Case Digest (G.R. No. 172449)
Facts:
On August 20, 2008, in G.R. No. 172449, petitioners Lazaro Madara, Alfredo D. Roa III, and Joaquin T. Venus challenged before the Court of Appeals the issuance and enforcement by the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (RTC), of orders and a decision holding them personally liable in a corporate controversy involving Provident International Resources Corporation (PIRC). The controversy in the RTC stemmed from two consolidated civil cases. In Civil Case No. 02-228, Provident International Resources Corporation v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and others, the first amended complaint was filed on October 15, 2002 and alleged, among others, that petitioners and certain others were elected PIRC directors and officers for 2002 to 2003, and that despite PAGCOR’s knowledge of the new directors and officers, PAGCOR continued to remit lease rentals to the former corporate officers. The first amended complaint sought payment of the lease rentals to Ro...Case Digest (G.R. No. 172449)
Facts:
Provident International Resources Corporation (PIRC) became the subject of two consolidated RTC cases filed by persons styling themselves as PIRC officers/directors (Civil Cases Nos. 02-228 and 02-238), one group (the petitioners Lazaro Madara, Alfredo D. Roa III, and Joaquin T. Venus) claiming election as directors and officers and seeking PAGCOR lease rentals; a second, opposing group (the private respondents including Edward T. Marcelo and others) asserted that the petitioners were fraudulent interlopers and that the respondents were the bona fide directors and officers. After trial, the RTC in favor of the intervenors-defendants held that the private respondents were the true PIRC officers/directors, found the petitioners to be non-PIRC stockholders, ordered return of wrongfully remitted lease rentals, dismissed the complaint, and awarded damages and attorney’s fees.The petitioners appealed by Notice of Appeal, later sought relief with a Petition for Relief from Judgment, and subsequently filed multiple Rule 65 certiorari petitions before the Court of Appeals—CA-G.R. SP No. 90821 (assailing the RTC decision and execution-related orders) and later CA-G.R. SP No. 91950 (assailing the RTC’s denial of their motion for reconsideration). The Court of Appeals dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 90821 for lack of merit and for forum shopping, holding that petitioners were parties who had voluntarily submitted to the RTC and that their successive filings sought the same relief.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioners were personally liable despite their claim that they were not parties to the RTC cases.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioners guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)