5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B.

OCAMPO

439 Phil. 777

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 136821, October 17, 2002 ]

ROVELS ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO, JOSE

M. SILVA, SR., THE HEIRS OF EXPEDITO LEVISTE, SR.,* CONRADO CALALANG,
AND FRANCISCO CARREON, SR., RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
[1]
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision of the Court of
[2]
Appeals dated June 5, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 43260, affirming the Decision of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in SEC Case No. 09-95-5135
dismissing the petition to be declared the majority stockholder of Tagaytay Taal
Tourist Development Corporation (TTTDC). The petition was filed by Rovels
Enterprises, Inc. (Rovels), herein petitioner. Rovels is a domestic corporation engaged
in construction work. Its President is Eduardo Santos. TTTDC was among Rovels'
clients.
In payment for the services rendered by Rovels, the Board of Directors of TTTDC
passed a Resolution on December 29, 1975 providing as follows:

"RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved that payment for professional fees and

services rendered by x x x Rovels' Enterprises x x x be made in cash if funds are
available, or its equivalent number of shares of stock of the corporation
at par value, and should said creditors elect the latter mode of
payment, it is further resolved that the President and/or his
Secretary be authorized as they are hereby authorized, to issue the
[3]
corresponding unissued shares of stock of the corporation."
(emphasis added)

The Resolution was signed by three of TTTDC's directors, namely, Victoriano Leviste,
Bienvenido Cruz, Jr., and Roberto Roxas. Roberto Roxas is the President of TTTDC
and stockholder of Rovels at the same time. Noticeably, the signatures of the other
two (2) TTTDC directors Jose Silva, Jr. and Emmanuel Ocampo do not appear in the
subject Resolution despite their presence in the December 29, 1975 Board meeting.
[4]

On February 23, 1976, Eduardo Santos, President of Rovels, on behalf of TTTDC, filed
with the SEC an application for exemption from registration of TTTDC's unissued
shares of stock transferred to it (Rovels) as payment for its services worth One
Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (P108,000.00). This was done because under Section
4 (a) of the Revised Securities Act, no shares of stocks shall be transferred unless first
[5]
registered with the SEC or permitted to be sold.

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# [6] 1/11

5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

On May 7, 1976, the SEC, in its Resolution No. 260,[6] granted Eduardo Santos'
application.
[7]
On March 1, 1976, the TTTDC Board of Directors passed another Resolution
repealing its Resolution of December 29, 1975, thus:

"RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, that the Resolution of December 29,

1975 authorizing the payment of creditors with unissued shares of the
corporation be as it is hereby repealed: Resolved further that the matter as
well as the amount of the creditors' claims be given adequate study and
consideration by the Board." (emphasis added)

In view of the December 29, 1975 TTTDC Board Resolution transferring to Rovels the
said shares of stock as construction fee, TTTDC Directors Jose Silva, Jr. and
Emmanuel Ocampo filed a complaint with the SEC against Roberto Roxas, TTTDC
President, and Eduardo Santos, Rovels' President, docketed as SEC Case No. 1322. In
their complaint, Silva and Ocampo alleged that there was no meeting of the TTTDC's
Board of Directors on December 29, 1975; that they did not authorize the transfer of
TTTDC's shares of stock to Rovels; that they never signed the alleged minutes of the
meeting; and that the signatures of the other two (2) Directors, Victoriano Leviste and
Bienvenido Cruz, Jr., as well as that of TTTDC's Secretary Francisco Carreon, Jr., were
obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. They also alleged that the TTTDC
Board Resolution dated December 29, 1975 was repealed by the March 1, 1976
Resolution. They thus prayed that the transfer of TTTDC's shares of stock to Rovels
pursuant to Resolution dated December 29, 1975 be annulled.
[8]
On March 17, 1979, SEC Hearing Officer Eugenio E. Reyes issued a Decision in
favor of Silva and Ocampo, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"Considering that the (December 29, 1975) board resolution which authorizes the
corporation to pay its creditors with its unissued shares of stock x x x had been
expressly revoked or repealed on March 1, 1976 as earlier pointed out,
Commission Resolution No. 260 (granting Santos' application for exemption
from registration of the unissued shares), when issued on May 7, 1976 x x x had
lost its legal basis. Consequently, the corresponding issuance of shares
was without authority of the board of directors."
xxxxxxxxx
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission finds and so holds that
the purported board resolution of December 29, 1975, not having
been properly passed upon at a duly constituted board meeting,
cannot be recognized as valid and hence, without legal force and
effect. Consequently, the issuance of shares of stock to corporate
creditors of the Tagaytay Taal Tourist Development Corporation is
null and void. In view thereof, the shares in question are still considered
unissued and remain part of the authorized capital stocks of the Tagaytay Taal
Tourist Development Corporation. This is without prejudice to the rights of said
corporate creditors as against Tagaytay Taal Tourist Development Corporation
for the latter's contractual obligations." (emphasis added)

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 2/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

On appeal by Roberto Roxas and Eduardo Santos, the SEC en banc, in its Decision
dated September 2, 1982 in SEC-AC No. 049,[9] affirmed the Decision of the SEC
Hearing Officer. This Court, in its Decision of June 20, 1983 in G.R. No. 61863,[10]
likewise affirmed the Decision of the SEC en banc. The Decision of this Court became
final and executory on September 2, 1983.[11]
Subsequently, TTTDC, Jose Silva, Emmanuel Ocampo, Victoriano Leviste, Francisco
Carreon, Jr., and Expedito Leviste, Sr., another stockholder of TTTDC, (the SILVA
GROUP, now respondents), filed with the SEC a petition against Eduardo Santos,
Sylvia S. Veloso, Josefina Carballo, Augusto del Rosario, Reynaldo Alcantara and
Lauro Sandoval (the SANTOS GROUP), docketed as SEC Case No. 3806. (The
SANTOS GROUP were nominees of Rovels who, by virtue of the shares of stock issued
pursuant to the December 29, 1975 Resolution, proceeded to act as directors and
officers of TTTDC). In their petition, the SILVA GROUP prayed that they be
declared the true and lawful stockholders and incumbent directors and
officers of TTTDC.
On July 6, 1993, SEC Hearing Officer Alberto P. Atas rendered a Decision[12] in favor
of the SILVA GROUP, thus:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioners (SILVA

GROUP) and against the respondents (SANTOS GROUP), as follows:

a. Declaring petitioners as the lawful stockholders, directors and officers of

Tagaytay Taal Tourist Development Corporation;
b. Declaring respondents, to be not stockholders of Tagaytay Taal Tourist
Development Corporation;
c. Declaring respondents to be not directors or officers of Tagaytay Taal
Tourist Development Corporation;
d. The writ of preliminary injunction issued on November 6, 1990 is hereby
made permanent; and
e. Ordering the Records Division of this Commission to purge the records of
Tagaytay Taal Tourist Development Corporation of all papers and
documents filed by respondents purportedly in behalf of Tagaytay Taal
Tourist Development Corporation." (emphasis and words in parentheses
added)

The above Decision became final and executory on September 1, 1994[13] as no appeal
was interposed by either the SILVA GROUP or the SANTOS GROUP.
However, Rovels, to whom the TTTDC shares of stock (worth P108,000.00) were
transferred, claimed that it became aware of the July 6, 1993 SEC Decision only in
[14]
June of 1995. So on September 6, 1995, it filed a petition with the SEC, docketed
as SEC Case No. 09-95-5135, praying that it be declared the majority stockholder of
TTTDC as against respondents Ocampo, Silva, Leviste, Sr., Calalang and Carreon
(belonging to the SILVA GROUP). The material allegations of the petition state that:
(1) TTTDC passed a Resolution dated December 29, 1975 authorizing the transfer of

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# [1 ] 3/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

its unissued shares to Rovels as the latter's construction fee;[15] (2) Pursuant to that
Resolution, TTTDC shares of stock worth P692,000.00 were transferred to Rovels;
[16] (3) While TTTDC, in its March 1, 1976 Resolution, repealed the December 29,
1975 Resolution, such repeal does not bind Rovels for lack of notice;[17] (4) Several
"interrelated cases" (SEC Case Nos. 1322 and 3806) were filed with the SEC involving
the SILVA and SANTOS GROUPS;[18] (5) Rovels is not bound by the SEC Decisions
since it was not impleaded as a party in said cases.[19]
[20]
Forthwith, the SILVA GROUP filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
following grounds: (1) Rovels has no cause of action since TTTDC's December 29,
[21]
1975 Board Resolution was repealed by its March 1, 1976 Resolution; (2) the
petition is barred by the prior SEC Decisions in SEC Case No. 1322 declaring that the
issuance of TTTDC's shares of stock to Rovels is valid, and the SEC Decision in 3806
[22]
declaring the SILVA GROUP as the lawful stockholders of TTTDC; and (3) the
petition is barred by estoppel, prescription and laches since it was filed long after
[23]
Rovels was notified of the repeal of the December 29, 1975 TTTDC Resolution.
In an Order dated April 22, 1996[24] in SEC Case No. 09-95-5135, SEC Hearing
Officer Manuel P. Perea dismissed Rovel's petition on the grounds of lack of cause of
action, res judicata, estoppel, laches and prescription. This Order was affirmed by the
SEC en banc in its Decision dated January 20, 1997[25] in SEC AC No. 560.
Upon a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 43260, the Court of Appeals,
[26]
in its Decision dated June 5, 1998, affirmed the January 20, 1997 SEC en banc
[27]
Decision. Rovels' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari,[28] alleging that the Court of
Appeals erred:

IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER ROVELS HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENTS; and
II
IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITION IN SEC CASE NO. 09-95-5135 IS BARRED
BY PRIOR JUDGMENT (RES JUDICATA), LACHES, PRESCRIPTION AND
[29]
ESTOPPEL.

The petition is unmeritorious.

On the first assigned error, we find that the Court of Appeals is correct in affirming
the dismissal of Rovels' petition in SEC Case No. 09-955135 for lack of cause of action.
A cause of action is defined as the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by a
person in violation of the right of another.[30] A cause of action exists if the following
elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation
of the defendant to respect such right, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in
violation of plaintiff's right.[31] The test is whether the material allegations of the
complaint, assuming them to be true, state ultimate facts which constitute plaintiff's
cause of action, such that plaintiff is entitled to a favorable judgment as a matter of
law.[32]
lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 4/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

The pertinent portions of Rovels petition filed with the SEC read:

xxxxxxxxx
"5. x x x. On December 29, 1975, TTTDC in a Resolution signed by majority
members of the Board of Directors resolved that TTTDC pay its creditors
through a 'debt-to-equity swap;'
xxxxxxxxx
"9. x x x the relation between the Silva faction and the Santos faction became
adversarial. The Silva faction attempted to form an alleged new board of
directors and repealed the Board Resolution dated December 29, 1975
Resolution regarding the 'debt' to equity swap. Thus, it resolved:

'RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, that the Resolution of December

29, 1975 authorizing the payment of creditors with unissued
shares of the corporation be as it is hereby repealed: Resolved
further that the matter as well as the amount of the creditor's claims be
given adequate study and consideration by the Board. x x x'

"10. That what is clear from the above Resolution of March 1, 1976 is the
admission that indeed TTTDC owes certain amount of money from its creditors.
The creditors became stockholders of record as a result of shares of stock issued
in implementation of the 'debt to equity' conversion. Corresponding shares of
stock were issued and signed by then president of the corporation Roberto Roxas
and then corporate secretary Francisco N. Carreon, Jr.
"Copy of said Certificate of Stocks are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 'D'
to 'P' and made an integral part hereof.
xxxxxxxxx
"12. That several interrelated cases were filed by Eduardo L. Santos
(SEC Case No. 1322), on one hand, and Expedito M. Leviste, Francisco
Carreon, Felicisimo Ocampo and Jose M. Silva (SEC Case No. 3806)
and vice versa on the other. Petitioner, Rovels Enterprises, Inc. was never
made a party in any of these cases and its nominees in the Board of
Directors of TTTDC continued to exercise its function from 1976.

xxxxxxxxx

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 5/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

"19. That to implement the decision in SEC CASE 3806, which declared
the Silva Group as the duly authorized directors and officers, without
looking deeply into the records of the case, i.e. the sub-poened authentic 'Stock
and Transfer Book' of TTTDC and the earlier decision in PED Case No. 89-0644,
will constitute irreparable damage to the petitioner. Specially so, Silva executed
an affidavit showing 5 Directors of TTTDC but the stock certificates were not
signed by the corporate secretary who died in 1982.
xxxxxxxxx
"21. That petitioner which became duly registered majority stockholder thru
'debt to equity swap' had been an innocent party to such controversy between the
aforesaid 2 ruling thereof, hence, petitioner remains as is on a status quo basis as
majority stockholder of TTTDC.
xxxxxxxxx
"PRAYER
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner prays that this Honorable
Commission render judgment in favor of petitioner and against respondents
(SILVA GROUP):
xxxxxxxxx
"2. After due notice and hearing, re-declaring petitioner lawful registered
majority stockholder of TTTDC x x x;
"3. Ordering respondents to desist from sitting in the Board of Directors of
TTTDC as they are not lawful registered stockholders in the books of the said
corporation.
x x x x x x x x x"[33]

A reading of the above petition (paragraph 5) shows that Rovels' prayer to be declared
the majority stockholder of TTTDC is anchored on the December 29, 1975 TTTDC
Board Resolution transferring its shares of stock to Rovels as construction fee. This
Resolution could have vested in Rovels a right to be declared a stockholder of TTTDC.
However, the same petition (paragraphs 9 and 10) concedes that the December 29,
1975 Resolution was repealed by the March 1, 1976 Resolution. The petition likewise
alleges (paragraphs 12 and 19) that there were prior "interrelated cases" filed with the
SEC between the SILVA and SANTOS GROUPS, namely: (1) SEC Case No. 1322
(wherein the SEC en banc in its Decision dated September 2, 1982 nullified the
TTTDC Board Resolution dated December 29, 1975, which Decision was affirmed with
finality by this Court in G.R. No. 61863) and (2) SEC Case No. 3806 (wherein the
SEC declared the SILVA GROUP as the legitimate stockholders of TTTDC, not Rovels'
nominees [the SANTOS GROUP]). Clearly, on the face of its petition, Rovels cannot
claim to be the majority stockholder of TTTDC.
Relative to the second assigned error, Rovels contends that it is not bound by the SEC
Decision in SEC Case Nos. 1322 and 3806 and in G.R. No. 61863 as it was "never a
party in any of these cases." This contention brings us to the issue of res judicata.

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# [34] 6/11

5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

The requisites of res judicata,[34] also known as the rule on bar by prior judgment,
are:

1) the former judgment must be final;

2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;
3) the judgment must be on the merits; and
4) there must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties,
subject matter and causes of action.

The first three (3) requisites of res judicata are present in this case. This is not
disputed by the parties and is, in fact, established by the record. The controversy
arises as to whether there is identity of the parties in the present SEC Case No. 09-95-
5135, on the one hand, and in prior SEC Case Nos. 1322 and 3806, on the other.
Contrary to its claim, Rovels is bound by the previous SEC Decisions. It must be noted
that Eduardo Santos, President of Rovels, was one of the respondents in both SEC
Case Nos. 1322 and 3806. Clearly, Rovels and Eduardo Santos, being its President,
share an identity of interests sufficient to make them privies-in-law, as correctly
found by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision, thus:

"In the case at bench, there can be no question that the rights claimed by
petitioner and its stockholders/directors/officers who were parties in SEC Case
Nos. 1322 and 3806 are identical in that they are both based on the December
29, 1975 Resolution. Stated differently, they shared an identity of interest
from which flowed an identity of relief sought, namely, to be declared
owners of the stocks of TTTDC, premised on the same December 29, 1975
Resolution. x x x. This 'identity of interest is sufficient to make them
privies-in-law, one to the other, and meets the requisite of substantial
[35]
identity of parties.'"

It bears stressing that absolute identity of parties is not required for the principle of
res judicata, or the rule on bar by prior judgment, to apply. Mere substantial identity
of parties, or a community of interests between a party in the first case and a party in
the subsequent case even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case, is sufficient.
[36]

Rovels cannot take refuge in the argument that, as a corporation, it is imbued with
personality separate and distinct from that of the respondents in SEC Case Nos. 1322
and 3806. The legal fiction of separate corporate existence is not at all times
invincible and the same may be pierced when employed as a means to perpetrate a
fraud, confuse legitimate issues, or used as a vehicle to promote unfair objectives or to
shield an otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-
shopping. While it is settled that the piercing of the corporate veil has to be done
with caution, this corporate fiction may be disregarded when necessary in the interest
[37]
of justice.

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 7/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

The doctrine of res judicata states that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their
privies, and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same
claim, demand or cause of action.[38] This is founded on public policy and necessity,
which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigations,
and on the principle that an individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause.
[39]

Just recently, we emphatically declared in In Re: Petition Seeking for Clarification as

to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two (2) Final and Executory but Conflicting
[40]
Decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court: "Every litigation must come to an
end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable. This is a
fundamental and immutable legal principle. For '(j)ust as a losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case' by the execution and
satisfaction of the judgment, which is the 'life of the law.' Any attempt to thwart this
rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory,
must immediately be struck down."
Finally, this Court sustains the Appellate Court's finding that the filing of Rovels
petition in the instant SEC Case No. 09-95-5135 is barred by estoppel, prescription
and laches. There is no merit to Rovels' claim that it was only in June of 1995[41]
when it became aware of the repeal of the December 29, 1975 TTTDC Resolution and
of the consequent nullification of the transfer of its shares of stock.
It is undisputed that Eduardo Santos was present in the March 1, 1976 TTTDC Board
meeting wherein the December 29, 1975 Resolution was repealed. We hold that
Eduardo Santos, being the President of Rovels, is considered as its (Rovels') agent. As
such, his knowledge of the repeal of the December 29, 1975 Resolution, under the
theory of imputed knowledge, is ascribed to his principal (Rovels).
It was only on September 6, 1995, or almost twenty (20) years from the time Eduardo
Santos learned of the March 1, 1976 Resolution, that Rovels filed its petition in SEC
Case No. 09-95-5135. Within that long period of time, Rovels did nothing to contest
the March 1, 1976 TTTDC Resolution to protect its rights, if any. Obviously, such
inaction constitutes estoppel, prescription and laches. As stated by Rovels itself,
Article 1149 of the New Civil Code limits the filing of actions, whose periods are not
fixed therein or in any other laws, to only five (5) years. In addition, the principle of
laches or "stale demands" provides that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or
should have been done earlier, or the negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.[42]
In sum, this Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error
in its challenged Decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated June 5, 1998 and its Resolution dated December 21, 1998 in CA-G.R.
SP. No. 43260, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 8/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Corona, and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

* Respondent Expedito Leviste, Sr. died on September 6, 1999 pending resolution of

this case, and was substituted by his heirs, namely, Maria Cristina Borbon-Leviste,
Enrique B. Leviste, Victoriano B. Leviste, Feliciano B. Leviste and Edgar John B.
Leviste (see Supreme Court Resolution dated June 28, 2000, Rollo, p. 761).
[1] Pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2]
Penned by then Court of Appeals Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, now Justice
of this Court, and concurred in by Justices Bernardo Ll. Salas, retired, and Candido V.
Rivera; Rollo, pp. 9-18.
[3] Rollo, at 170.
[4]
Minutes of the December 29, 1975 Board of Directors' meeting, id., at 170-171.
[5] Under Section 4 (a) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 178 (The Revised Securities Act), "
(n)o securities, except of a class exempt under any of the provisions of Section 5
(t)hereof or unless sold in any transaction exempt under any of the provisions of
Section 6 (t)hereof, shall be sold or offered for sale or distributed to the public within
the Philippines unless such securities shall have been registered or permitted to be
sold x x x." As defined in Section 2 (a) of B.P. Blg. 178, the term "securities" includes
shares of stocks (De Leon, The Corporation Code, Annotated, 1993 Ed., p. 750).
[6]
This SEC Resolution No. 260 resolved the petition filed by Eduardo Santos on
behalf of the TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
requesting that P108,000.00 worth of shares of its unissued capital stock which it
proposes to sell to the persons mentioned in its letter of February 23, 1976 by way of
offset of liabilities, be exempted from the registration requirements of the Securities
Act. The said Resolution states:

"x x x In view of the limited character of the offering to be made on the securities
and it appearing that liabilities owing to them which is being applied to offset the
payment of P108,000.00, the Commission is of the opinion, and so resolves, that
the registration and/or licensing of the securities herein sought to be exempted is
not necessary in the public interest or for the protection of the purchasers
thereof. Petition is, therefore, granted. x x x" (Rollo, pp. 122-123)

[7] Id., at 172-174.

[8]
Id., at 175, 184-185.
[9] Id., at 186-195.
[10]
Id., at 196.
[11] Entry of Judgment dated September 2, 1983, id., at 197.
[12]
Id., at 216-228.
[13] Entry of Judgment dated September 1, 1994, id., at 230.
[14]
Id., at 98-106.

[1 ]
lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 9/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO
[15] Petition, par. 5, Rollo, at 99.
[16]
Id., par. 6, at 100.
[17] Id., pars. 9-10, at 100-101.
[18]
Id., par. 12, at 101.
[19] Id.
[20]
Rollo, at 144-167.
[21] Motion to Dismiss, pars. 5-5.05, Rollo, at 151-155.
[22]
Id., pars. 6-6.17, at 155-161.
[23] Id., pars. 7-8.06, at 161-165.
[24]
Id., at 85, 89-96.
[25] Id., at 73-84.
[26]
Id., at 9-18.
[27] December 21, 1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, id., at 58-59.
[28]
Pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[29] Petition, Rollo, at 31.
[30]
Camara vs. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 608, 618-619 (1999), citing Nabus vs.
Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 732, 747 (1991).
[31] Sta. Clara Homeowners' Association vs. Spouses Victor Ma. Gaston and Lydia
Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, January 23, 2002, citing San Lorenzo Village Association,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 115, 125 (1998); Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs.
Court of Appeals, 341 SCRA 486, 490 (2000).
[32]
Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 853, 863 (2000), citing Suyom vs.
Collantes, et al., 69 SCRA 514, 520 (1976).
[33] Annex "D" of the Petition, Rollo at 98-106.
[34]
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 560, 565 (2000); Siapian vs. Court of
Appeals, 327 SCRA 11, 20 (2000); Almendra vs. Asis, 330 SCRA 69, 75-76 (2000).
[35] June 5, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 15.
[36]
Nery vs. Leyson, 339 SCRA 232, 241 (2000); Concepcion vs. Agana, 268 SCRA
307, 318-319 (1997); Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila vs. Court of Appeals,
279 SCRA 711, 717 (1997).
[37] Reynoso IV vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 116124-25, November 22, 2000,
citing among others, First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 252
SCRA 259, 287-288 (1996); Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 211, 216 (1991);
and Villanueva vs. Adre, 172 SCRA 876, 885 (1989).
[38]
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 560, 567-568 (2000); Barreto vs.
Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 581, 588-589 (2000).
[39] Madarieta vs. RTC, Br. 28, Mambajao, Camiguin, 326 SCRA 479, 483 (2000).
The doctrine also applies to decisions rendered by quasi-judicial bodies (Fortich vs.
Corona, 312 SCRA 751, 760-761 [1999]; Bataan Shipyard and Engineering
lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 10/11
5/11/2020 ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO

Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 269 SCRA 199, 207 [1997];
Mendiola vs. Civil Service Commission, 221 SCRA 295, 305 [1993].
[40]
G.R. No. 123780, September 24, 2002 (En Banc).
[41] No. 12 of the Petition, Rollo, p. 41.
[42]
Vda. de Cabrera vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 339, 355 (1997); Españo, Sr. vs.
Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 511, 514 (1997); Philgreen Trading Construction
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 719, 725 (1997).

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc9a9# 11/11