Case Digest (G.R. No. 171765)
Facts:
The Incorporators of Mindanao Institute Inc. and the Board of Trustees of Mindanao Institute Inc., represented by Engr. Victorioso D. Udarbe, v. the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, acting through Agusan District Conference United Church of Christ in the Philippines, represented by Rev. Rodolfo Baslot, G.R. No. 171765, March 21, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.On April 29, 2003, the ten incorporators of Mindanao Institute, Inc. (MI) — collectively the MI Incorporators, represented by Engr. Udarbe — filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte (Special Civil Action Case No. 03-02) a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, seeking a declaration that MI owned its assets and an injunction to prevent an alleged takeover by UCCP, which the incorporators said was unlawfully claiming ownership.
On June 5, 2003, UCCP answered with a counterclaim asserting ownership of MI properties based on certain instruments (Articles of Incorporation, deed of donation, quitclaim) and claiming majority control of the Board of Trustees. On June 10, 2003 the RTC issued a TRO restraining UCCP from seizing control of MI pending resolution of the main action.
Meanwhile, MI had adopted amended Articles of Incorporation on May 9, 2003 which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved on May 26, 2003. On June 11, 2003 UCCP and MI (represented by Dr. Edgardo R. Batitang) filed before the same RTC a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the 2003 Amended Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws (Civil Case No. 09-2003), alleging that the amendments were ultra vires and were not validly adopted under Section 16 of the Corporation Code (B.P. Blg. 68).
At the June hearings, counsel of the law firm Bernabe, Doyon, Bringas & Partners entered appearance as collaborating counsel for UCCP; one partner was the son of Executive Judge Orlando F. Doyon. Although UCCP’s counsel moved for Judge Doyon’s inhibition, and despite petitioners’ counsel expressing no objection to the judge’s continued participation, the RTC proceeded and, in its Omnibus Order dated July 4, 2003, denied the TRO in Civil Case No. 09-2003 but granted the writ of preliminary injunction in Special Civil Case No. 03-02 restraining UCCP from taking over or managing MI upon plaintiffs’ posting of a bond.
UCCP moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied it (Aug. 15, 2003). Judge Doyon later inhibited himself (Omnibus Order dated Aug. 20, 2003) after learning of his son’s law firm’s appearance. Aggrieved, UCCP and MI (represented by Dr. Batitang) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Twenty-Third Division, challenging the RTC’s issuance of the preliminary injunction.
In its September 30, 2005 Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 79156), the CA granted the Rule 65 petition and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, reasoning among other things that the action for declaratory relief did not call for injunctional relief...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals, in an original action for certiorari under Rule 65, err in considering and ruling on factual issues not yet tried in the RTC and in dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in its application of Rule 3.12(d) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (and related disqualification rules) ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)