DIGEST/ LINALYN BATION/ MA. LUTGARDA P. CALLEJA, JOAQUIN M. CALLEJA, JR., JADELSON PETER P. CALLEJA, MA. JESSICA T. FLORES, MERCIE C. TIPONES AND PERFECTO NIXON C. TABORA vs JOSE PIERRE A. PANDAY, AUGUSTO R. PANDAY AND MA. THELNA P. MALARI

 

G.R. No. 168696             February 28, 2006

MA. LUTGARDA P. CALLEJA, JOAQUIN M. CALLEJA, JR., JADELSON PETER P. CALLEJA, MA. JESSICA T. FLORES, MERCIE C. TIPONES and PERFECTO NIXON C. TABORA, Petitioners,
vs.
JOSE PIERRE A. PANDAY, AUGUSTO R. PANDAY and MA. THELNA P. MALLARI, Respondents.

 

FACTS:

          On May 16, 2005, respondents filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur (Branch58) for quo warranto with Damages and Prayer for Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction, Damages and Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order against herein petitioners. They alleged that from 1985 up to the filing of the petition with the trial court, they had been members of the board of directors and officers of St. John Hospital, Incorporated, but sometime in May 2005, petitioners, who are also among the incorporators and stockholders of said corporation, forcibly and with the aid of armed men usurped the powers which supposedly belonged to respondents.

Thereafter, Branch 58 issued an order transferring the case to the RTC in Naga City, because according to it, the action for quo warranto should be brought in the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondents/any of the respondents reside (the verified petition showed respondents to be residents of Naga City). Petitioners raised as affirmative defenses: (1) improper venue (2) lack of jurisdiction (3) wrong remedy of quo warranto.

RTC Branch 58 (San Jose) ruled that the MTD is denied and that (pursuant to the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies (A.M. No. 01-2-04- SC) which mandates that motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading (Section 8) and in consonance with Administrative Order 8-01 of the Supreme Court dated March 1, 2001) the case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court Branch 23, Naga City which under A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC has been designated as special court to try and decide intra-corporate controversies under R.A. 8799.

Petitioners then elevated the case to the SC via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. In their Comment, respondents argue that the present petition should be denied due course and dismissed on the grounds that (1) an appeal under Rule 45 is inappropriate in this case because the Order dated July 13, 2005 is merely an interlocutory order and not a final order as contemplated under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the wrong remedy under A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, which provides that “all decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners also filed an urgent motion to restore status quo ante, alleging that on January 12, 2006, respondent Jose Pierre Panday, with the aid of 14 armed men, assaulted the premises of St. John Hospital in Naga City, taking away the daily hospital collections estimated at P400,000.00.

 

ISSUE:

    Whether or not Branch 58 has jurisdiction over the quo warranto

 

RULING:

    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. Prior to the enactment of SEC Code, the Court declared in Unilongo v. Court of Appeals that Section 1, Rule 66 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 [SEC Reorganization Act).” 

    However, R.A. No. 8799 (SEC Code) was passed and Section 5.2 thereof provides as follows:

    “5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under 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. x x x” 

    Therefore, actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp an office in a corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PD 902-A, have been transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But this does not change the fact that Rule 66 does not apply to quo warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation.