This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| As Ching and Wellington exemplifies, the action should be a proper derivative suit even if the assailed acts do not pertain to a corporation's transactions with third persons. Cua, Jr. established that the pivotal consideration is whether the wrong done as well as the cause of action arising from it accrues to the corporation itself or to the whole body of its stockholders. Ching and Wellington states that if "[t]he causes of action pleaded ... do not accrue to a single shareholder or a class of shareholders but to the corporation itself,"[122] the action should be deemed a derivative suit. Also, in Go, an action "seeking to nullify and invalidate the duly constituted acts [of a corporation]" entails a cause of action that "rightfully pertains to [the corporation itself and which stockholders] cannot exercise . . . except through a derivative suit."[123] | |||||
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The burden of procuring the presence of all indispensable parties is on the plaintiff. The evident purpose of the rule is to prevent the multiplicity of suits by requiring the person arresting a right against the defendant to include with him, either as co-plaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons standing in the same position, so that the whole matter in dispute may be determined once and for all in one litigation. From all indications, PHCC is an indispensable party and should have been impleaded, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, in the complaint filed before the HLURB as it would be directly and adversely affected by any determination therein. To belabor the point, the causes of action, or the acts complained of, were the acts of PHCC as a corporate body[.][127] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2014-12-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On the first issue, we agree with the CA that the HLURB has jurisdiction over the present controversy. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[11] We have ruled that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.[12] | |||||
|
2014-09-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On the issue of whether the Complaint is indeed a derivative suit, we are mindful of the doctrine that the nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[20] We have also held that the body rather than the title of the complaint determines the nature of an action.[21] | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As regards the issue of jurisdiction, the Court has determined that contrary to the ruling of the CA, it is the LA, and not the regular courts, which has the original jurisdiction over the subject controversy. An intra-corporate controversy, which falls within the jurisdiction of regular courts, has been regarded in its broad sense to pertain to disputes that involve any of the following relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (2) between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among the stockholders, partners or associates, themselves.[29] Settled jurisprudence, however, qualifies that when the dispute involves a charge of illegal dismissal, the action may fall under the jurisdiction of the LAs upon whose jurisdiction, as a rule, falls termination disputes and claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations as provided in Article 217 of the Labor Code. Consistent with this jurisprudence, the mere fact that Cosare was a stockholder and an officer of Broadcom at the time the subject controversy developed failed to necessarily make the case an intra-corporate dispute. | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence on the procedural consequence of the inclusion or non-inclusion of an indispensable party is divided in our jurisdiction. Due to the non-inclusion of indispensable parties, the Court dismissed the case in Lucman v. Malawi, et al.[59] and Go v. Distinction Properties Development Construction, Inc.,[60] while in Casals, et al. v. Tayud Golf and Country Club et al.,[61] the Court annulled the judgment which was rendered without the inclusion of the indispensable parties. | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.[18] Also illuminating is the Court's pronouncement in Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.:[19] | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| An intra-corporate controversy is one which pertains to any of the following relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (2) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.[22] Thus, under the relationship test, the existence of any of the above intra-corporate relations makes the case intra-corporate.[23] | |||||
|
2013-07-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In his first assigned error, petitioner contends that respondent is not an indispensable party. The Court is not persuaded. On the contrary, the Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that it is the integrity and correctness of the public records in the custody of the PNP, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) which are involved and which would be affected by any decision rendered in the petition for correction filed by herein petitioner. The aforementioned government agencies are, thus, required to be made parties to the proceeding. They are indispensable parties, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.[12] In the fairly recent case of Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.,[13] the Court had the occasion to reiterate the principle that: Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. It is "precisely 'when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed.' The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present." The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.[14] | |||||