ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 154468.� August 31, 2005]
LEJANO vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005.
G.R. No. 154468 (PACIFICO C. LEJANO, AMPARO C. LEJANO, VICENTE C. LEJANO, LYDIA C. LEJANO, ANGELINA C. LEJANO, JULIETA C. LEJANO, CORAZON C. LEJANO, and LUZVIMINDA C. LEJANO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, MAGNA REALTY CORPORATION and J. ANTONIO LEVISTE.)
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners assail the decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing their petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and the CA resolution denying their motion for reconsideration (MR) in CA-GR SP No. 61685.
Petitioners' legal imbroglio stemmed from the following facts: [2] cralaw
In March 1978, petitioners executed a pre-registration memorandum
of agreement with Hermilando Mandanas
[3]
cralaw
and Joyce Caparas. They agreed to form a corporation for the development of
petitioners' real properties in Lian, Batangas. Petitioners agreed to subscribe
to P1.3 million out of the P5 million authorized capital stock.
In payment thereof, they were to convey their parcels of land. In turn,
Mandanas and Caparas would subscribe to about P1.6 million worth of shares and
agreed to advance P550, 500 in cash. Regardless of the value of their
real properties, petitioners agreed to take only a 45% equity in the
corporation. Caparas was to own 45% and Mandanas 10%.
Unknown to petitioners, Caparas assigned her rights and obligations in the agreement to spouses Artemio and Antonia Madamba. Mandanas transferred his interest to Antonio Mangubat.
On December 14, 1978, Magna Realty Corporation (MRC) was formed with the following as incorporators, directors, and stockholders: the spouses Madamba; Pacifico, Pedro, Leopoldo, Vicente, all surnamed Lejano; and Mangubat. Artemio Madamba was designated MRC Treasurer.
On April 11, 1980, the Madamba spouses, through counsel, demanded that petitioners execute the necessary documents to convey their land to MRC pursuant to their agreement. Since petitioners did not respond, MRC and the spouses Madamba filed a suit for specific performance against them before the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The case was eventually dismissed by this Court on August 21, 1990 for lack of jurisdiction of the trial court.
On September 5, 1990, the spouses Madamba assigned all their shares to private respondent Antonio Leviste. [4] cralaw MRC, along with Leviste, filed a case for specific performance and damages against petitioners with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 5, 1990. Petitioners filed their answer with a motion to dismiss. SEC Hearing Officer Alberto Atas dismissed the case since the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The SEC en banc, however, reversed the hearing officer's decision and remanded the case for trial on the merits.
On May 6, 1999, SEC hearing officer Paulino Gallegos dismissed the case for lack of merit. On May 25, 1999, MRC filed a notice of appeal, to which no memorandum on appeal was attached. Instead of dismissing the appeal, the SEC en banc required MRC to file a memorandum on appeal. The requirement was met on September 21, 1999. Petitioners filed a reply a memorandum as required. Petitioners then moved for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the decision of the hearing officer had become final and executory due to the belated filing of MRC's memorandum on appeal. On August 22, 2000, the SEC en banc reversed and set aside the decision of the hearing officer. [5] cralaw Petitioners' MR was denied on September 19, 2000.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari under Rule 65. The CA dismissed [6] cralaw their petition and denied [7] cralaw the MR.
Petitioners are now before us contending that the CA erred-
I.������� IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE FILED THEIR PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 43 (INSTEAD OF RULE 65), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND [THAT] THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY PETITIONERS DID NOT TOLL THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL NOR DID IT PREVENT THE DECISION FROM ATTAINING FINALITY[;]
II.������ IN NOT FINDING AND NOT CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT COMMISSION LACKS APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO ALTER, MODIFY, REVERSE, AND/OR SET ASIDE THE DECISION. WHICH [ALREADY BECAME] FINAL AND EXECUTORY ON THE GROUNDS THAT (a) RESPONDENT CORPORATION FAILED TO PERFECT ITS APPEAL AND (b) PRIVATE RESPONDENT [NEVER APPEALED] FROM SAID ADVERSE DECISION [;]
III.����� IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE [,] SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WILL NOT LIE AND [;]
IV.����� IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT CORPORATION HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE, THE SAID RESPONDENT [NOT HAVING] ADOPTED ANY BY-LAWS NOR ELECTED ITS IMPORTANT OFFICERS, AND [WHICH] HAS BEEN DORMANT FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) DECADES. [8] cralaw
Private respondents filed a comment dated December 12, 2002. [9] cralaw Petitioners replied thereto on December 28, 2002. [10] cralaw The SEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a comment dated January 13, 2003. [11] cralaw To this, petitioners filed a reply dated February 20, 2003. [12] cralaw
This Court resolved to give due course to the petition and directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda. [13] cralaw The SEC and private respondents adopted their respective comments as their memoranda while petitioners filed theirs on March 13, 2003.
On November 16, 2004, private respondents filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of discretionary execution pending appeal. [14] cralaw Petitioners' opposition thereto was duly noted but the motion was denied for lack of merit. [15] cralaw
In view, however, of the lapse of a considerable amount of time since this case arose, the fact that MRC has been dormant for the past 20 years and the fact that Leviste no longer seeks to pursue the joint venture due to its present prohibitive cost, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss on June 1, 2005. The issues have thus become moot and academic.
We have to decline jurisdiction over moot cases because there is no substantial relief to which petitioners will be entitled and which will anyway be negated by the dismissal of the petition. [16] cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties' joint motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Mariano C. del Castillo of the 10th Division, Rollo, pp. 39-47.
[2] cralaw CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 40-43.
[3] cralaw Former Governor, now Congressman, Province of Batangas.
[4] cralaw Another former Governor of the Province of Batangas.
[5] cralaw SEC Decision, Rollo, p. 139-140.
[6] cralaw CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 39-47.
[7] cralaw CA Resolution, Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[8] cralaw Petition, Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[9] cralaw Private Respondents' Comment, Rollo, pp. 204-213.
[10] cralaw Reply to Private Respondents' Comment, Rollo, pp. 214-226.
[11] cralaw SEC's Comment, Rollo, pp. 228-253.
[12] cralaw Reply to SEC's Comment, Rollo, pp. 256-261.
[13] cralaw SC Resolution dated January 22, 2003.
[14] cralaw Rollo, pp. 321-322.
[15] cralaw SC Resolution, March 2, 2005, Rollo, pp. 330-331.
[16] cralaw Enrile v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 132986, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 472; PAL v. Pascua, G.R. No. 143258, 15 August 2003, 409 SCRA 195; Paloma v. CA, G.R. No. 145431, 11 November 2003, 415 SCRA 590.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
