Title
Alcantara vs. Ponce
Case
G.R. No. 131547
Decision Date
Dec 15, 2005
Dispute over ICC stockholdings led to contempt ruling against Ponce Group for filing motions post-final judgment, fined for abusing court processes.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 131547)

Facts:

Root of the Dispute
The case arose from a dispute between two groups over the majority stockholdings in Iligan Cement Corporation (ICC). The Alcantara Group (Nicasio I. Alcantara, Bienvenido Tan III, Simeon A. Reyes, and Alfredo R. De Borja) and the Ponce Group (Vicente C. Ponce, Nelia C. Ponce, and Levi B. Mariano) contested ownership, with the Ponce Group claiming 58.83% ownership based on unrecorded stock payments, while the Alcantara Group asserted the Ponce Group owned only 10.5%.

SEC Proceedings
On September 1, 1992, the SEC Hearing Officer, Alberto P. Atas, ruled in favor of the Ponce Group. The Alcantara Group appealed the decision to the SEC En Banc, but the Ponce Group argued the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period under the Administrative Code of 1987. The SEC En Banc, however, ruled that the 30-day appeal period under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A applied and overturned the Hearing Officer's decision, favoring the Alcantara Group.

Judicial Proceedings
The Ponce Group challenged the SEC En Banc's decision before the Court of Appeals, arguing the 15-day appeal period should apply. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Alcantara Group, stating that P.D. No. 902-A, as a special law, prevailed over the general law (Administrative Code of 1987). The Ponce Group then filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, which was denied. Despite the finality of the judgment, the Ponce Group and their counsels continued to file numerous pleadings and motions, prompting the Alcantara Group to file a Petition for Contempt.

Issue:

Whether the Ponce Group and their counsels should be cited for contempt under Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for their conduct in persistently filing pleadings and motions after the finality of the judgment in G.R. No. 116054.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.