This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Section 2 of Executive Order No. 14 had no application herein simply because the subject matter involved was an intra-corporate controversy, not any incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to any case involving assets whose nature as ill-gotten wealth was yet to be determined. In San Miguel Corporation v. Kahn,[139] the Court held that:The subject matter of his complaint in the SEC does not therefore fall within the ambit of this Court's Resolution of August 10, 1988 on the cases just mentioned, to the effect that, citing PCGG v. Pena, et al., all cases of the Commission regarding 'the funds, moneys, assets, and properties illegally acquired or misappropriated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees, whether civil or criminal, are lodged within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,' and all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to, such cases necessarily fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan's exclusive and original jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court." His complaint does not involve any property illegally acquired or misappropriated by Marcos, et al., or "any incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to" any case involving such property, but assets indisputably belonging to San Miguel Corporation which were, in his (de los Angeles') view, being illicitly committed by a majority of its board of directors to answer for loans assumed by a sister corporation, Neptunia Co., Ltd. | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| a) the party bringing suit should be a shareholder as of the time of the act or transaction complained of, the number of his shares not being material; b) he has tried to exhaust intra-corporate remedies, i.e., has made a demand on the board of directors for the appropriate relief but the latter has failed or refused to heed his plea; and c) the cause of action actually devolves on the corporation, the wrongdoing or harm having been, or being caused to the corporation and not to the particular stockholder bringing the suit.[21] | |||||
|
2008-05-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The present case involves the question of the propriety of dilution of the Republic's shares in Domsat. The Sandiganbayan cited San Miguel Corporation v. Kahn[13] (San Miguel) in its footnotes to support its ruling. However, contrary to the Sandiganbayan's ruling, we find that San Miguel does not stand on all fours with the present case. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With regard to the third and fourth issues, petitioners argue that by virtue of this Court's ruling in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,[11] the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the present case because it does not concern or involve the question of sequestration, freezing or provisional takeover of property by the government; following this Court's pronouncements in San Miguel Corporation vs. Kahn[12] and Holiday Inn (Phils) vs. Sandiganbayan[13] it can be seen that not all civil cases filed by or against the Republic through PCGG fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; Lee assigned his shares in Mountain View to the Government, as such, the Republic merely became the stockholder of Mountain View; and in view of the doctrine that a corporation has its own personality separate and distinct from its stockholders, it must be Mountain View which should have filed the instant case as the real party-in-interest.[14] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court is likewise not persuaded by petitioners' claim that our rulings in Holiday Inn vs. Sandiganbayan[34] and San Miguel Corporation vs. Kahn[35] apply to the present case. | |||||