Case Digest (G.R. No. 185894)
Facts:
Belo Medical Group, Inc., G.R. No. 185894, August 30, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
The petition arises from a dispute between respondent Jose L. Santos and respondent Victoria G. Belo over 25 shares of stock registered in Santos’s name in Belo Medical Group, Inc. On May 5, 2008 Santos demanded to inspect the corporation’s books, claiming he was a registered shareholder and co-owner of Belo’s shares; Belo replied that Santos held the 25 shares only in trust for her and accused him of acting in bad faith because he owned a competing business (House of Obagi). After repeated unsuccessful inspection attempts, Belo Medical Group filed a Complaint for Interpleader (May 21, 2008) and a Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory Relief (May 29, 2008), invoking the corporation’s interest in avoiding double liability and seeking, among other things, a determination of the rightful owner of the 25 shares and a permanent bar to Santos’s inspection rights under Section 74 of the Corporation Code.
The complaints were raffled to Branch 149, Regional Trial Court, Makati City (a special commercial court) and thus classified as intra-corporate. Belo filed an Answer ad Cautelam with Cross-Claim denying Santos’s ownership; Santos filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing failure to state a cause of action and lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court issued a December 8, 2008 Joint Resolution: it characterized the dispute as an intra-corporate controversy but dismissed the Complaints for failure to state a cause of action and struck down the declaratory relief as improper; it nevertheless treated motions to dismiss as permissible under the Rules of Court applied suppletorily.
From that Joint Resolution, Belo filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. 08-397) under Rule 43 to protect her counterclaims; Belo Medical Group directly filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, asserting pure questions of law. The Court of Appeals dismissed Belo’s petition on litis pendencia and referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consolidated consideration o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Belo Medical Group, Inc. and Victoria G. Belo commit forum shopping?
- Is the present controversy an intra-corporate dispute subject to the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra‑Corporate Controversies?
- Was a petition under Rule 45 the correct mode of appeal for Belo Medical Group’s challenge to the trial court resolution?
- Did the trial court have a proper basis to dismiss the Suppl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)