Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc - Vs.Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012 Peralta, J. Facts

    Uploaded by

    idmu bcpo
    This case involves a dispute between Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and two Japanese corporations, Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, over payments for construction of the NAIA International Passenger Terminal III. The Japanese corporations filed collection suits in London for unpaid fees. The trial court denied Philippine International's motions to dismiss and for interrogatories. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that while the verification may have been defective, relaxing procedural rules was warranted given the public importance of the airport project. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting both parties were given the opportunity to present their cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc - Vs.Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012 Peralta, J. Facts

    Uploaded by

    idmu bcpo
    31 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and two Japanese corporations, Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, over payments for construction of the NAIA International Passenger Terminal III. The Japanese corporations filed collection suits in London for unpaid fees. The trial court denied Philippine International's motions to dismiss and for interrogatories. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that while the verification may have been defective, relaxing procedural rules was warranted given the public importance of the airport project. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting both parties were given the opportunity to present their cases.

    Original Title

    24

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and two Japanese corporations, Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, over payments for construction of the NAIA International Passenger Terminal III. The Japanese corporations filed collection suits in London for unpaid fees. The trial court denied Philippine International's motions to dismiss and for interrogatories. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that while the verification may have been defective, relaxing procedural rules was warranted given the public importance of the airport project. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting both parties were given the opportunity to present their cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views3 pages

    Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc - Vs.Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012 Peralta, J. Facts

    Uploaded by

    idmu bcpo
    This case involves a dispute between Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and two Japanese corporations, Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, over payments for construction of the NAIA International Passenger Terminal III. The Japanese corporations filed collection suits in London for unpaid fees. The trial court denied Philippine International's motions to dismiss and for interrogatories. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that while the verification may have been defective, relaxing procedural rules was warranted given the public importance of the airport project. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting both parties were given the opportunity to present their cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Case 4

    TITLE: PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO.,


    INC.vs.TAKENAKA CORPORATION and
    ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION
    SOURCE: G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012
    PONENTE: PERALTA, J.

    FACTS:

    In 1997, by way of a Concession Agreement, the Philippine


    Government awarded to petitioner the right to build and operate the NAIA
    International Passenger Terminal III (“NAIA IPT3”). Petitioner then
    contracted respondents Takenaka Corporation, and Asahikosan
    Corporation (“private respondents”) to construct and equip NAIA IPT3.
    Private respondents are both foreign corporations organized under the laws
    of Japan, but only respondent Takenaka Corporation is licensed to do
    business in the Philippines through its local branch office.
     
    Claiming that petitioner made no further payments after May 2002
    despite continued performance of their obligations, private respondents
    filed two collection suits before the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench
    Division, Technology and Construction Court in London, England (“London
    Court”), docketed as Claim No. HT-04-248 and Claim No.HT-05-269. In
    both claims, respondent Takenaka Corporation was designated as the First
    Claimant and respondent Asahikosan Corporation, the Second Claimant.
    Petitioner thereafter filed with the trial court, and served upon the President
    of respondent Takenaka Corporation, Written Interrogatories which, among
    others, asked if Takenaka entered into a General Framework Agreement
    with the Philippine government, what its salient features are, and if any
    amount has been paid to Takenaka by the Philippine government.
     
    Private respondents moved to expunge the Written Interrogatories,
    arguing that written interrogatories cannot be served without leave of court
    before an Answer has been filed. On June 26, 2006, petitioner filed a
    Motion for Leave to serve its Written Interrogatories on the President of
    respondent Takenaka Corporation. That same day, respondent judge
    issued the first assailed Omnibus Order denying petitioner's Motion to
    Dismiss, Motion to Set the Motion to Dismiss for hearing, Motion for
    Production and Inspection of Documents, and written interrogatories.
    ISSUE:

      Where or not the CA erred (1) in ruling that the Complaint is not
    fatally defective despite the fact that only a Special Power of Attorney, and
    not a Board Resolution was attached to the Verification and Certification
    Against Forum Shopping; and (2) in depriving petitioner the right to present
    evidence on its Motion to Dismiss.

    HELD:

    In this case, there is no showing of such capricious or whimsical


    exercise of judgment or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power committed
    by the trial court. In fact, records reveal that both parties were given ample
    opportunity to be heard. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was, in fact,
    held on April 7, 2006. Thereafter, both parties submitted their pleadings
    setting forth their claims, arguments and supporting evidence. Petitioner
    points out that at the April 7, 2006 hearing, the parties were only allowed to
    file their pleadings, and no actual hearing, or presentation of evidence, was
    conducted. It is an oft-repeated principle that where opportunity to be
    heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no
    denial of due process.Moreover, the issues that petitioner seeks to tackle in
    the requested hearing on the motion to dismiss, i.e., novation, payment,
    extinguishment or abandonment of the obligation, are the meat of their
    defense and would require the presentation of voluminous evidence. Such
    issues are better threshed out during trial proper. Thus, the trial court was
    not amiss in ruling that petitioner already had the opportunity to be heard
    and there was no longer any need to set another hearing on the motion to
    dismiss.

    On the issue of the Verification/Certification, the court has the power


    to give due course to the complaint even with the supposed defect, if
    special circumstances warrant. Even assuming arguendo, that the form
    used to show Mr. Kurebayashi's authority to execute the Verification and
    Certification Against Forum Shopping is defective, petitioner should bear in
    mind that this Court may relax the application of procedural rules for the
    greater interest of substantial justice.

    This case is one of those that deserve a more lenient application of


    procedural rules, considering that it affects one of the most important public
    utilities of our country. In Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals
    Co., Inc.,1[10] this Court has already stated that these cases involving the
    construction and operation of the country's premier international airport,
    has attained transcendental importance. Therefore, the Court sees it fit to
    relax the rules in this case to arrive at a full settlement of the parties' claims
    and avoid further delay in the administration of justice.

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Court of


    Appeal's Decision dated July 27, 2007, and the CA Resolution  dated
    October 23, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 98166 are hereby AFFIRMED.
     
     

    You might also like