G.R. No. L-8018 - Atun et al. vs. Nunez

Christ’s Achievers Montessori, Inc. (the School) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation operating a school in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
Petitioners Aurelio and Cynthia Hiteroza (Sps. Hiteroza) and respondent Charito S. Cruzada (Charito) are incorporators, members, and trustees of the School. Alberto Cruzada (Charito’s husband) and Jaina R. Salangsang (mother of Cynthia and Charito) are also trustees.

On February 25, 2010, the Sps. Hiteroza filed a derivative suit against Charito seeking the creation of a management committee, appointment of a receiver, and damages.
Allegations against Charito included fraud and misrepresentation causing dissipation and loss of the School's assets, threatening paralysis of its operations and prejudicing the School’s interests.

False reporting of the School’s financial status including discrepancies in the number of enrolled students and concealed real income.
Refusal to allow inspection of corporate and financial records and failure to hold regular and special board meetings including officer elections.
Ballooning of the School’s bank loan from P2,000,000 to over P7,500,000 due to late or non-payment, contrary to assurances.
Filing of fraudulent reports and amended Articles of Incorporation without consent, including forged signatures.
Illegal transfer of Jaina’s membership to her son despite bylaws prohibiting transfer and Jaina’s medical incapacity.
Discrepancy between Charito and her husband’s declared incomes and their wealthy lifestyle, including the purchase of an expensive house and vehicle.
Use of School premises by Charito’s family as personal quarters without rent and use of School funds to pay utilities.

Filed a belated Answer claiming the complaint was a nuisance and harassment.
Alleged that the motive of Sps. Hiteroza was personal gain rather than concern for the School.
Denied the accusations regarding wealth and assets, asserting legitimate acquisition via hard work.
Argued that the “serious situation test” for appointing a management committee or receiver had not been met.
Claimed the Sps. Hiteroza had not exhausted internal remedies as required for a derivative suit.
Maintained that the inspection rights claimed were personal and should be pursued individually, not via derivative suit.

On May 14, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed the Sps. Hiteroza to inspect the School's books and records but ruled the complaint did not amount to a derivative suit and denied requests for management committee or receiver due to lack of evidence and prematurity.
Inspection was conducted in June 2010, and Sps. Hiteroza filed reports alleging missing funds, misuse, and fraud detrimental to the School. Prayer for receiver and management committee renewed.
Charito claimed Sps. Hiteroza's reports were equivalent to prohibited motions for reconsideration; acknowledged failure to produce some documents.
The RTC ordered further inspection in November 2010; Sps. Hiteroza filed second report in January 2011, alleging unaccounted income of over P27 million and refusal to produce bank records.
Mediation was conducted but failed.
Sps. Hiteroza filed a motion for appointment of rehabilitation receiver and management committee.
On March 16, 2012, the RTC appointed a receiver to ascertain claims and due to failure of the parties to settle.

Charito petitioned for certiorari to nullify the RTC order appointing a receiver.
The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition, nullified the RTC order, stressing that the May 14, 2010 RTC decision was final and executory as no appeal was filed.
The CA held that the RTC gravely abused discretion in reconsidering a final decision based on Sps. Hiteroza’s reports, which it regarded as veiled motions for reconsideration, prohibited by rules.
The CA found non-compliance with the substantive requirements for receiver appointment and that the allegations were yet unproven and the School’s operations not in imminent danger.
Motion for reconsideration by Sps. Hiteroza was denied.

Sps. Hiteroza contended the May 14, 2010 RTC decision was not final but a preliminary ruling granting inspection rights.
They argued Charito’s non-compliance with inspection orders and presented evidence of dissipation and heavy indebtedness warranting receivership.

Whether the May 14, 2010 RTC decision is a final judgment.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly nullified the RTC order appointing a receiver.