Myline Cordial

Expertravel and Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Korean Airlines
G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005

FACTS:

Korean Airlines (KAL), a foreign corporation filed a collection suit against Expertravel and Tours, Inc. (ETI) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila through its appointed counsel, Atty. Mario Aguinaldo. He signed and indicated in the attached verification and certification against forum shopping that he was the resident agent and legal counsel of KAL and he 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. The motion was opposed by KAL and Atty. Aguinaldo claimed that he had been authorized to file the complaint through a resolution of the KAL Board of Directors approved during a special meeting conducted through a special teleconference. However, he failed to submit a copy of the said resolution.

ISSUE:

Evidence – Was it proper for the court to take judicial notice of the said teleconference?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that 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. In general terms, teleconferencing can bring people together under one roof even though they are separated by hundreds of miles. Teleconferencing and videoconferencing of members of board of directors of private corporations is commonly used in the Philippines to conduct business transactions or corporate governance.

Judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.

Things of “common knowledge,” of which courts take judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge. Teleconferencing is considered a matter of common knowledge.

Full text: Expertravel and Tours, Inc. vs. CA and KAL G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005 459 SCRA 147