The pitfall of quoting a decision which quotes a decision

On pages 219 and 220 of the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Sundiang Jr. and Aquino we have this problem  (pasted together) posed by the authors :

At the beginning we see that IAI, Inc., through LG, sold shares to AI, Inc. But towards the end of the paragraph it appears that LG was authorized to purchase the shares, not sell them. What gives?

The book based the problem on Inter-Asia Investment Industries, Inc. vs CA, GR 125778, June 10, 2003. The switch from sale to purchase happened when toward the end of the problem the authors grafted the earlier decision quoted by SC in Inter-Asia. See Inter-Asia to see how the switch happened. Just a hint: it was really a sale.

This, I believe, is a pitfall for any author who tries to get a more recent decision for the sake of being more updated but eventually has to quote a precedent decision contained in the recent one.

This befell another book which I discussed here.