This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-02-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that allegations in a complaint for quo warranto that certain persons usurped the offices, powers and functions of duly elected members of the board, trustees and/or officers make out a case for an intra-corporate controversy.[9] Prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8799, the Court, adopting Justice Jose Y. Feria's view, declared in Unilongo v. Court of Appeals [10] that Section 1, Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is "limited to actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp a public office, position or franchise; public officers who forfeit their office; and associations which act as corporations without being legally incorporated," while "[a]ctions of quo warranto against corporations, or against persons who usurp an office in a corporation, fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission and are governed by its rules. (P.D. No. 902-A as amended)."[11] | |||||
|
2004-09-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by law.[8] And second, the nature of the action and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[9] The defenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant.[10] | |||||