Case Digest (G.R. No. 190590)
Facts:
Roberto V. San Jose and Delfin P. Angcao v. Jose Ma. Ozamiz, G.R. No. 190590, July 12, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners San Jose and Angcao (both former officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation or PHC) sought review of the Court of Appeals' 25 September 2009 Decision and 9 December 2009 Resolution in CA‑G.R. SP No. 105543, which had reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 149, Order of 10 September 2008 dismissing respondent Ozamiz's complaint for inspection of corporate books for lack of jurisdiction.
San Jose had been PHC's Corporate Secretary and a director until he resigned in May 2007; Angcao was elected Assistant Corporate Secretary in 1999 and became Corporate Secretary in May 2007. Ozamiz had been a PHC stockholder since 6 January 1997. On 11 May 2007 Ozamiz requested copies of PHC board, executive committee and other committee minutes from 2000–2007 and a certification of completeness. After repeated follow-ups and a referral of the request to PHC's Board and Legal Committee, no copies were produced.
Ozamiz filed a complaint for inspection of books with the RTC on 25 March 2008. Petitioners (and two others later impleaded) answered, denying knowledge and contending the RTC lacked jurisdiction because PHC was majority‑owned (80.35%) by Philcomsat, itself wholly owned by Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), both under PCGG sequestration — hence, they argued, jurisdiction lay with the Sandiganbayan. On 10 September 2008 the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Ozamiz filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision dated 25 September 2009, reversed and remanded the case to the RTC as an intra‑corpo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals' exercise of jurisdiction over the petition for review under Rule 43 proper?
- Did the Regional Trial Court lack jurisdiction because the dispute involved assets or matters incidental to sequestered corporations, placing jurisdiction in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)