&4). 9r.. (. 2. . #+uinaldo. "222 never too1 place. concurrin+F ollo. the respondent did not e-plain !h. on March (. pp. Corse still. it appears that as early as (anuary )*. 4"&43. 3)))%F it also did not e-plain its failure to append the said certificate to the co*plaint. thereof.. #tt. and Chico'Na1ario. for the first ti*e. 3))" !hen the respondent filed its co**ent in the C# that it sub*itted the Secretar. "222. > 3d. . Foo' o'&) " Penned b. e-isted. "). the co*plaint of the respondent. )+++. approved b. #ssociate 9ustice Elvi 9ohn S.the i*pression that it needed ti*e to secure a cop. ((. as !ell as to its Co*pliance dated March (. out of the countr. 4 ollo. No such certificate !as appended to the co*plaint. !ithout pre?udice.oo /i* stated in his affidavit that the resolution !as e*bodied in the Secretar. #tt.R. #suncion. 2inga.. the respondent should have incorporated it in its co*plaint. !hich !as filed on Septe*ber (. 3))) that the respondent alle+ed. 3))). thus. Austria'0artine1. the petition is 'R#N. "222. the respondent5s oard of Directors durin+ the said teleconference !as a *ere concoction purposefull. p. . #tt. #+uinaldo had si+ned a Secretar. . #+uinaldo as earl. the said certificate !as si+ned b.. Su1 /. 38&=). of its resolution !as !ith its *ain office in /orea. that the *eetin+ of the oard of Directors !here the resolution !as approved !as held via teleconference. !ith #ssociate 9ustices Ro*eo #. Do!ever. the C# and this Court. It !as onl. to avert the dis*issal of its co*plaint a+ainst the petitioner.-.. on 9anuar..5sBResident #+ent5s Certificate alle+in+ that the board of directors held a teleconference on (une ... 4=&4(. ("))) is REVERSED and SE. )+++. 3 ollo. 3:. concur. on 9anuar. *ore inclined to believe that the alle+ed teleconference on 9une 34. Enri7ue6. that there !as such a *eetin+ of the oard of Directors held on 9une 34. onl. foisted on the R.oo /i*% that it had no such !ritten cop.5sBResident #+ent5s Certificate=)dated 9anuar. or at least appended a cop. +iven the additional fact that no such alle+ation !as *ade in the co*plaint. 3))) that the respondent clai*ed.ear later $on 9anuar. SP No. ").. ra!ner $no! Presidin+ 9ustice% and 9uan I.5sBResident #+ent5s Certificate si+ned b.(. for the first ti*e. Puno. More i*portantl. If the resolution had indeed been approved on 9une 34.rial Court of Manila is hereb. "222.. . as 9anuar. It !as onl.he Decision of the Court of #ppeals in C#&'. #SIDE. IN LIG*T OF ALL T*E FOREGOING.C. ")2. to alle+e later that no !ritten cop. "222F it even represented to the Court that a cop. It !as onl.he respondent failed to do so.he Court is. 3))). . "222 and approved the said resolution $!ith #tt.he respondent5s alle+ation that its board of directors conducted a teleconference on 9une 34.he Re+ional .
"8 2repanier v. do*estic violence hearin+s. Monson. 3d. Si*ons. "3:44). "28:%.he Court also approved the Rule on E-a*ination of a child !itness !hich allo!s live& lin1 television testi*on.C. "2 Septe*ber "22>. . =3: SCR# 3:(. GII $No. applications of videoconferencin+ in the States in the . M. 3nteresting :ighlights of the 4ro%ing 2eleconferencing "oom. >lectronic 0eetingsF Par1er. !hich too1 effect on Dece*ber "4. 4.he technolo+. "> . pp. 3ntroduction to 2eleconferencing $Madison@ . cited in R.niversit. 2eleconferencing >nters 3ts 4ro%th StageF Stu Sutherland. and depositionsPto na*e a fe!.. y.. v. Par1er. in cri*inal cases !here the child is a victi* or a !itness $Section 34%. "4 State Prosecutors v. 2oledo = 8. 3))). "= ollo. other uses beca*e apparent. "" '. >3F Sonneville. 9ohansen. "=42>4. ") 9nited esidents 8ominican :ill. Astleford.9&23&:8(. No. 32 #u+ust 3))3. ": 9.. $last visited 3) Ma. Court of Appeals.topian Drea*s and Co*ple. *ental health hearin+s. and Monson. >&tension 2eleconferencing in the )+7*?s. Court of Appeals. !hich has transacted business in the Philippines.Realities. 3d 84= $"2:8%. "( March 3))). 3))4%. "):. be *ade on its resident a+ent desi+nated in accordance !ith la! for that purpose. 2eleconferencing. Electronic Meetin+s@ . 8 March 3))". ="=&"2. of Cisconsin&E-tension. 0uro. Vallee. Carroll. M Chen the defendant is a forei+n private ?uridical entit. 9. #. if there be no such a+ent. 3=( SCR# 4)4. : 0elo v. . C. 3nc. p. 3ntroduction to 2eleconferencing! Ro+an and others. R.R. on the +overn*ent official desi+nated b. '. 33 9ohansen. >"3 N. !hich reads@ SEC. "3. Span+ler.R. 3) R. '. artlett. supra. "=>>(:. aird. Audioconferencing. =": SCR# 2>. supra. "( Wood v. CIG Dun5s usiness Month. 3) $Septe*ber "2:>% available at http@BB ?oe. or. '. 4. pp.( 8 ollo. No. Court of Appeals. Videoconferencin+ is an effective tool for parole intervie!s. . supra. 2 8igital 0icro%ave Corporation v. at ":. 3> 9ul. AudioconferencingF and Sonneville. Co. #s courts be+an to appreciate the costs savin+s and the decreased securit. or on an. C.5676. "=)&=>. 3))). <and "an# of the Philippines. 3= 3bid. No. ). 3" 9. 2eleconferencing. " $"2:3%. la! to that effect.M. "( Nove*ber "222. 2eleconferencing >nters its 4ro%th Stage. "3 9y v. 0II >&tension Service evie% 3 $"2:"%. "=(")). pretrial conferences. Rule "> of the Rules of Court.E.or+B?oeB"2:> Septe*berBa> ht*l.hese provisions are the basis of Section "3. supra. "2:3%F and Ro+an and others.R. focused on video arrai+n*ents and probable cause hearin+s. "=) N.he earl. ==( SCR# >"2F and National Steel Corporation v. "2 3bid.he <uturist. No. and /. No. re*ote !itness testi*on.S<AP. =:: SCR# :4. Service upon foreign private $uridical entity. No. GVII Co**unication Ne!s "3 $"2:)%. . Vallee. 44&4(. aird. 44:. of its officers or a+ents !ithin the Philippines. Ro+an and '. and M. service *a. Center for Interactive Pro+ra*s. ris1s of the technolo+. 3> . "3&"(F 0. 33 9ournal of E-tensions 4. . and Span+ler. =4= SCR# 8:3.nited States courts pri*aril. ?uvenile detention hearin+s.R.
pp./& V. 2)&2". 32 3d. at :(. is that videoconferencin+ is used in 4) states in the .!ill prove even *ore valuable in an a+e of international terrorist trials !ith !itnesses fro* around the !orld. at :8. Videoconferencin+ has beco*e 7uite co**onplace in State Courts per the Report.he last co*prehensive report@ KU)& o.oCo0-' P-o(&&!. 34 ollo.K Published in "224. . at 2=. 38 3d. p. p. "):. (:. . the National Institute of Corrections.!&.nited States of #*erica. 3( 3d. 1)$ L&1a2 S'a'0) a ! U)& Na'. =) ollo.o 3. b. I '&-a('. 3: ollo.!&o .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.