Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > January 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 206038, January 25, 2017 - MARY E. LIM, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REYNALDO V. LIM, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX LAND, INC., 1322 ROXAS BOULEVARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, AND JEFFREY JAMINOLA, EDGARDO MACALINTAL, JOJI MILANES, AND CLOTHILDA ANNE ROMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 1322 GOLDEN EMPIRE CORPORATION, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 206038, January 25, 2017 - MARY E. LIM, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REYNALDO V. LIM, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX LAND, INC., 1322 ROXAS BOULEVARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, AND JEFFREY JAMINOLA, EDGARDO MACALINTAL, JOJI MILANES, AND CLOTHILDA ANNE ROMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 1322 GOLDEN EMPIRE CORPORATION, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 206038, January 25, 2017

MARY E. LIM, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REYNALDO V. LIM, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX LAND, INC., 1322 ROXAS BOULEVARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, AND JEFFREY JAMINOLA, EDGARDO MACALINTAL, JOJI MILANES, AND CLOTHILDA ANNE ROMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 1322 GOLDEN EMPIRE CORPORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 4, 2013 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24, (RTC) in Civil Case No. 12-128478, which dismissed the complaint against the respondents for 1] annulment of the July 21, 2012 general membership meeting of 1322 Roxas Boulevard Condominium Corporation (Condocor); 2] annulment of election of Jeffrey Jaminola (Jaminola), Edgardo Macalintal (Macalintal), Joji Milanes (Milanes), and Clothilda Anne Roman (Roman) (collectively referred to as "individual respondents") as members of the Board of Directors; and 3] accounting.

The primordial issue presented before the RTC, acting as a special commercial court, was the validity, legality and effectivity of the July 21, 2012 Annual General Membership Meeting and Organizational Meeting of Condocor's Board of Directors.2

Initially, the Court, in its Resolution3 dated April 1, 2013, denied the petition for having availed of the wrong mode of appeal because Lim raised mixed questions of fact and law, which should have been filed before the Court of Appeals (CA).4 Upon motion for reconsideration, however, the Court granted it. Thereafter, the respondents filed their Comment5 and Lim filed a Reply6 thereto.

The Antecedents

Lim is a registered unit owner of 1322 Golden Empire Tower (Golden Empire Tower), a condominium project of Moldex Land, Inc. (Moldex), a real estate company engaged in the construction and development of high� end condominium projects and in the marketing and sale of the units thereof to the general public. Condocor, a non-stock, non-profit corporation, is the registered condominium corporation for the Golden Empire Tower. Lim, as a unit owner of Golden Empire Tower, is a member of Condocor.

Lim claimed that the individual respondents are non-unit buyers, but all are members of the Board of Directors of Condocor, having been elected during its organizational meeting in 2008. They were again elected during the July 21, 2012 general membership meeting.7

Moldex became a member of Condocor on the basis of its ownership of the 220 unsold units in the Golden Empire Tower. The individual respondents acted: as its representatives.

On July 21, 2012, Condocor held its annual general membership meeting. Its COrPorate secretary certified, and Jaminola, as Chairman, declared the existence of a quorum even though only 29 of the 1088 unit buyers were present. The declaration of quorum was based on the presence of the majority of the voting rights, including those pertaining to the 220 unsold units held by Moldex through its representatives. Lim, through her attorney-in-fact, objected to the validity of the meeting. The objection was denied. Thus, Lim and all the unit owners present, except for one, walked out and left the meeting.

Despite the walkout, the individual respondents and the other unit owner proceeded with the annual general membership meeting and elected the new members of the Board of Directors for 2012-2013. All four (4) individual respondents were voted as members of the board, together with three (3) others whose election was conditioned on their subsequent confirmation.9 Thereafter, the newly elected members of the board conducted an organizational meeting and proceeded with the election of its officers. The individual respondents were elected as follows:

1.
Atty. Jeffrey Jaminola
-
Chairman of the
Board and President
2.
Ms. Joji Milanes
-
Vice-President
3.
Ms. Clothilda Ann Roman
-
Treasurer
4.
Mr. Edgardo Macalintal
-
Corporate Secretary
5.
Atty. Ma. Rosario Bernardo
-
Asst. Corporate
Secretary
6.
Atty. Mary Rose Pascual
-
Asst. Corporate
Secretary
7.
Atty. Jasmin Cuizon
-
Asst. Corporate
Secretary10
Consequently, Lim filed an election protest before the RTC. Said court, however, dismissed the complaint holding that there was a quorum during the July 21, 2012 annual membership meeting; that Moldex is a member of Condocor, being the registered owner of the unsold/unused condominium units, parking lots and storage areas; and that the individual respondents, as Moldex's representatives, were entitled to exercise all membership rights, including the right to vote and to be voted.11� In so ruling, the trial court explained that the presence or absence of a quorum in the subject meeting was determined on the basis of the voting rights of all the units owned by the members in good standing.12 The total voting rights of unit owners in good standing was 73,376 and, as certified by the corporate secretary, 83.33% of the voting rights in good standing were present in the said meeting, inclusive of the 58,504 voting rights of Moldex.13

Not in conformity, Lim filed the subject petition raising the following

ISSUES
  1. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF QUORUM AT GENERAL OR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR, EVEN NON� UNIT BUYERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED DESPITE THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF ITS BY-LAWS, THE LAW AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE;

  2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT MOLDEX IS A MEMBER OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR AND THAT IT MAY APPOINT INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS TO REPRESENT IT THEREIN;

  3. EVEN ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENT MOLDEX MAY BE A MEMBER OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR, THERE IS STILL NO BASIS FOR IT TO BE ELECTED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR BECAUSE IT IS A JURIDICAL PERSON;

  4. ASSUMING FURTHER THAT DESPITE BEING A JURIDICAL PERSON, IT MAY BE ELECTED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE LOWER COURT TO HOLD THAT RESPONDENT MOLDEX HAS AUTOMATICALLY RESERVED FOUR SEATS THEREIN; AND

  5. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING TO RECOGNIZE RESPONDENT MOLDEX AS OWNER� DEVELOPER HAVING FOUR RESERVED SEATS IN RESPONDENT CONDOCOR BOARD, AS SUCH RULING EFFECTIVELY ALLOWED THE VERY EVIL THAT PD 957 SOUGHT TO PREVENT FROM DOMINATING THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR TO THE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND INJURY OF PETITIONER AND THE OTHER UNIT BUYERS, WHO ARE THE BONA FIDE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT CONDOCOR.
In sum, the primordial issues to be resolved are: 1) whether the July 21, 2012 membership meeting was valid; 2) whether Moldex can be deemed a member of Condocor; and 3) whether a non-unit owner can be elected as a member of the Board of Directors of Condocor.

Procedural Issues

The issues raised being purely legal, the Court may properly entertain the subject petition.

The subject case was initially denied because it appeared that Lim raised mixed questions of fact and law which should have been filed before the CA. After judicious perusal of Lim's arguments, however, the Court ascertained that a reconsideration of its April 1, 2013 Resolution14 was in order.

It has been consistently held that only pure questions of law can be entertained in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Banas,15 the Court held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal from a ruling of a lower tribunal on pure questions of law. It is only in exceptional circumstances that we admit and review questions of fact.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.

Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.16 [Emphasis supplied]
Respondents argued that the initial denial of the petition was correct because Lim availed of the wrong mode of appeal.� As the assailed judgment involved an intra-corporate dispute cognizable by the RTC, the appeal should have been filed before the CA, and not before this Court.

Doubtless, this case involves intra-corporate controversies and, thus, jurisdiction lies with the RTC, acting as a special commercial court. Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799 (R.A. No. 8799)17 effectively transferred to the appropriate RTCs jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A (P.D. No. 902-A), to wit:

a)
Devices or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholder, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission;
b)
Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members, or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity; and
c)
Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations. [Emphasis supplied]

Pursuant to A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, 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 shall be appealable to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Such petition shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of the RTC. 18

In turn, Rule 43 governs the procedure for appeals from judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies to the CA, whether it involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. Nevertheless, a party may directly file a petition for review on certiorari before the Court to question the judgment of a lower court, especially when the issue raised is purely of law and is one of novelty.

Substantive Issues

Lim is still a member
of Condocor


Respondents argued that Lim had no cause of action to file the subject action because she was no longer the owner of a condominium unit by virtue of a Deed of Assignment19 she executed in favor of Reynaldo Valera Lim and Dianna Mendoza Lim, her nephew and niece.

Section 90 of the Corporation Code states that membership in a non� stock corporation and all rights arising therefrom are personal and non� transferable, unless the articles of incorporation or the by-laws otherwise provide. A perusal of Condocor's By-Laws as regards membership and transfer of rights or ownership over the unit reveal that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Membership in the CORPORATION is a mere appurtenance of the ownership of any unit in the CONDOMINIUM and may not therefore be sold, transferred or otherwise encumbered separately from the said unit. Any member who sells or transfer his/her/its unit/s in the CONDOMINIUM shall automatically cease to be a member of the CORPORATION, the membership being automatically assumed by the buyer or transferee upon registration of the sale or transfer and ownership of the latter over the unit with the Register of Deeds for the City of Manila.20 [Emphasis supplied.]
Likewise, the Master Deed of Condocor provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 11 : MORTGAGES, LIENS, LEASES, TRANSFERS OF RIGHTS AND SALE OF UNITS : All transactions involving the transfer of the ownership or occupancy of any UNIT, such as sale, transfer of rights or leases, as well as encumbrances involving said UNIT, such as mortgages, liens and the like, shall be reported to the CORPORATION within five (5) days after the effectivity of said transactions.21
Nothing in the records showed that the alleged transfer made by Lim was registered with the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila or was reported to the corporation. Logically, until and unless the registration is effected, Lim remains to be the registered owner of the condominium unit and thus, continues to be a member of Condocor.

Moreover, even assuming that there was a transfer by virtue of the Deed of Assignment, the Confirmatory Special Power of Attorney22 executed later by Lim, wherein she reiterated her membership in Condocor and constituted Reynaldo V. Lim as her true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact, strengthened the fact that she still owns the condominium unit and that there has been no transfer of ownership over the said property to her nephew, but only a mere assi nment of rights to the latter. As held by the Court in Casabuena v. CA,23 3 at most, an assignee can only acquire rights duplicating those which his assignor is entitled by law to exercise.24 Had it been otherwise, Reynaldo V. Lim himself would have questioned and objected to the granting of the special power of attorney, and would have insisted that he was really the owner of the condominium unit.

In non-stock corporations, quorum
is determined by the majority
of its actual members


In corporate parlance, the term "meeting" applies to every duly convened assembly either of stockholders, members, directors, trustees, or managers for any legal purpose, or the transaction of business of a common interest.25 Under Philippine corporate laws, meetings may either be regular or special. A stockholders' or members' meeting must comply with the following requisites to be valid:

  1. The meeting must be held on the date fixed in the By� Laws or in accordance with law;26
  2. Prior written notice of such meeting must be sent to all stockholders/members of record;27
  3. It must be called by the proper party;28
  4. It must be held at the proper place;29 and
  5. �Quorum and voting requirements must be met.30
Of these five (5) requirements, the existence of a quorum is crucial. Any act or transaction made during a meeting without quorum is rendered of no force and effect, thus, not binding on the corporation or parties concerned.

In relation thereto, Section 52 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (Corporation Code) provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 52. Quorum in meetings. - Unless otherwise provided for in this Code or in the by-laws, a quorum shall consist of the stockholders representing a majority of the outstanding capital stock or a majority of the members in the case of non-stock corporations.
Thus, for stock corporations, the quorum is based on the number of outstanding voting stocks while for non-stock corporations, only those who are actual, living members with voting rights shall be counted in determining the existence of a quorum.31

To be clear, the basis in determining the presence of quorum in non� stock corporations is the numerical equivalent of all members who are entitled to vote, unless some other basis is provided by the By-Laws of the corporation. The qualification "with voting rights" simply recognizes the power of a non-stock corporation to limit or deny the right to vote of any of its members.32� To include these members without voting rights in the total number of members for purposes of quorum would be superfluous for although they may attend a particular meeting, they cannot cast their vote on any matter discussed therein.

Similarly, Section 6 of Condocor's By-Laws reads: "The attendance of a simple majority of the members who are in good standing shall constitute a quorum...x x x." The phrase, "members in good standing," is a mere qualification as to which members will be counted for purposes of quorum. As can be gleaned from Condocor's By-Laws, there are two (2) kinds of members: 1) members in good standing; and 2) delinquent members. Section 6 merely stresses that delinquent members are not to be taken into consideration in determining quorum. In relation thereto, Section 733� of the By-Laws, referring to voting rights, also qualified that only those members in good standing are entitled to vote. Delinquent members are stripped off their right to vote. Clearly, contrary to the ruling of the RTC, Sections 6 and 7 ofCondocor's By-Laws do not provide that majority of the total voting rights, without qualification, will constitute a quorum.

It must be emphasized that insofar as Condocor is concerned, quorum is different from voting rights. Applying the law and Condocor's By-Laws, if there are 100 members in a non-stock corporation, 60 of which are members in good standing, then the presence of 50% plus I of those members in good standing will constitute a quorum. Thus, 31 members in good standing will suffice in order to consider a meeting valid as regards the presence of quorum. The 31 members will naturally have to exercise their voting rights. It is in this instance when the number of voting rights each member is entitled to becomes significant. If 29 out of the 31 members are entitled to 1 vote each, another member (known as A) is entitled to 20 votes and the remaining member (known as B) is entitled to 15 votes, then the total number of voting rights of all 31 members is 64. Thus, majority of the 64 total voting rights, which is 33 (50% plus 1), is necessary to pass a valid act. Assuming that only A and B concurred in approving a specific undertaking, then their 35 combined votes are more than sufficient to authorize such act.

The By-Laws of Condocor has no rule different from that provided in the Corporation Code with respect the determination of the existence of a quorum. The quorum during the July 21, 2012 meeting should have been majority of Condocor's members in good standing. Accordingly, there was no quorum during the July 21,2012 meeting considering that only 29 of the 108 unit buyers were present.

As there was no quorum, any resolution passed during the July 21, 2012 annual membership meeting was null and void and, therefore, not binding upon the corporation or its members. The meeting being null and void, the resolution and disposition of other legal issues emanating from the null and void July 21, 2012 membership meeting has been rendered unnecessary.

To serve as a guide for the bench and the bar, however, the Court opts to discuss and resolve the same.

Moldex is a member of
Condocor

Matters involving a condominium are governed by Republic Act No. 4726 (Condominium Act). Said law sanctions the creation of a condominium corporation which is especially formed for the purpose of holding title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, in which the holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas.34� In relation thereto, Section 10 of the same law clearly provides that the condominium corporation shall constitute the management body of the project.

Membership in a condominium corporation is limited only to the unit owners of the condominium project. This is provided in Section 10 of the Condominium Act which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Membership in a condominium corporation, regardless of whether it is a stock or non-stock corporation, shall not be transferable separately from the condominium unit of which it is an appurtenance. When a member or stockholder ceases to own a unit in the project in which the condominium corporation owns or holds the common areas, he shall automatically cease to be a member or stockholder of the condominium corporation.35� [Emphasis supplied]
Although the Condominium Act provides for the minimum requirement for membership in a condominium corporation, a corporation's articles of incorporation or by-laws may provide for other terms of membership, so long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the law, the enabling or master deed, or the declaration of restrictions of the condominium project.

In this case, Lim argued that Moldex cannot be a member of Condocor. She insisted that a condominium corporation is an association of homeowners for the purpose of managing the condominium project, among others. Thus, it must be composed of actual unit buyers or residents of the condominium project.36� Lim further averred that the ownership contemplated by law must result from a sale transaction between the owner� developer and the purchaser. She advanced the view that the ownership of Moldex was only in the nature of an owner-developer and only for the sole purpose of selling the units.37� In justifying her arguments, Lim cited Section 30 of Presidential Decreee No. 957, known as The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree (P.D. No. 957), to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 30. Organization of Homeowners Association. The owner or developer of a subdivision project or condominium project shall initiate the organization of a homeowners association among the buyers and residents of the projects for the purpose of promoting and protecting their mutual interest and assist in their community development. [Emphasis in the original.]
Furthermore, in distinguishing between a unit buyer and an owner� developer of a project, Lim cited Section 25 of P.D. No. 957, which provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. xxx
Likewise, Lim relied on Sunset View Condominium Corp. v. Hon. Campos, Jr.,38� where the Court wrote:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The share of stock appurtenant to the unit will be transferred accordingly to the purchaser of the unit only upon full payment of the purchase price at which time he will also become the owner of the unit. Consequently, even under the contract, it is only the owner of a unit who is a shareholder of the Condominium Corporation. Inasmuch as owners is conveyed only upon full payment of the purchase price, it necessarily follows that a purchaser of a unit who has not paid the full purchase price thereof is not the owner of the unit and consequently is not a shareholder of the Condominium Corporation. [Emphasis in the original]
On these grounds, Lim asserted that only unit buyers are entitled to become members of Condocor.39

The Court finds itself unable to agree.

Lim's reliance of P.D. No. 957 is misplaced. There is no provision in P.D. No. 957 which states that an owner-developer of a condominium project cannot be a member of a condominium corporation. Section 30 of P.D. No. 957 determines the purposes of a homeowners association - to promote and protect the mutual interest of the buyers and residents, and to assist in their community development. A condominium corporation, however, is not just a management body of the condominium project. It also holds title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas. Hence, it is especially governed by the Condominium Act. Clearly, a homeowners association is different from a condominium corporation. P.D. No. 957 does not regulate condominium corporations and, thus, cannot be applied in this case.

Sunset View merely delineated the difference between a "purchaser" and an "owner," whereby the former could be considered an owner only upon full payment of the purchase price. The case merely clarified that not every purchaser of a condominium unit could be a shareholder of the condominium corporation.

Respondents, for their part, countered that a registered owner of a unit in a condominium project or the holders of duly issued condominium certificate of title (CCT),40� automatically becomes a member of the condominium corporation,41� relying on Sections 2 and 10 of the Condominium Act, the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions, as well as the By-Laws of Condocor. For said reason, respondents averred that as Moldex is the owner of 220 unsold units and the parking slots and storage areas attached thereto, it automatically became a member of Condocor upon the latter's creation.42

On this point, respondents are correct. Section 2 of the Condominium Act states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known as the "condominium corporation") in which the holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas. [Emphasis supplied]
In Sunset View,43� the Court elucidated on what constitutes "separate interest," in relation to membership, as mentioned in the Condominium Act, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
By necessary implication, the "separate interest" in a condominium, which entitles the holder to become automatically a shareholder in the condominium corporation, as provided in Section 2 of the Condominium Act, can be no other than ownership of a unit.� This is so because nobody can be a shareholder unless he is the owner of a unit and when he ceases to be the owner, he also ceases automatically to be a shareholder.44� [Emphasis supplied.]
Thus, law and jurisprudence dictate that ownership of a unit entitles one to become a member of a condominium corporation. The Condominium Act does not provide a specific mode of acquiring ownership. Thus, whether one becomes an owner of a condominium unit by virtue of sale or donation is of no moment.

It is erroneous to argue that the ownership must result from a sale transaction between the owner-developer and the purchaser. Such interpretation would mean that persons who inherited a unit, or have been donated one, and properly transferred title in their names cannot become members of a condominium corporation.

The next issue is - may Moldex appoint duly authorized representatives who will exercise its membership rights, specifically the right to be voted as corporate directors/officers?

Moldex may appoint a
duly authorized representative


A corporation can act only through natural persons duly authorized for the purpose or by a specific act of its board of directors.45� Thus, in order for Moldex to exercise its membership rights and privileges, it necessarily has to appoint its representatives.

Section 58 of the Corporation Code mandates:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 58. Proxies. - Stockholders and members may vote in person or by proxy in all meetings of stockholders or members. Proxies shall in writing, signed by the stockholder or member and filed before the scheduled meeting with the corporate secretary. Unless otherwise provided in the proxy, it shall be valid only for the meeting for which it is intended. No proxy shall be valid and effective for a period longer than five (5) years at any one time. [Emphasis supplied]
Relative to the above provision is Section 1, Article II of Condocor's By-Laws,46� which grants registered owners the right to designate any person or entity to represent them in Condocor, subject to the submission of a written notification to the Secretary of such designation. Further, the owner's representative is entitled to enjoy and avail himself of all the rights and privileges, and perform all the duties and responsibilities of a member of the corporation. The law and Condocor's By-Laws evidently allow proxies in members' meeting.

Prescinding therefrom, Moldex had the right to send duly authorized representatives to represent it during the questioned general membership meeting. Records showed that, pursuant to a Board Resolution, as certified47� by Sandy T. Uy, corporate secretary of Moldex, the individual respondents were instituted as Moldex 's representatives. This was attested to by Mary Rose V. Pascual, Assistant Corporate Secretary of Condocor, in a sworn statement48� she executed on August 31, 2012.

Next question is - can the individual respondents be elected as directors of Condocor?

Individual respondents who
are non-members cannot be
elected as directors and officers
of the condominium corporation


The governance and management of corporate affairs in a corporation lies with its board of directors in case of stock corporations, or board of trustees in case of non-stock corporations. As the board exercises all corporate powers and authority expressly vested upon it by law and by the corporations' by-laws, there are minimum requirements set in order to be a director or trustee, one of which is ownership of a share in one's name or membership in a non-stock corporation. Section 23 of the Corporation Code provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. - Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year until their successors are elected and qualified.

Every director must own at least one (1) share of the capital stock of the corporation of which he is a director, which share shall stand in his name on the books of the corporation. Any director who ceases to be the owner of at least one (1) share of the capital stock of the corporation of which he is a director shall thereby cease to be a director. Trustees of non-stock corporations must be members thereof. A majority of the directors or trustees of all corporations organized under this Code must be residents of the Philippines. [Emphasis supplied]
This rule was reiterated in Section 92 of the Corporation Code, which
Section 92. Election and term of trustees.- x x x No person shall be elected as trustee unless he is a member of the corporation. x x x�
While Moldex may rightfully designate proxies or representatives, the latter, however, cannot be elected as directors or trustees of Condocor. First, the Corporation Code clearly provides that a director or trustee must be a member of record of the corporation. Further, the power of the proxy is merely to vote. If said proxy is not a member in his own right, he cannot be elected as a director or proxy.

Respondents cannot rely on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Opinions they cited to justify the individual respondents' election as directors. In Heirs of Gamboa v. Teves,49� the Court En Bane held that opinions issued by SEC legal officers do not have the force and effect of SEC rules and regulations because only the SEC en bane can adopt rules and regulations.

Following Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the election of individual respondents, as corporate officers, was likewise invalid.

Section 25 of the Corporation Code mandates that the President shall be a director. As previously discussed, Jaminola could not be elected as a director. Consequently, Jaminola's election as President was null and void.

The same provision allows the election of such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws. Condocor's By-Laws, however, require that the Vice-President shall be elected by the Board from among its member� directors in good standing, and the Secretary may be appointed by the Board under the same circumstance. Like Jaminola, Milanes and Macalintal were not directors and, thus, could not be elected and appointed as Vice-President and Secretary, respectively.

Insofar as Roman's election as Treasurer is concerned, the same would have been valid, as a corporate treasurer may or may not be a director of the corporation's board. The general membership meeting of Condocor, however, was null and void. As a consequence, Roman's election had no legal force and effect.

In fine, the July 21, 2012 annual general membership meeting of Condocor being null and void, all acts and resolutions emanating therefrom are likewise null and void.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The March 4, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Manila, in Civil Case No. 12-128478 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court declares that:

a)
The July 21, 2012 Annual General Membership Meeting of Condocor is null and void;


b)
The election of members of the Board of Directors in the annual general membership meeting is likewise null and void; and


c)
The succeeding Organizational Meeting of Condocor's Board of Directors as well as the election of its corporate officers are of no force and effect.
���� Costs against respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, J, Chairperson, Velasco, Jr.,* Peralta, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ, concur

Endnotes:


Per Special Order No. 2416-B dated January 4, 2017.

1 Penned by Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, rollo, pp. 32-35.

2 Id. at 32.

3 Id. at 84.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 112-156.

6 Id. at 283-299.

7 Id. at 7.

8 Id. at 55-58.

9 Id. at 119.

10Id.

11 Id. at 35.

12 Id. at 33.

13 Id. at 34.

14 Id. at 84.

15 711 Phil. 576 (2013).

16 Id. at 585-586.

17 The Securities Regulation Code.

18� A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, Mode of Appeal in Cases Formerly Cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission, September 14, 2004.

19Rollo, p. 274.

20 Id. at 225.

21 Id. at 176.

22 Id. at 43.

23 350 Phil. 237 (1998).

24 Id. at 244.

25 Ladia, Ruben C., The Corporation Code of the Philippines (Annotated), Revised Edition (2007), p. 316.

26 Section 50, Corporation Code.

27 Sections 50 and 51, Corporation Code.

28 Sections 50 and 54, Corporation Code.

29 Section 51, Corporation Code.

30 Section 52, Corporation Code.

31Tan v. Sycip, 530 Phil. 609, 623 (2006).

32 Section 89, Corporation Code of the Philippines.

33 Section 7: Voting Rights Every member shall be entitled to one (1) vote for every square meter and any fraction thereof in excess of one-half (V2) square meter of the unit that he/she/it owns; provided, however that only members in good standing shall be entitled to exercise their right to vote. A member in good standing is one who does not have any outstanding obligation to the CORPORATION and who is not currently subject to sanctions or penalties by the CORPORATION.

34 Sec. 2, RA 4726; Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation v. Cullen, 720 Phil. 732, 749 (2013).

35 Sec. I 0, The Condominium Act (RA 4726).

36Rollo, p. 292.

37 Id. at 293.

38 191 Phil. 606,614 (1981).

39Rollo, p. 292.

40Rollo, p. 137.

41 Id. at 134.

42 Id. at 140.

43 191 Phil. 606,615 (1981).

44 Id. at 615.

45Spouses Lim v. Court of Appeals, 702 Phil. 634, 641 (2013).

46Rollo, pp. 224-232.

47 Secretary's Certificate, id. at 253-254.

48 Id. at 235-237.

49 696 Phil. 276, 316 (2012).



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 221071, January 18, 2017 - EDDIE E. DIZON AND BRYAN R. DIZON, Petitioners, v. YOLANDA VIDA P. BELTRAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197492, January 18, 2017 - CHATEAU ROYALE SPORTS AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v. RACHELLE G. BALBA AND MARINEL N. CONSTANTE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188448, January 11, 2017 - RODOLFO LAYGO AND WILLIE LAYGO, Petitioners, v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SOLANO, NUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223528, January 11, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY HIRANG Y RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 189158, January 11, 2017 - JAMES IENT AND MAHARLIKA SCHULZE, Petitioners, v. TULLETT PREBON (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 189530 - JAMES IENT AND MAHARLIKA SCHULZE, Petitioners, v. TULLETT PREBON (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218871, January 11, 2017 - JEBSENS MARITIME, INC.,SEA CHEFS LTD., AND ENRIQUE M. ABOITIZ, Petitioners, v. FLORVIN G. RAPIZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2423, January 11, 2017 - SANTIAGO D. ORTEGA, JR., Complainant, v. JUDGE ROGELIO LL. DACARA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, IRIGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215290, January 11, 2017 - HEIRS OF PABLO FELICIANO, JR., NAMELY: LOURDES FELICIANO TUDLA, GLORIA FELICIANO CAUDAL, GABRIELA FELICIANO BAUTISTA, ANGELA FELICIANO LUCAS, DONNA CELESTE FELICIANO-GATMAITAN, CYNTHIA CELESTE FELICIANO, AND HECTOR REUBEN FELICIANO, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSIGNEE, VICTORIA ALDA REYES ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187950, January 11, 2017 - CRISTINA BARSOLO, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193340, January 11, 2017 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF TANGKAL, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE, Petitioner, v. HON. RASAD B. BALINDONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MARAWI CITY, AND HEIRS OF THE LATE MACALABO ALOMPO, REPRESENTED BY SULTAN DIMNANG B.ALOMPO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213027, January 18, 2017 - ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 213253 - IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS AND IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210788, January 10, 2017 - ANNALIZA J. GALINDO AND EVELINDA P. PINTO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187448, January 09, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188658, January 11, 2017 - HEIRS OF TEODORA LOYOLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ZOSIMO L. MENDOZA, SR., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALICIA R. LOYOLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206617, January 30, 2017 - PHILIPPINE NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, Petitioner, v. GENESIS AQUINO, ANGELO BERNARDO, JR., EDUARDO M. CHUA, FERNANDO FRANCISCO, JR., FERMIN S. CARINO, PERCIVAL M. MANUEL, FERNANDO M. GAITE, JR., JOSE CHOA, TOMAS DE GUZMAN, JR., LI VI JU, CATALINO M. SILANGIL, RAMUNDO SANTOS, PETER SY, AND WILSON YULOQUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206345, January 23, 2017 - NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FLORITA C. TAROBAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198968, January 18, 2017 - STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION, AND ADMIBROS SHIPMANAGEMENT CO., LTD., Petitioners, v. RODRIGO C. DOCTOLERO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215807, January 25, 2017 - ROSARIO E. CAHAMBING, Petitioner, v. VICTOR ESPINOSA AND JUANA ANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181596, January 30, 2017 - JENESTOR B. CALDITO AND MARIA FILOMENA T. CALDITO, Petitioners, v. ISAGANI V. OBADO AND GEREON V. OBADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191636, January 16, 2017 - PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, v. RONALD RAPANOT AND HOUSING & LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192602, January 18, 2017 - SPOUSES MAY S. VILLALUZ AND JOHNNY VILLALUZ, JR., Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017 - EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY, KARIN LITZ P. ZERNA, ARIEL G. RONQUILLO, AND CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210328, January 30, 2017 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, v. APOLINARIO C. PAUIG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017 - SILVESTRA MEDINA AND SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RUFINO LIZARDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199977, January 25, 2017 - SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., AND VICTORIO Q. ESTA, Petitioners, v. WILFREDO T. DE LEON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184450, January 24, 2017 - JAIME N. SORIANO, MICHAEL VERNON M. GUERRERO, MARY ANN L. REYES, MARAH SHARYN M. DE CASTRO AND CRIS P. TENORIO, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 184508 - SENATOR MANUEL A. ROXAS, Petitioner, v. MARGARITO B. TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND LILIAN B. HEFTI, IN HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 184538 - TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. MARGARITO B. TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND LILIAN B. HEFTI, IN HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondents.; G.R. No. 185234 - SENATOR FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, TAX MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND ERNESTO G. EBRO, Petitioners, v. MARGARITO B. TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND SIXTO S. ESQUIVIAS IV, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186967, January 18, 2017 - DIVINA PALAO, Petitioner, v. FLORENTINO III INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168288, January 25, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HAROLD TIO GO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-2814-MTJ], January 09, 2017 - TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES, Complainant, v. JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ENRIQUE MAGALONA-MANAPLA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2989 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3249-P), January 10, 2017 - WYNA MARIE P. GARINGAN�FERRERAS, Complainant, v. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS, CAGAYAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212375, January 25, 2017 - KABISIG REAL WEALTH DEV., INC. AND FERNANDO C. TIO, Petitioners, v. YOUNG CORPORATION BUILDERS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220617, January 30, 2017 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. BENNY A. PUEDAN, JR., JAYFER D. LIMBO, BRODNEY N. AVILA, ARTHUR C. AQUINO, RYAN A. MIRANDA, RONALD R. ALAVE, JOHNNY A. DIMAYA, MARLON B. DELOS REYES, ANGELITO R. CORDOVA, EDGAR S. BARRUGA, CAMILO B. CORDOVA, JR., JEFFRY B. LANGUISAN, EDISON U. VILLAPANDO, JHEIRNEY S. REMOLIN, MARY LUZ A. MACATALAD,* JENALYN M. GAMUROT, DENNIS G. BAWAG, RAQUEL A. ABELLERA, AND RICANDRO G. GUATNO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROQUE DAYADAY Y DAGOOC, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207838, January 25, 2017 - LEO T. MAULA, Petitioner, v. XIMEX DELIVERY EXPRESS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214303, January 30, 2017 - DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. MAGDALENO M. PE�A, ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB, INC., AND MS. ARSENIA VERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200009, January 23, 2017 - SPRING HOMES SUBDIVISION CO., INC., SPOUSES PEDRO L. LUMBRES AND REBECCA T. ROARING, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES PEDRO TABLADA, JR. AND ZENAIDA TABLADA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206627, January 18, 2017 - VAN CLIFFORD TORRES Y SALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017 - JACK C. VALENCLA, Petitioner, v. CLASSIQUE VINYL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, JOHNNY CHANG (OWNER) AND/OR CANTINGAS MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218466, January 23, 2017 - MANNY RAMOS, ROBERTO SALONGA AND SERVILLANO NACIONAL, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 221425 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANNY RAMOS, ROBERTO SALONGA A.K.A. "JOHN," "KONYONG" SALONGA AND SERVILLANO NACIONAL @ "INONG" @ DIONISIO NACIONAL, Accused-Appellants.

  • GR. No. 194190, January 25, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CARMEN SANTORIO GALENO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017 - WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, SR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192159, January 25, 2017 - COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MARK SENSING AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD., MARK SENSING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND OFELIA B. CAJIGAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONIR JAAFAR Y TAMBUYONG, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 193397, January 25, 2017 - ESTRELLA MEJIA-ESPINOZA AND NORMA MEJIA DELLOSA, Petitioners, v. NENA A. CARI�O, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178842, January 30, 2017 - RENE H. IMPERIAL AND NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. EDGAR L. ARMES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 4, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 5TH JUDICIAL REGION, LEGAZPI CITY AND ALFONSO B. CRUZ, JR., Respondents.; G.R. No. 195509 - ALFONSO B. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. RENE IMPERIAL AND NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219509, January 18, 2017 - ILOILO JAR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMGLASCO CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215331, January 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUDIGARIO BELEN Y MARASIGAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175949, January 30, 2017 - UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, SPOUSES DAVID C. CHUA AND LUTEN CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220506, January 18, 2017 - C.I.C.M. MISSION SEMINARIES (MARYHURST, MARYHEIGHTS, MARYSHORE AND MARYHILL) SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, INC., FR. ROMEO NIMEZ, CICM, Petitioners, v. MARIA VERONICA C. PEREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219345, January 30, 2017 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GREAT WALL COMMERCIAL PRESS COMPANY, INC., ALFREDO BURIEL ATIENZA, FREDINO CHENG ATIENZA AND SPS. FREDERICK CHENG ATIENZA AND MONICA CU ATIENZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211175, January 18, 2017 - ATTY. REYES G. GEROMO, FLORENCIO BUENTIPO, JR., ERNALDO YAMBOT AND LYDIA BUSTAMANTE, Petitioners, v. LA PAZ HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189714, January 25, 2017 - TPG CORPORATION (FORMERLY THE PROFESSIONAL GROUP PLANS, INC.), Petitioner, v. ESPERANZA B. PINAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017 - LOIDA M. JAVIER, Petitioner, v. PEPITO GONZALES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5582, January 24, 2017 - ARTHUR O. MONARES, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEVI P. MU�OZ, Respondent.; A.C. No. 5604, January 24, 2017 - ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. LEVI P. MU�OZ, Respondent.; A.C. No. 5652, January 24, 2017 - BENJILIEH M. CONSTANTE,1, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEVI P. MU�OZ, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11545 (Formerly CBD case No. 12-3439), January 24, 2017 - SUSAN LOBERES-PINTAL, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMONCITO B. BAYLOSIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 205045 & 205723, January 25, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3615 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-8-249-RTC), January 24, 2017 - MARITA TOLENTINO AND FELY SAN ANDRES, Complainants, v. SHERIFF IV GLENN A. UMALI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207971, January 23, 2017 - ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, Petitioner, v. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212376, January 31, 2017 - MADAG BUISAN, ET AL., NAMELY: HADJI MUSA MANALAG, HADJI SUKOR MAMADRA, H. SALAM TUMAGANTANG, SUGRA SUKOR BUISAN, MONAURA TUMAGANTAING, NOJA TUMAGANTANG, SULTAN BUISAN, PAULO TUMAGANTANG,DAKUNDAY MANALAG, KINGI BUISAN, BUGOY PANANGBUAN, TUMBA TUMAGANTANG, MAMALO ELI, MALIGA ATOGAN, PAGUIAL SALDINA, EBRAHIM TAGURAK, HADJI ESMAEL KASAN, OTAP GANDAWALI, TWAN IT SALAM, EDEL SABAL, GUIMA H. SALAM, KATUNTONG H. SALAM, THONY IBAD, BANGKALING BANTAS, ALON KIKI, DAMDAEN TUMAGANTANG, MAMASALIDO KIKI, ROSTAN TUMAGANTANG, MONTASER DAMDAMEN, MODSOL TANDIAN, RAHMAN SUKOR, SUKARNO H. SUKOR, KUNGAS PAYAG, JIMIE BUISAN, MADAODAO KEDTUNGEN, TUTIN MANALAG, DATU ALI MANALAG, TUGAYA MANALAG, SAGANDINGAN MANALAG, SAUIATRA MANALAG, KAUTIN MANALAG, PANTAS DALANDAS,ULAD BANTAS, PALANO BUISAN, PANIANG BUISAN, INDASIA BUISAN, MAKAKWA BUISAN, SULTAN BUISAN, MANTIKAN BUISAN, ABULKARIM TUMAGANTANG, SAKMAG MANALAG, DEMALANES BUISAN, MANALAG PAKAMAMA, MALAMBONG PANDIAN, ABDULKARIM TUMAGANTANG, GUIANDAL OPAO, KUSIN PUWI, H. SULAIMAN UNAK, PABLO ALQUESAR, SAGIBA GABAO, TABUAN LUAY, POTENCIANO NAVARRO, KUSIN PENEL, MALAMON TALIB, MALIGA BIDA, MOKAMAD KUDALIS, CEDULA PAGABANGAN, SALILAGUIA LENANDANG, ENGKEL ALILAYA, MANGATOG SUDANG, MANAGKING MANGATONG, SEVERINO FERNANDEZ, JOSEAS GOTOKANO, MALYOD LAWADI, MANSALGAN UDAY, SANDATO DALANDAS, BANTAS DALANDAS, MAMANTAL DALANDAS, MAKALIPUAS MAKALILAY, BINGKONG BUISAN, FARIDA SUMAGKA, NUNET YUSOP, KADIGIA SABAL, NANANGGA TAYA, MAMA BANGKALING, CORRY DAMO, BUKA LATIP, MADAODAO KADTUNGAN, KOMINIE ADAM, BANGKALING BANTAS, RONIE EDZAKAL, KEDOPAO BUTO, SARIP EDZEMBAGA, TUTEN MANALAG, ABAS LATIP, MAKALIPUAS MAKALILAY, DAGENDENGAN ZUMBAGA, PAGUIAL LUBALANG, JIMMY BUISAN, KADIL SUKOR, JAKIRI LOZANO, MANUEL MAKATIMBEL, AISA BANSUAN, TATO BUISAN, HARON ABO, MAMAAN LAMADA, THING GUIAMILON, TATO SUMAGKA, NORALYN KAHAR, MOKAGI ANTAS, KINGI BUISAN, ZAINUDEN PANAYAMAN, PIAGA MANALAG, SAGIATRA MANALAG, SAILA LATIP, PINKI KADTUNGAN, ALI KADTUNGAN, NANDING TAYA, INDAY BUISAN, KINTOL KADTUNGAN, MALAWINIE EDZAKAL, MINGUTIN AMAL, BUGLI MANALAG, MANGAPANG SADINA, KURANUNGAN SADINA, SANGUTIN LUBALANG, DAUD H. LATIP, REY PALAMAN, MONTANER KID, BAKATED KADTUNGAN, GUIAMATULA DIMAGIL, ALON H. LATIP, SULTAN BUISAN, HADJI MUSA MANALAG, MANTO BANTAS, ABAS L. LATIP RODIEL KID, DATU BUTO ALI, ODIN TIAGO, ABDUL ANTA, EMBIT BUKA, LAGA KID, ULAMA DALUS, SUWAILA DAMDAMIN, TALILISAN PALEMBA, LANTOKA PATOG, MAKATEGKA BANGKONG, BEMBI KUDO, MOGAWAN GINANTE, PATANG BALODTO, EUSEBIO QUIJANO, FAISAN TAYA, LAGA KAHAR, ESMAEL KID, TAYA PALAMAN, NORJANA BUISAN, TONTONGAN MANALAG, SAMIER MANGULI, SINUMAGAD BANSUAN, BHING HARON, NENENG BUISAN, DIDO KID, ZALDI AGIONG, ROWENA MANALAG, NASSER MAMALANGKAP, TANOSI ZUMBAGA, GUIDAT DANDALANAN, FATIMA KID, KIMAMA KATIMPO, ALON GUIANDAL, MAMALUBA AKOD, AIN SUKOR AND NORIA DALANDAS, ALL REPRESENTED BY BAI ANNIE C. MONTAWAL, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193156, January 18, 2017 - IVQ LANDHOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. REUBEN BARBOSA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212818, January 25, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO QUITA ALIAS "GREG", Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3550 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 14-4252-P), January 31, 2017 - JUDGE GUILLERMO P. AGLORO, Complainant, v. COURT INTERPRETER LESLIE BURGOS, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/CLERK III ANNALIZA P. SANTIAGO, COURT STENOGRAPHER MARISSA M. GARCIA, AND CLERK III JULIETA FAJARDO, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 83, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202781, January 10, 2017 - CRISANTO M. AALA, ROBERT N. BALAT, DATU BELARDO M. BUNGAD, CESAR B. CUNTAPAY, LAURA S. DOMINGO, GLORIA M. GAZMEN-TAN, AND JOCELYN P. SALUDARES-CADAYONA, Petitioners, v. HON. REY T. UY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY MAYOR OF TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, MR. ALFREDO H. SILAWAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY ASSESSOR OF TAGUM CITY, HON. DE CARLO L. UY, HON. ALLAN L. RELLON, HON. MARIA LINA F. BAURA, HON. NICANDRO T. SUAYBAGUIO, JR., HON. ROBERT L. SO, HON. JOEDEL T. CAASI, HON. OSCAR M. BERMUDEZ, HON. ALAN D. ZULUETA, HON. GETERITO T. GEMENTIZA, HON. TRISTAN ROYCE R. AALA, HON. FRANCISCO C. REMITAR, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CITY COUNCILORS OF TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, HON. ALFREDO R. PAGDILAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ABC REPRESENTATIVE, AND HON. MARIE CAMILLE C. MANANSALA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SKF REPRESENTATIVE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190431, January 31, 2017 - BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE SATUR C. OCAMPO, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE LIZA L. MAZA, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TEODORO A. CASI�O, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE JOEL B. MAGLUNSOD, PAGKAKAISA NG MGA SAMAHAN NG TSUPER AT OPERATOR NATIONWIDE (PISTON), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL GEORGE F. SAN MATEO, Petitioners; AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, GLICERIO M. MANZANO, JR., RAUL M. CONSUNJI, AND LYN C. BRONTE, Petitioners-In-Intervention, v. LEANDRO R. MENDOZA SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; ARTURO C. LOMIBAO, CHIEF OF THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, AND STRADCOM CORPORATION, Respondents.; FEDERATION OF JEEPNEY OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FEJODAP) REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA "MARANAN" DE CASTRO, ALLIANCE OF TRANSPORT OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES (ALTODAP) REPRESENTED BY MELENCIO "BOY" VARGAS, LAND TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (LTOP) REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO MARQUEZ, NTU�TRANSPORTER REPRESENTED BY ALEJO SAYASA, PASANG-MASDA NATIONWIDE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ROBERTO "OBET" MARTIN, ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED TRANSPORT ORGANIZATIONS (ACTO) REPRESENTED BY EFREN DE LUNA, Oppositors-Intervenors.

  • G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017 - TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZE�AROSA, Petitioners, v. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON AND LARRY A. CARBONILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184317, January 25, 2017 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY CORRUGATED BOXES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017 - SPOUSES MARCELIAN TAPAYAN AND ALICE TAPAYAN, Petitioners, v. PONCEDA M. MARTINEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206038, January 25, 2017 - MARY E. LIM, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REYNALDO V. LIM, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX LAND, INC., 1322 ROXAS BOULEVARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, AND JEFFREY JAMINOLA, EDGARDO MACALINTAL, JOJI MILANES, AND CLOTHILDA ANNE ROMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 1322 GOLDEN EMPIRE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196347, January 23, 2017 - SUSAN A. YAP, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH LAGTAPON, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3841-RTJ), January 25, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ILLUMINADA P. CABATO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT IV ARMANDO G. YDIA, PROCESS SERVER I SONNY S. CARAGAY, CLERK OF COURT III OFELIA T. MONDIGUING, SHERIFF III JOSE E. ORPILLA, AND CLERK III VILMA C. WAYANG, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES [MTCC], BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE ROBERTO R. MABALOT, CLERK OF COURT III LOURDES G. CAOILI, AND UTILITY WORKER I ANTINO M. WAKIT, ALL OF BRANCH I, MTCC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE JENNIFER P. HUMINDING, COURT STENOGRAPHER II PERLA B. DELACRUZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER II GRACE F. DESIERTO, COURT STENOGRAPHER II CAROLYN B. DUMAG, COURT STENOGRAPHER II MARY ROSE VIRGINIA O. MATIC, AND CLERK IV LOURDES D. WANGWANG, ALL OF BRANCH 2, MTCC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT REMEDIOS BALDERAS-REYES, SHERIFF IV RUBEN L. ATIJERA, CASH CLERK II MERLIN ANITA N. CALICA, PROCESS SERVER EDWIN V. FANGONIL, SHERIFF IV ROMEO R. FLORENDO, LIBRARIAN II NAMNAMA L. LOPEZ, CLERK III JEFFREY G. MENDOZA, CLERK II ROLANDO G. MONTES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III VENUS D. SAGUID, AND UTILITY WORKER I FRANCISCO D. SIAPNO, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT GAIL M. BACBAC-DEL ISEN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III RESTITUTO A. CORPUZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER MARLENE A. DOMAOANG, AND LEGAL RESEARCHER II FLORENCE F. SALANGO, ALL OF BRANCH 3, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE MIA JOY C. OALLARES-CAWED, LEGAL RESEARCHER II ELIZABETH G. AUCENA, CLERK OF COURT V RUTH B. BAWAYAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III JOY P. CHILEM-AGUILBA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III LEONILA P. FERNANDEZ, PROCESS SERVER MARIA ESPERANZA N. JACOB, COURT CLERK III REYNALDO R. RAMOS, COURT INTERPRETER III MELITA C. SALINAS, AND COURT CLERK III WILMA M. TAMANG, ALL OF BRANCH 4, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE ANTONIO M. ESTEVES, UTILITY WORKER JONATHAN R. GERONIMO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III PRECY T. GOZE, CLERK OF COURT V ALEJANDRO EPIFANIO D. GUERRERO, AND COURT STENOGRAPHER III VIRGINIA M. RAMIREZ, ALL OF BRANCH 5, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT MYLENE MAY ADUBE-CABUAG, PROCESS SERVER ROBERTO G. CORO�A, JR., COURT STENOGRAPHER III VICTORIA J. DERASMO, CLERK OF COURT III BOBBY D. GALANO, UTILITY WORKER MANOLO V. MARIANO III, AND CLERK III ROWENA C. PASAG, ALL OF BRANCH 6, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE MONA LISA TIONGSON-TABORA, PROCESS SERVER ROMEO E. BARBACHANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER EDNA P. CASTILLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III DOLORES M. ESERIO, COURT INTERPRETER III GEORGE HENRY A. MANIPON, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ANITA MENDOZA, CLERK III DOMINADOR B. REMIENDO, AND CLERK III DOLORES G. ROMERO, ALL OF BRANCH 7, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; UTILITY WORKER GILBERT L. EVANGELISTA, PROCESS SERVER EDUARDO B. RODRIGO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ELIZABETH M. LOCKEY, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ANALIZA G. MADRONIO, CLERK III EVANGELINE N. GONZALES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III MARILOU M. TADAO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III AGNES P. MACA-EY, SHERIFF IV MARANI S. BACOLOD, CLERK III EDGARDO R. ORATE, AND LEGAL RESEARCHER JESSICA D. GUANSING, ALL OF BRANCH 59, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT ROGER NAFIANOG, COURT STENOGRAPHER III RUTH C. LAGAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ELEANOR V. NI�ALGA, CLERK III ANGELINA M. SANTIAGO, UTILITY WORKER LEO P. VALDEZ, AND CLERK III SAMUEL P. VIDAD, ALL OF BRANCH 60, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES, COURT INTERPRETER III ELEANOR I. BUCAYCAY, LEGAL RESEARCHER II JOAN G. CASTILLO, CLERK OF COURT V JERICO G. GAY�YA, CLERK III CONCEPCION SOLIVEN VDA. PULMANO, AND SHERIFF IV ALBERT G. TOLENTINO, ALL OF BRANCH 61, RTC, BAGUIO CITY, Respondents.