Case Digest (G.R. No. 45574)
Facts:
B. H. Silen, S. J. Wilson, J. George, C. R. Luzuriaga, and Francis Lusk v. Jose O. Vera, Leon Rosenthal, Frederic H. Stevens, and Gonzalo P. Nava, G.R. No. 45574, October 27, 1937, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa‑Real, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners (Silen, Wilson, George, Luzuriaga and Francis Lusk) sought certiorari to annul a writ of preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jose O. Vera of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 51014. The injunction, granted in favor of Leon Rosenthal, Frederic H. Stevens and Gonzalo P. Nava (plaintiffs in the CFI case and respondents here), restrained the petitioners from exercising the offices to which they claimed to have been elected at the stockholders’ meeting of the Zambales Chromite Mining Co., Inc. on March 1, 1937, and reinstated the former directors and officers (the respondents).
The factual background began with an earlier dispute: in G.R. No. 45473 (reported as Lusk v. Stevens), decided March 13, 1937, this Court declared null and void the election of the then-incumbent directors and officers (the present respondents) at the March 2, 1936 stockholders’ meeting and ordered a new election. Under Section I of the company by‑laws directors served for one year or until successors were elected and qualified; accordingly the incumbents continued until March 1, 1937 while their motion for reconsideration remained pending. On March 1, 1937, the one‑year term expired and a general meeting of stockholders was held; the petitioners were elected as directors and immediately assumed and exercised the functions of their offices (including selecting officers, issuing checks, and withdrawing funds).
On March 4, 1937 the former directors (Rosenthal, Stevens and Nava) filed a complaint in CFI No. 51014 seeking to annul the March 1, 1937 elections and to oust the newly elected petitioners; the CFI judge thereupon issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction restoring the former directors to office and suspending the petitioners’ exercise of office. The CFI denied a motion to dissolve the injunction. The petitioners then filed the present petition for cert...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance act without or in excess of its jurisdiction and abuse its discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 51014?
- Is a preliminary injunction a proper remedy in quo warranto-like proceedings to remove corporate officers or to restore former ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)