Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPEED DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 203023 2015-06-17	PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION v. SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION CARPIO, J.
A combined application of the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test has become the norm in determining whether a case is an intra-corporate controversy,[39] to be "heard and decided by the [bjranches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to try and decide such cases."[40]
	GR No. 175301 2012-08-15	EDITO GULFO v. JOSE P. ANCHETA BRION, J.
These two tests, when applied, have been the guiding principle in determining whether the dispute is an intra-corporate controversy or a civil case.[22]
	GR No. 187872 2010-11-17	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
In upholding the RTC's pronouncement that venue was improperly laid, the CA ruled that STRADEC's first and second causes of action were not intra-corporate disputes because the issues pertaining thereto were civil in nature. In support of the foregoing conclusion, the CA cited Speed Distributing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals[43] where this Court essentially ruled out the existence of an intra-corporate dispute from an action instituted by the wife for the nullification of the transfer of a property between corporations of which her deceased husband was a stockholder. The CA also relied on this Court's pronouncement in Nautica Canning Corporation vs. Yumul[44] to the effect, among others, that an action to determine the validity of the transfer of shares from one stockholder to another is civil in nature and is, therefore, cognizable by regular courts and not the SEC.[45] In addition to the fact that the first case involved a civil action instituted against corporations by one who was not a stockholder thereof, however, STRADEC correctly points out that, unlike the second case, the limited jurisdiction of the SEC is not in issue in the case at bench.
	GR No. 165744 2008-08-11	OSCAR C. REYES v. RTC OF MAKATI BRION, J.
The core question for our determination is whether the trial court, sitting as a special commercial court, has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Rodrigo's complaint. To resolve it, we rely on the judicial principle that "jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein."[12]
	GR NO. 168639 2007-01-29	ALDERITO Z. YUJUICO v. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
5.2. The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court, Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed. (Underscoring supplied) Pursuant to R.A. No. 8799, the Court issued a Resolution dated November 21, 2000 in A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC designating certain branches of the RTC to try and decide cases enumerated in Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A. Branch 48 of RTC, Urdaneta City, the court a quo, is among those designated as a Special Commercial Court. On March 13, 2001, the Court approved the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under R.A. No. 8799 which took effect on April 1, 2001.[18] Sections 1 and 2, Rule 6 of the said Rules provide:SEC. 1. Cases covered. The provisions of this rule shall apply to election contests in stock and non-stock corporations.
	GR NO. 146313 2006-10-31	FLORENCIO ORENDAIN v. BF HOMES VELASCO, JR., J.
In Speed Distributing Corp. v. CA, we held that: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. 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 plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. It cannot depend on the defenses set forth in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration by the defendant (citations omitted).[27] In the case at bench, the BF Homes' Complaint for reconveyance was filed on January 23, 1996 against LSFSIPI and Florencio B. Orendain, in Civil Case No. LP-96-002.