G.R. No. 152392, 26 May 2005


Korean Airlines (KAL) is a corporation established and registered in the Republic of South Korea and licensed to do business in the Philippines. Its general manager in the Philippines is Suk Kyoo Kim, while its appointed counsel was Atty. Mario Aguinaldo and his law firm.

KAL, through Atty. Aguinaldo, filed a Complaint against ETI with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, for the collection of a sum of money. The verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by Atty. Aguinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the resident agent and legal counsel of KAL and had caused the preparation of the complaint.

ETI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Atty. Aguinaldo was not authorized to execute the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. KAL later submitted an Affidavit executed by its general manager Suk Kyoo Kim, alleging that the board of directors conducted a special teleconference, which he and Atty. Aguinaldo attended. It was also averred that in that same teleconference, the board of directors approved a resolution authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to execute the certificate of non-forum shopping and to file the complaint. Suk Kyoo Kim also alleged, however, that the corporation had no written copy of the aforesaid resolution.

The trial court issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss, giving credence to the claims of Atty. Aguinaldo and Suk Kyoo Kim that the KAL Board of Directors indeed conducted a teleconference during which it approved a resolution as quoted in the submitted affidavit. ETI filed a motion for the reconsideration of the Order, contending that it was inappropriate for the court to take judicial notice of the said teleconference without any prior hearing.

However, the trial court denied the motion in its Order dated August 8, 2000.

ETI then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, assailing the orders of the RTC. CA afterwards rendered judgment dismissing the petition, ruling that the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping executed by Atty. Aguinaldo was sufficient compliance with the Rules of Court. According to the appellate court, Atty. Aguinaldo had been duly authorized by the approved board resolution, and was the resident agent of KAL.

As such, the RTC could not be faulted for taking judicial notice of the said teleconference of the KAL Board of Directors. ETI filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, which the CA denied.


Whether or not the courts can take judicial notice of said teleconference?


Yes. In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is interactive group communication (three or more people in two or more locations) through an electronic medium. It represents a unique alternative to face-to-face (FTF) meetings. In general terms, teleconferencing can bring people together under one roof even though they are separated by hundreds of miles. This type of group communication may be used in a number of ways, and have three basic types:

(1) video conferencing – television-like communication augmented with sound;
(2) computer conferencing – printed communication through keyboard terminals, and
(3) audio-conferencing-verbal communication via the telephone with optional capacity for telewriting or telecopying.

Teleconferencing and videoconferencing of members of board of directors of private corporations is a reality, in light of Republic Act No. 8792. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15, on November 30, 2001, providing the guidelines to be complied with related to such conferences. Thus, the Court agrees with the RTC that persons in the Philippines may have a teleconference with a group of persons in South Korea relating to business transactions or corporate governance.

*Case Digest by Benjie L. Sumalpong, JD – 4, Andres Bonifacio College, SY 2019 – 2020