Case Digest (G.R. No. 186566)
Facts:
Rep. Luis R. Villafuerte et al. v. Gov. Oscar S. Moreno et al., G.R. No. 186566, October 02, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are a group of persons who claimed to be the duly elected trustees and officers of the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas, Inc. (BAP‑SBP); respondents are another group who claimed to have been validly elected at a rival national congress. The parties trace their dispute to efforts to unify two rival basketball associations — the Basketball Association of the Philippines (BAP) and Pilipinas Basketball (PB) — following a joint Tokyo Communique of 28 August 2006 and a three‑man panel created to effectuate that communique.Pursuant to the Tokyo Communique and the panel’s work, the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas, Inc. (SBP) was incorporated on 17 September 2006 and its by‑laws adopted. A three‑man panel (including petitioner Manuel V. Pangilinan) later executed a Bangkok Agreement (4 February 2007) which amended the corporate name to BAP‑SBP and addressed transitory governance and membership issues, including the admission of “bona fide members” appearing on lists previously submitted to FIBA. The Bangkok Agreement and the by‑laws contemplated that the three‑man panel would formulate rules and procedures to review, verify and validate member lists submitted by BAP and PB.
Despite these unification instruments, factionalism developed. On 4 June 2008 one faction (respondents and their supporters) convened a National Congress and elected respondents as trustees and officers; on 12 June 2008 the other faction (petitioners and their supporters) convened a separate National Congress and elected petitioners as trustees and officers. Prior to the June meetings, petitioner Pangilinan had announced validation of additional member organizations and postponed a national congress, prompting respondent leaders to notify FIBA and to call their own congress.
On 27 June 2008 petitioners filed in the Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 24) Civil Case No. 08‑119546, seeking declaration of nullity of respondents’ June 12, 2008 election and turnover of corporate control. On 3 September 2008 the trial court granted the petition and declared the June 12 congress and election null and void, directing respondents to cease acting as officers and to turn over affairs to petitioners. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
On 18 November 2008 the Court of Appeals (Guevara‑Salonga, J., with Dy‑Liacco Flores and Garcia, JJ., concurring) reversed the RTC, finding (inter alia) that: (a) the Bangkok Agreement only removed the label “probationary” but did not eliminate the validation process required by the Tokyo Communique and the by‑laws; (b) membership validation by the three‑man panel was a condition precedent to active/voting status; (c) the three‑man panel formulated validation rules after the Bangkok Agreement and validated 19 active members (17 of whom attended the June 12 congress); and (d) Villafuerte was not qualified as chairman because the by‑laws require the ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under the Tokyo Communique, the Bangkok Agreement, and the BAP‑SBP Articles of Incorporation and By‑Laws, which members of BAP‑SBP were entitled to vote and be voted upon as trustees and officers?
- Whether petitioner Luis R. Villafuerte validly assumed the position of Chairman of the Board o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)