Case Digest (G.R. No. 128464)
Facts:
Rev. Luis Ao-As, et al., G.R. No. 128464, June 20, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are members of what the opinion calls the Ao‑As group; respondents are the incumbents of the LCP board at relevant times and are referred to as the Batong group.The dispute arose within the Lutheran Church in the Philippines (LCP), a non‑stock religious corporation registered with the SEC in 1967. The LCP originally had three districts and a seven‑member national board; by resolutions in the 1976 and 1984 national conventions new districts were created, expanding the board to eleven members. Controversy about corporate management began after the Board terminated LCP business manager Exclesio Hipe, triggering multiple intracorporate proceedings at the SEC and elsewhere that raised questions about the legality of an eleven‑member board and about particular board resolutions and transactions.
On August 17, 1990 the Ao‑As group filed SEC‑SIDC Case No. 3857 seeking accounting, damages, a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a management committee, alleging various acts of unaccounted cash advances, dissipation of funds, irregular land transactions (La Trinidad and Leyte), severance of relations with a partner church (LCMS), and removal of corporate records. After hearings the SEC‑SIDC issued an order on September 3, 1992 creating a management committee and on October 16, 1992 issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Batong group from acting as the LCP board and from holding conventions; the Batong group filed for reconsideration and sought relief from the SEC En Banc and later from the Court of Appeals.
Following the injunction, rival conventions and elections were held: the 17th national convention (held October 26–30, 1992) elected officers identified with the Batong group; later, a special convention convened by the SEC‑appointed management committee (January 25–29, 1993, Cagayan de Oro) elected a different set of officers. The management committee then exercised control over properties, personnel assignments and bank accounts, which led the Batong group to seek injunctive relief and to file petitions with the Court of Appeals; the CA issued a TRO on July 12, 1994 and eventually, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 32800, rendered a decision on October 10, 1996 granting the Batong group’s petition, setting aside the SEC En Banc decision of August 25, 1993 and annulling the SEC‑SIDC orders of September 3 and October 16, 1992, and directing the SEC to conduct a new election consistent with the Corporation Code.
Petitioners (Ao‑As group) brought a Rule 45 petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution and reinstatement of the SEC En Banc and SEC‑SIDC orders; their assignments of error challenged (1) the CA’s alleged disregard of evidence, (2) the CA’s characterization of SEC‑SIDC Ca...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Ao‑As group commit willful and deliberate forum shopping in filing SEC‑SIDC Case No. 3857?
- Was the creation of a management committee by the SEC‑SIDC warranted on the evidence of imminent dissipation of LCP assets?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring invalid the LCP By‑Laws’ district‑based method of electing directors (i.e., by zones or regions) as contrary to Section 24 of the Corporation Code?
- Did the SEC‑SIDC have jurisdiction to call for a special el...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)