4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly enrichment on Llorente's part who would be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at EPCIB's expense.[20] Thus, the CA in its Decision dated September 30, 2013 ruled that Llorente's appeal was bereft of any merit while that of EPCIB was partially considered.[21] The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 16 April 2009 of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with the modification that EPCIB is ABSOLVED from any liability under Civil Case No. 02-1423. SO ORDERED.[22] Llorente filed a motion for reconsideration while SCPL filed a motion for partial reconsideration. The CA denied both motions in its Resolution[23] dated April 10, 2014. Hence, the instant Rule 45 petitions for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 212050 filed by Llorente and in G.R. No. 212216 filed by SCPL, respectively. Regarding G.R. No. 212050, SCPL filed its Comment[24] dated September 24, 2014 and Llorente filed his Reply[25] dated October 8, 2014. Regarding G.R. No. 212216, EPCIB filed its Comment[26] dated October 4, 2014. Llorente filed an Explanation[27] dated August 14, 2015 wherein he manifested that he deemed it more proper and appropriate to forego the filing of a Comment in G.R. No. 212216 considering the consolidation of the two petitions and the issues and arguments raised therein are substantially the same and inter-related with one another.[28] The Issues In G.R. No. 212050, Llorente raises the following issues: 1. whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision despite the latter's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; 2. whether the CA erred in finding that SCPL has legal capacity to sue under the isolated transaction rule; and 3. whether the designation of the law firm of Jimeno, Jalandoni and Cope (JJC Law) as attorney-in-fact of SCPL constitutes gross violation of Section 69 of the Corporation Code.[29] In G.R. No. 212216, SCPL raises the following issues: 1. whether the CA erred when it modified the RTC Decision by absolving EPCIB of any liability; and 2. whether in absolving EPCIB the CA ignored the express provisions of law and anchored its ratio on evidence that was not at all proven in trial.[30] The Court's Ruling https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911 5/22