SY
TIONG SHIOU, JUANITA TAN G.R. No. 174168
SY, JOLIE ROSS TAN, ROMER
TAN, CHARLIE TAN, and JESSIE Present:
JAMES TAN,
Petitioners, QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
- versus
- VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.*
SY CHIM and FELICIDAD
CHAN Promulgated:
SY,
Respondents. March 30, 2009
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SY CHIM and FELICIDAD CHAN
SY, G.R. No. 179438
Petitioners,
-
versus -
SY TIONG SHIOU and JUANITA
TAN,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
These
consolidated petitions involving the same parties. although related, dwell on different issues.
G.R. No. 174168.
This is a petition for review[1]
assailing the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals dated
On
In
the two other complaints, I.S. No. 03E-15287 and 03E-15288,[6] Sy
Tiong Shiou was charged with
falsification under Article 172, in relation to Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), and perjury under Article 183
of the RPC. According to the Spouses
Sy, Sy Tiong Shiou executed under oath
the 2003 General Information Sheet (GIS)
wherein he falsely stated that the shareholdings of the Spouses Sy had decreased despite the fact that they had not executed
any conveyance of their shares.[7]
Sy
Tiong Shiou, et al. argued before the
prosecutor that the issues involved in the civil case for accounting and
damages pending before the RTC of Manila were intimately related to the two
criminal complaints filed by the Spouses Sy against them, and thus constituted a prejudicial
question that should require the suspension of the criminal complaints. They also argued that the Spouses Sy’s
request for inspection was premature as the latter’s concern may be
properly addressed once an answer is filed in the civil case. Sy Tiong Shiou, on the other hand, denied the
accusations against him, alleging that before the 2003 GIS was submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the same was shown to respondents,
who at that time were the President/Chairman of the Board and Assistant
Treasurer of the corporation, and that they did not object to the entries in
the GIS. Sy Tiong Shiou also argued that
the issues raised in the pending civil case for accounting presented a prejudicial question that necessitated the
suspension of criminal proceedings.
On
The
Spouses Sy elevated the DOJ’s resolutions
to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the DOJ.
The appellate court granted the petition[12]
and directed the City Prosecutor’s Office to file the appropriate
informations against Sy Tiong
Shiou, et al. for violation of Section
74, in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code and of Articles 172 and
183 of the RPC. The appellate court ruled that the civil case for accounting and
damages cannot be deemed prejudicial to the maintenance or prosecution of a
criminal action for violation of Section 74 in relation to Section 144 of the
Corporation Code since a finding in the civil case that respondents mishandled
or misappropriated the funds would not be determinative of their guilt or
innocence in the criminal complaint. In
the same manner, the criminal complaints for falsification and/or perjury
should not have been dismissed on the ground of prejudicial question because
the accounting case is unrelated and not
necessarily determinative of the success or failure of the falsification or
perjury charges. Furthermore, the Court
of Appeals held that there was probable
cause that Sy Tiong Shiou had committed falsification and that the City of
On
Sy
Tiong Shiou, et al. argue that findings of the DOJ in affirming, modifying or
reversing the recommendations of the public prosecutor cannot be the subject of
certiorari or review of the Court of Appeals because the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial
body within the purview of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners rely on the separate opinion of
former Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Roberts,
Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[15]
wherein he wrote that this Court should not be called upon to determine the
existence of probable cause, as there is no provision of law authorizing an
aggrieved party to petition for such a determination.[16]
In any event, they argue, assuming without admitting that the findings of the
DOJ may be subject to judicial review under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, the DOJ has not committed any grave abuse of discretion in affirming the
findings of the City Prosecutor of Manila. They claim that the Spouses Sy’s request for inspection was not made in good faith
and that their motives were tainted with the intention to harass and to
intimidate Sy Tiong Shiou, et al. from
pursuing the criminal and civil cases
pending before the prosecutor’s office and the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of
Indeed,
a preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial function and that the DOJ is not
a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews
the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause.[20] Moreover, it is settled that the preliminary
investigation proper, i.e., the
determination of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused
is guilty of the offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors
and embarrassment of trial, is the function of the prosecution.[21] This Court has adopted a policy of
non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the
investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination
of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for
the filing of information against the supposed offender.[22]
As in every rule, however, there are
settled exceptions. Hence, the principle
of non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion
which would authorize the aggrieved person to file a petition for certiorari
and prohibition under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[23]
As
correctly found by the Court of Appeals, the DOJ gravely abused its discretion
when it suspended the hearing of the charges for violation of the Corporation
Code on the ground of prejudicial question and when it dismissed the criminal complaints.
A
prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an
issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may
proceed since howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would
be determinative juris et de jure of
the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The reason behind the principle of prejudicial question
is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.[24]
The civil action and the criminal
cases do not involve any prejudicial question.
The
civil action for accounting and damages, Civil Case No. 03-106456 pending
before the RTC Manila, Branch 46, seeks the issuance of an order compelling the
Spouses Sy to render a full, complete and true accounting of all the amounts,
proceeds and fund paid to, received and earned by the corporation since 1993
and to restitute it such amounts,
proceeds and funds which the Spouses Sy have misappropriated. The criminal cases, on the other hand, charge
that the Spouses Sy were illegally prevented from getting inside company
premises and from inspecting company records, and that Sy Tiong Shiou falsified
the entries in the GIS, specifically the Spouses Sy’s
shares in the corporation.
Surely, the civil case presents
no prejudicial question to the criminal cases since a finding that the Spouses Sy
mishandled the funds will have no effect
on the determination of guilt in the complaint for violation of Section 74 in
relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code; the civil case concerns the validity of Sy Tiong Shiou’s
refusal to allow inspection of the records, while in the falsification and perjury cases, what is
material is the veracity of the entries made by Sy Tiong Shiou in the sworn
GIS.
Anent the issue
of probable cause, the Court also finds that there is enough probable cause to
warrant the institution of the criminal cases.
The term probable cause does not mean ‘actual and
positive cause’ nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based
on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does
not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a
trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.[25]
In order that
probable cause to file a criminal case may be arrived at, or in order to
engender the well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, the elements
of the crime charged should be present.
This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its
elements, without which there should be–at the most–no criminal offense.[26]
Section
74 of the Corporation Code reads in part:
x x x
The records of all business transactions of the corporation and the minutes of any meeting shall be open to inspection by any director, trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation at reasonable hours on business days and he may demand, in writing, for a copy of excerpts from said records or minutes, at his expense.
Any officer or agent of the corporation who shall refuse to allow any director, trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation to examine and copy excerpts from its records or minutes, in accordance with the provisions of this Code, shall be liable to such director, trustee, stockholder or member for damages, and in addition, shall be guilty of an offense which shall be punishable under Section 144 of this Code: Provided, That if such refusal is made pursuant to a resolution or order of the Board of Directors or Trustees, the liability under this section for such action shall be imposed upon the directors or trustees who voted for such refusal: and Provided, further, That it shall be a defense to any action under this section that the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts from the corporation's records and minutes has improperly used any information secured through any prior examination of the records or minutes of such corporation or of any other corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for a legitimate purpose in making his demand.
Meanwhile,
Section 144 of the same Code provides:
Sec. 144. Violations of the Code.—Violations of any of the provisions of this Code or
its amendments not otherwise specifically penalized therein shall be punished
by a fine of not less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos but not more
than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos or by imprisonment for not less
than thirty (30) days but not more than five (5) years, or both, in the
discretion of the court. If the violation is committed by a corporation, the
same may, after notice and hearing, be dissolved in appropriate proceedings
before the Securities and Exchange Commission: Provided, That such dissolution
shall not preclude the institution of appropriate action against the director,
trustee or officer of the corporation responsible for said violation: Provided, further, That nothing in this
section shall be construed to repeal the other causes for dissolution of a
corporation provided in this Code.
In
the recent case of Ang-Abaya, et al. v. Ang, et al.,[27]
the Court had the occasion to enumerate the requisites before the penal
provision under Section 144 of the Corporation Code may be applied in a case of violation of a stockholder or
member’s right to inspect the corporate books/records as provided for under
Section 74 of the Corporation Code. The elements of the offense, as laid down
in the case, are:
First. A director, trustee, stockholder or member
has made a prior demand in writing for a copy of excerpts from the
corporation’s records or minutes;
Second. Any officer or agent of the concerned
corporation shall refuse to allow the said director, trustee, stockholder or
member of the corporation to examine and copy said excerpts;
Third. If such refusal is made pursuant to a
resolution or order of the board of directors or trustees, the liability under
this section for such action shall be imposed upon the directors or trustees
who voted for such refusal; and,
Fourth. Where the officer or agent of the corporation
sets up the defense that the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts from
the corporation’s records and minutes has improperly used any information
secured through any prior examination of the records or minutes of such
corporation or of any other corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for
a legitimate purpose in making his demand, the contrary must be shown or
proved.[28]
Thus, in a criminal complaint for violation of Section 74 of
the Corporation Code, the defense of improper use or motive is in the nature of
a justifying circumstance that would exonerate those who raise and are able to
prove the same. Accordingly, where the
corporation denies inspection on the ground of improper motive or purpose, the
burden of proof is taken from the shareholder and placed on the corporation.[29] However,
where no such improper motive or purpose is alleged, and even though so
alleged, it is not proved by the corporation, then there is no valid reason to
deny the requested inspection.
In the instant case, however, the Court finds that the denial
of inspection was predicated on the pending civil case against the Spouses Sy.
This is evident from the
Gentlemen:
We
write in behalf of our clients, SY SIY
HO, INC. ( Guan Yiac Hardware); SY TIONG SHIOU, JUANITA TAN SY; JOLIE ROSS TAN;
CHARLIE TAN; ROMER TAN; and JESSE JAMES TAN,
relative to your letter dated
We fully understand your desire for our clients to
respond to your demands, however, under the prevailing circumstance this would
not be advisable. The concerns that you
raised in your letter can later on be addressed after your clients shall have
filed their responsive pleading in the
abovesaid case.
We trust that this response will at the moment be enough.[32]
Even in their Joint Counter-Affidavit
dated 23 September 2003,[33] Sy Tiong Shiou, et al. did not make any allegation that “the person demanding to
examine and copy excerpts from the corporation’s records and minutes has
improperly used any information secured through any prior examination of the
records or minutes of such corporation or of any other corporation, or was not
acting in good faith or for a legitimate purpose in making his demand.”
Instead, they merely reiterated the pendency of the civil case. There being no allegation of improper
motive, and it being undisputed that Sy Tiong Shiou, et al. denied Sy Chim and
Felicidad Chan Sy’s request for inspection, the Court rules and so holds that the DOJ erred in dismissing the criminal
charge for violation of Section 74 in relation to Section 144 of the
Corporation Code.
Now
on the existence of probable cause for the
falsification and/or perjury charges.
The Spouses Sy charge Sy Tiong Shiou
with the offense of falsification of public documents under Article 171,
paragraph 4; and/or perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful
narration of facts are: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated;[34]
(c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the
perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent
to injure a third person.[35] On the other hand, the elements of perjury are: (a) that the accused
made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;
(b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer,
authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that statement or
affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood;
and, (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is
required by law or made for a legal purpose.
A General Information
Sheet (GIS) is required to be filed within thirty (30) days following the date
of the annual or a special meeting, and must be certified and sworn to by the
corporate secretary, or by the president, or any duly authorized officer of the
corporation.[36] From the records, the 2003 GIS submitted to the SEC on
The Court agrees with the Court of
Appeals’ holding, citing the case of Fabia
v. Court of Appeals, that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction no longer
precludes the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the corporate/civil
case.[40] Moreover, the Court finds that the City of
G. R. No. 179438.
This
petition assails the decision[44]
and resolution[45] of the Court of Appeals dated
On
over all corporate funds. The Board granted Juanita Tan’s request and
authorized the employment of an external auditor to render a complete
audit of all the corporate accounting
books and records.[47] Consequently, the Board hired the accounting
firm Banaria, Banaria & Company. In its Report[48]
dated P67,117,230.30 as unaccounted
receipts and disbursements from 1994 to 2002.[49]
A
demand letter[50]
was subsequently served on the Spouses Sy on
On
Meanwhile,
on
By
way of Answer,[57] the Spouses Sy
averred that Sy Chim was a mere
figurehead and Felicidad Chan Sy merely performed clerical functions, as it was Sy Tiong Shiou and
his spouse, Juanita Tan, who have been authorized
by the corporation’s by-laws to supervise, control and administer corporate
funds, and as such were the ones responsible for the unaccounted funds. They assailed the meetings called by Sy Tiong
Shiou on the grounds that the same were held without notice to them and without
their participation, in violation of the by-laws. The Spouses Sy also pursued their counter-claim for moral
and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
On
On
In
its Decision dated
The
Spouses Sy filed a motion for reconsideration, but their
motion was denied on
Sy
Chim and Felicidad Chan Sy argue before this Court that a third-party complaint
is not excluded or prohibited by the Interim Rules, and that the Court of
Appeals erred in ruling that their third-
party complaint is not actionable
because their action is not in respect of the corporation’s claims. They add that the disallowance of the third-party
complaint will result in multiplicity of suits.
The
third-party complaint should be allowed.
The
conflicting provisions of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Inter-Corporate
Controversies read:
Rule 1, Sec. 8. Prohibited pleadings.—The following pleadings are prohibited:
(1) Motion to dismiss;
(2) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of judgment or order, or for re-opening of trial;
(4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper, except those filed due to clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath; and
(5) Motion for postponement and other motions of similar intent, except those filed due to clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath.
Rule 2, Sec.2. Pleadings allowed.—The only pleadings allowed to be filed under these Rules are the complaint, answer, compulsory counterclaims or cross-claims pleaded in the answer, and the answer to the counterclaims or cross-claims.[65]
There is a conflict, for while a
third-party complaint is not included in the allowed pleadings, neither is it
among the prohibited ones. Nevertheless, this conflict may be resolved by
following the well-entrenched rule in statutory construction, that every part
of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute
must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the
general intent of the whole enactment.[66] Statutes, including rules, should be
construed in the light of the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to
be suppressed and they should be given such construction as will advance the
object, suppress the mischief and secure the benefits intended. A statute should therefore be read with
reference to its leading idea, and its general purpose and intention should be
gathered from the whole act, and this predominant purpose will prevail over the
literal import of particular terms or clauses, if plainly apparent, operating
as a limitation upon some and as a reason for expanding the signification of
others, so that the interpretation may accord with the spirit of the entire
act, and so that the policy and object of the statute as a whole may be made
effectual and operative to the widest possible extent.[67] Otherwise
stated, the spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its
construction; hence, a statute, as in the rules in this case, must be read
according to its spirit and intent.[68]
This spirit and intent can be gleaned
from Sec. 3, Rule 1 of the Interim Rules, which reads:
Sec. 3. Construction.—These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, summary, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.[69]
Now, a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim. It is actually a complaint independent of, and separate and distinct from the plaintiff’s complaint. In fact, were it not for Rule 6, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party defendant. Jurisprudence is consistent in declaring that the purpose of a third-party complaint is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts.[70]
It thus
appears that the summary nature of the proceedings governed by the Interim Rules, and the
allowance of the filing of third-party complaints is premised on one objective—the
expeditious disposition of cases. Moreover, following the rule of liberal
interpretation found in the Interim Rules, and taking into consideration the suppletory
application of the Rules of Court under
Rule 1, Sec. 2[71]
of the Interim Rules, the Court finds that a third-party complaint is not, and
should not be prohibited in controversies governed by the Interim Rules. The
logic and justness of this conclusion are rendered beyond question when it is
considered that Sy Tiong Shiou and
Juanita Tan are not complete strangers to the litigation as in fact they are
the moving spirit behind the filing of
the principal complaint for accounting and damages against the Spouses Sy.
The
Court also rules that the third-party complaint of the Spouses Sy should be admitted.
A
prerequisite to the exercise of such right is that some substantive basis for a
third-party claim be found to exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity,
subrogation, contribution or other substantive right. The bringing of a
third-party defendant is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to
the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the
original defendant, although the third-party defendant’s liability arises out
of another transaction. The defendant
may implead another as third-party defendant: (a) on an allegation of liability
of the latter to the defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief; (b) on the
ground of direct
liability of the third-party
defendant to the plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the third-party defendant
to both the plaintiff and the defendant.[72]
In
determining the sufficiency of the third-party complaint, the allegations in
the original complaint and the
third-party complaint must be examined.
A third-party complaint must allege facts which prima facie show that the defendant is entitled to contribution,
indemnity, subrogation or other relief from the third-party defendant.[73]
The
complaint alleges that the Spouses Sy,
as officers of the corporation, have acted illegally in raiding its corporate
funds, hence they are duty bound to render a full, complete and true accounting
of all the amounts, proceeds and funds paid to, received and earned by the
corporation since 1993 and to restitute
to the corporation all such amounts, proceeds,
and funds which they took and misappropriated for their own use and benefit, to
the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff and its stockholders.[74] On the other hand, in the third-party
complaint, the Spouses Sy claim that it
is Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan who had full and complete control of the
day-to day operations and complete
control and custody of the funds of the corporation, and hence they are
the ones liable
for any shortfall
or unaccounted
difference of the corporation’s cash account. Thus, Sy Tiong Shiou and
Juanita Tan should render a full, complete and true accounting of all the
amounts, proceeds, funds paid to, received and earned by the corporation since 1993, including the
amount attributed to the Spouses Sy in
the complaint for accounting and damages.
In their prayer, the Spouses Sy
moved that Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan be declared as directly and solely
liable in respect of the corporation’s claim for accounting and damages, and
that in the event that they, the Spouses Sy, are adjudged liable to the corporation, Sy
Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan be ordered to pay all amounts necessary to
discharge their liability to the corporation by way of indemnity or
reimbursement.
The allegations in the third-party
complaint impute direct liability on the part of Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan
to the corporation for the very same claims which the corporation interposed
against the Spouses Sy. It is clear therefore that the Spouses Sy’s third-party complaint is in respect of
the plaintiff corporation’s claims,[75]
and thus the allowance of the third-party complaint is warranted.
WHEREFORE, these
cases are resolved as follows:
G.R. No. 174168
The
petition for review is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated
Costs against the petitioners.
G.R. No. 179438
The
petition is GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*Additional member per Raffle dated
[2]
[5]Civil Case No. 03-106456-00 is for Accounting and Damages pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 46. Incidentally, the other petition, G. R. No. 179438 is an offshoot of this civil case.
[7]The 2003 GIS, compared to the 2002 GIS showed a decrease from 33.75 % to only 17.40 % ownership of the outstanding capital stock of the corporation for Sy Chim and a decrease from 16.88% to 8.70% ownership of the outstanding capital stock for Felicidad Chan Sy.
[26]G.R. No. 178511, 4 December 2008, citing Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130191, April 27, 1998, 289 SCRA 721.
[29]
[34]“Legal obligation “means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated, Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two 210, (15th Ed., Rev. 2001).
[38]
[41]Saavedra, Jr. v. Department of Justice, G.R.
No. 93173,
1.The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;
2.The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath;
3.In that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
4.The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
[45]Rollo (G.R. No. 179438), pp. 363-373; Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan v. Hon. Artemio S. Tipon, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46,
[59]
[65]SC-A.M.
No.
[67]H.C. Black, Handbook on the Construction on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws 322, (2nd Ed, 1971).
[70]Tayao v.
Mendoza, G.R. No. 162733, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 726,
732-733; Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company of the Philippines v. Tempongco, 137 Phil. 238, 243 (1969); British Airways v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 379, 394 (1998) citing 67 CJS 1034.
In
Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 160242, 17 May 2005, the Court had the occasion to declare that “the
purpose of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court is to permit a defendant to
assert an independent claim against a third-party which he, otherwise, would
assert in another action, thus preventing multiplicity of suits.”
[71]SEC. 2. Suppletory application of the Rules of Court.—The Rules of Court, in so far as they may be applicable and are not inconsistent with these Rules, are hereby adopted to form an integral part of these Rules.
[72]Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160242, 17 May 2005, 458 SCRA 750, 759.
[75]Allied
Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 85868,