ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 136751. October 20, 2004]

CANDIDO vs. CAMACHO

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 20 2004 .

G.R. No. 136751 (Natividad Candido & Mariveles Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Ricardo Camacho & Marilou Hernandez. )

This treats of respondents' Motion for Reconsideration of our. Decision in the case at bar based on the following grounds: (1) petitioner Candido had no personality to file the case and represent the corporation; (2) posting of supersedeas bond is not required to stay the execution of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bataan in the ejectment case; (3) respondents did not engage in forum-shopping as they availed of mutually exclusive and complementary remedies in defending their cause; and, (4) the prevailing conditions do not justify immediate execution as supervening events which occurred subsequent to the judgment bring about a material change in the situation of the parties.

The motion for reconsideration is impressed with merit.

At the outset, we note that petitioner Candido's legal standing to file the ejectment case before the MTC of Balanga, Bataan, was not thoroughly ventilated by the parties in their pleadings before this Court as their discussions revolved mainly on the issue of the propriety of execution of the MTC judgment. A careful review of the voluminous records, however, reveals that petitioner Candido, then President of Mariveles Pawnshop, Inc. (MPI), failed to secure an authorization from the Board of Directors of MPI to file the ejectment case on its behalf. It would thus appear that petitioner Candido has no legal standing to file the case before the MTC. For petitioner's ejectment case to prosper, it is necessary that she proves that she can validly act on behalf of the corporation she was representing in said action. Corporations can act only through their officers and duly authorized agents. ^[1] cralaw The power to sue in any court by a corporation, even as a stockholder, is lodged in the board of directors that exercises the corporate powers, not in the president or any other officer thereof. ^[2] cralaw Stockholders cannot sue only for their own benefit as they have no legal or equitable title to corporate property which is intended for the benefit of the corporation and all the stockholders. ^[3] cralaw As the property of the corporation is not the property of the stockholder, only those authorized by the board of directors may file an action to recover possession of the corporation's property. Given petitioner Candido's lack of authority, her recourse at the time of her ouster from the premises of the pawnshop and removal as President of the MPI would have been to file an action with the Securities and Exchange Commission which had exclusive jurisdiction over controversies regarding the election or designation of directors, trustees, officers or managers of a corporation. ^[4] cralaw

In view of petitioner Candido's lack of legal standing to file the ejectment case with the MTC, the Court finds no reason to further discuss the other issues raised in the motion, the same having' become moot and academic.

IN VIEW WHEREOF , respondents' motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The petition at bar is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw BA Savings Bank vs. Sia, G.R. No. 131214, July 27, 2000, 336 SCRA 484.

^[2] cralaw Bitong vs. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division), G.R. No. 123553, July 13, 1998, 292 SCRA 503.

^[3] cralaw Asset Privatization Trust vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121171, December 29, 1998, 300 SCRA 579.

^[4] cralaw Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000, the jurisdiction of the SEC to decide cases involving intracorporate disputes had been transferred to courts of general jurisdiction; See also Pascual vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138542, August 25, 2000, 339 SCRA 117.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011