Title
Abad vs. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 200620
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2015
Dispute over control of sequestered PHILCOMSAT and POTC by factions Nieto-PCGG and Africa-Bildner; contested elections, proxy disputes, and legal battles ensued. Supreme Court affirmed RTC's jurisdiction over intra-corporate inspection rights, remanding for further proceedings.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 33023)

Facts:

  • Sequestration and Corporate Structure
    • Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) were sequestered by the PCGG after EDSA Revolution; PHILCOMSAT holds 81% of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC).
    • The seven founding families (Ilusorio, Nieto, Poblador, Africa, Benedicto, Ponce Enrile, Elizalde) comprised the majority; PCGG nominees were appointed to the boards of POTC and PHILCOMSAT.
  • Emergence of Factions
    • Nieto-PCGG Group: Nominees Enrique L. Locsin, Manuel D. Andal, Julio Jalandoni (POTC and PHILCOMSAT boards) aligned with the Nieto family.
    • Africa-Bildner Group: Led by Victor Africa and supported by Ilusorio faction, contested control of the same boards.
  • Parallel Elections and Proxies
    • July 28, 2004: Competitive stockholders’ meetings in POTC and PHILCOMSAT; Africa was elected director and proxy for PHILCOMSAT by Africa-Bildner group, while Nieto-PCGG directors refused acceptance.
    • August 9, 2004: Nieto-PCGG Group held a PHILCOMSAT meeting at Manila Golf Club, elected Nieto Jr. as Chairman and Locsin as President, and issued proxies to vote PHILCOMSAT shares in PHC meeting.
    • August 31, 2004: PHC annual meeting conducted by Nieto-PCGG Group elected its slate of directors and officers.
  • Precedent Compromise Agreement
    • June 28, 1996: PCGG concluded compromise agreement with Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio regarding POTC shares, later affirmed by Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 141796 & 141804, June 15, 2005), recognizing Ilusorio group’s majority control (51.37%).
    • As a result, Africa-Bildner faction held majority in POTC and consequentially in PHILCOMSAT.
  • Inspection Demand and Suit for Inspection
    • November 17, 2005: Africa, as PHILCOMSAT President & stockholder, requested inspection of PHC books for 3rd quarter 2005; PHC officers (Brodet­t et al.) deferred and demanded written purpose.
    • February 2, 2006: PHILCOMSAT filed Complaint for Inspection under Sections 74–75, Corp. Code, against PHC officers in RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 06-095).
    • June 21, 2007: RTC (Branch 149) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding Sandiganbayan had exclusive original jurisdiction over PCGG-sequestered corporation matters.
    • CA-G.R. SP No. 99789: Court of Appeals reversed RTC dismissal (Oct. 21, 2011), remanded for trial; denial of reconsideration gave rise to present petition for review.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction
    • Whether the RTC or the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over a stockholder’s suit to enforce inspection rights under Section 74 of the Corporation Code involving a sequestered corporation.
  • Cause of Action
    • Whether the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that PHILCOMSAT never authorized Victor Africa or any person to file the suit.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.