Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > February 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 184383 : February 16, 2011] JESUS N. DAVID V. GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC. AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, MA. TERESA CANCIO-SUPLICO, ET AL. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 February 2011 which reads as follows: 

G.R. No. 184383 (Jesus N. David v. Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. and its Board of Directors and Officers, Ma. Teresa Cancio-Suplico, et al.). - Petitioner Jesus David files the instant petition, asking the Court to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution denying his Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review under Rule 43 and to admit said petition for consideration.

The case stemmed from an action for inspection of corporate books and records, creation of management committee, and damages filed by herein petitioner against respondent Goodwill Trading Company, Inc. (Goodwill), claiming to be owner of 34,814 shares of stocks. This intra-corporate dispute was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 05-916.

Petitioner alleged that in 1991, he was granted by Manuel Cancio (Cancio), President of Goodwill, two (2) certificates (Stock Certificate Nos. 19 and 39) covering 34,814 shares of stocks as compensation for his services rendered as bookkeeper and accountant of said company; that, in 1997, he was asked to return the stock certificates to Cancio for inventory purposes; that, in 2003, he secured a copy of the company's latest General Information Sheet and discovered that his name had not been reported as stockholder; and that he demanded to be furnished copies of minutes of meetings and financial statements of the company, but all his requests were ignored by the company.

In Answer, respondents Goodwill and Ma. Teresa Cancio-Suplico (Cancio-Suplico) averred that petitioner was the long time in-house auditor of Goodwill. Cancio-Suplico also averred that because her father needed nominees for Goodwill, he entrusted to petitioner two certificates covering 34,814 shares of stocks; that actual consideration was paid for by Cancio; that, in 1997, Cancio discovered that petitioner defrauded him on several occasions and requested the latter Lo return the shares of stocks; that, in August 1997, in the presence of Cancio-Suplico and Cancio, petitioner ceded and transferred the shares by signing on the dorsal part of the stock certificates. With the return of the shares, the stock certificates were stamped "cancelled."

In the decision dated January 28, 2008, the RTC dismissed the complaint, giving weight to the evidence which indubitably showed that petitioner's stock certificates were cancelled after having been endorsed to Cancio. Not being a bona fide stockholder, petitioner had no right to demand for the inspection of books.

Petitioner and respondent Cancio-Suplico filed a motion for reconsideration and partial motion for reconsideration, respectively. In the Order dated March 21, 2008, the RTC denied the motions, stating that the motions for reconsideration were prohibited pleadings under Section 8(3) of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies.

After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner through counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time (MOTEX) of thirty (30) days within which to file a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the CA due to heavy load of work.

In the Resolution dated June 25, 2008, the CA denied the MOTEX, pointing out that a petition for review of the judgment or order rendered by the RTC in an intra-corporate dispute is governed by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which states that an appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of award. The filing of the motion for reconsideration in the RTC, which is a prohibited pleading, did not toll the running of the period of appeal. Thus, petitioner's period of appeal has already expired when petitioner filed the MOTEX.^[1]

Petitioner, consequently, filed a motion for reconsideration. He argued that although his counsel admitted her errors in filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision, this mistake was mitigated by the court a quo's act of entertaining the motion and requiring the submission of the reply and rejoinder thereto. This, therefore, gave her the impression that the filing of motion for reconsideration was allowed.

The CA found petitioner's argument untenable, and stated that this was no justification to excuse petitioner from the consequences of his counsel's actions. It is the foremost duty of the counsel to keep herself abreast with the various rules of procedure. Unfortunately, such mistake of counsel binds the client.^[2]

Hence, this petition. Petitioner prays for the Court's liberality and for it to set aside technical rules.

The Court finds no compelling reason to warrant a reconsideration of the CA resolutions, much less, the reversal of the RTC decision, which found that petitioner was no longer a stockholder of Goodwill. These are factual matters best left to the court a quo, acting as a Special Commercial Court. The RTC made such finding, and its decision had become final and executory pursuant to the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies. We agree with the CA that "public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has already attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice."^[3] 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 49-50.

^[2] Id. at 43. 

^[3] CA Resolution dated August 28, 2008; rollo, p. 44.