Case Digest (G.R. No. 191033)
Facts:
The Orchard Golf & Country Club, Inc., Exequiel D. Robles, Carlo R.H. Magno, Conrado L. Benitez II, Vicente R. Santos, Henry Cua Loping, Mariza Santos-Tan, Tomas B. Clemente III, and Francis C. Montallana v. Ernesto V. Yu and Manuel C. Yuhico, G.R. No. 191033, January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On May 28, 2000 respondents Ernesto Yu and Manuel Yuhico teed off at the Orchard Golf & Country Club in breach of the Club’s “no twosome” weekend rule and without a required tee-time slip; an assistant golf director reported the incident and the Club’s board resolved on June 29, 2000 to suspend them from July 16 to October 15, 2000. The respondents sought injunctive relief with the SEC’s Securities and Investigation Clearing Department (SICD), which issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction in August 2000, but SEC en banc guidelines limited the effectivity of such provisional remedies to August 8, 2000 because jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases would be transferred to the regular courts by the effectivity of the Securities Regulation Code.
After competing actions in several forums (the CA, the SEC, and two petitions to the Supreme Court consolidated as G.R. Nos. 150335 and 152687), this Court in Yu v. The Orchard Golf & Country Club, Inc. (546 Phil. 1, 2007) held that the SEC-issued writs were effective only until August 8, 2000 and dismissed the TRO challenge as moot. Meanwhile the Imus, Cavite RTC (Branch 21) took cognizance of the intra-corporate actions (SEC Case Nos. 001‑01 and 002‑01), conducted trial, and on December 4, 2008 rendered a decision declaring the board’s suspension void, permanently enjoining its enforcement, and awarding P2,000,000 moral damages, P2,000,000 exemplary damages, P500,000 attorney’s fees and P100,000 costs to each respondent.
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal and then an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition for review under Rule 43; the Court of Appeals (CA) initially gave petitioners a 15‑day period on January 15, 2009 to file the Rule 43 petition. Petitioners filed the petition on January 21, 2009. Respondents opposed and sought execution before the Imus RTC; the RTC granted execution on February 17, 2009 and a writ of execution issued March 2, 2009. The sheriff collected by March 30, 2009 two manager’s checks totaling P9,200,000, which were delivered to respondents’ counsel.
On September 16, 2009 the CA granted respondents’ motion for reconsideration and set aside its January 15, 2009 resolution; the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on January 21, 2010. Petitioners therefore filed this petition for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reconsidering and setting aside its January 15, 2009 Resolution that granted petitioners a 15‑day period to file a petition for review under Rule 43 (i.e., was petitioners’ delay excusable and should the CA have allowed the Rule 43 petition)?
- On the merits, were respondents’ suspensions void and were the awards of moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of sui...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)