Title
Florete, Jr. vs. Florete
Case
G.R. No. 174909
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2016
A family dispute over PBS share transfers led to a dismissed complaint due to lack of cause of action and failure to implead indispensable parties; damages awarded were voided.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 174909)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Corporate Subject
    • Petitioners: Marcelino M. Florete, Jr., Maria Elena F. Muyco, Raul A. Muyco (“Marcelino, Jr. Group”).
    • Respondents: Rogelio M. Florete, Sr., Imelda C. Florete, Diamel Corporation, Rogelio C. Florete, Jr., Margaret R. C. Florete (“Rogelio, Sr. Group”).
    • Underlying Entity: People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (PBSI), a private corporation with radio/TV franchise.
  • Corporate Capital and Share Movements
    • Incorporation (March 8, 1966): Authorized capital stock ₱250,000 (2,500 shares at ₱100 par); initial subscription among Marcelino Sr., Salome, and others.
    • Subsequent Transfers and Issuances (1967–1989):
      • Resignations and transfers by Berlin, Sudario (1967);
      • Death of Salome (1980) and stroke of Marcelino Sr. (1982);
      • Board resolutions issuing 1,240 shares to Consolidated Broadcasting (1982) and 610 shares to Newsounds Broadcasting (1967), with later transfers to family and PBSI officers;
      • Capital increase to ₱100,000,000 (1,000,000 shares at ₱100 par) approved by SEC (1989).
    • Sycip Gorres Velayo & Co. Audit (1993): Tracked share movements to 1993, but declined to opine on corporate equity due to incomplete records; report approved by PBSI board (1997).
    • Stockholders of Record (2002): Predominantly Diamel Corp. (30,000 shares), Rogelio Sr. (153,881.53), Marcelino Jr. (18,240.99), Ma. Elena (18,227.23), etc.
  • Procedural History
    • Complaint Filed (June 23, 2003): Marcelino, Jr. Group sought nullity of issuances/transfers, correction of capital structure, and damages.
    • RTC “Placitum” Decision (August 2, 2005): Dismissed complaint for lack of cause of action and non-joinder of indispensable parties; granted Rogelio Sr.’s counterclaim for moral (₱25M) and exemplary damages (₱5M).
    • First CA Proceedings (2005–2006): CA denied petition for review, affirmed RTC decision, lifted TRO/injunction, and identified indispensable parties not impleaded (PBSI, estates of Marcelino Sr./Salome, other transferees).
    • Execution Proceedings (2005–2006): RTC ordered immediate execution (May 18, 2006); CA annulled execution order and writ of execution (November 28, 2006).

Issues:

  • Was the RTC correct in dismissing the Marcelino, Jr. Group’s Complaint for lack of cause of action and non-joinder of indispensable parties?
  • If the RTC erred, should the assailed share issuances and transfers be nullified?
  • May the RTC’s award of moral (₱25M) and exemplary (₱5M) damages in favor of Rogelio Sr. be executed at this stage?

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.