Title
Aytona vs. Calalang
Case
G.R. No. 77274-75
Decision Date
Jun 20, 1988
A stockholder sought to enforce a foreign injunction in a Philippine court, but the Supreme Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, as the intra-corporate dispute fell under the SEC's exclusive jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125359)

Factual Background and Proceedings

On August 15, 1985, Aytona filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 88) seeking a restraining order against the respondents. This petition was triggered by a preliminary injunction issued by the Superior Court of California, which restricted certain stockholders, including those of Sawyer-Adecor, from voting shares of NADECOR pending a determination of ownership over shares registered in Aguinaldo's name. Following the issuance of the restraining order by the Quezon City trial court on August 16, 1985, the stockholders’ meeting scheduled for August 19 was adjourned due to the ongoing legal proceedings.

Respondents’ Challenge

Despite service of the restraining order and summons to the respondents on August 21, 1985, including an attempt to serve Sawyer-Adecor through its President, Ms. Carol Garvic, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. Q-45704 on September 3, 1985. They contested the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter, the enforceability of the foreign order, and procedural issues related to Aytona's counsel. Sawyer-Adecor further contended that it was not engaged in business in the Philippines and therefore should not be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Trial Court’s Decision

On October 25, 1985, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, asserting that jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes, even those involving foreign entities, was within the Philippine courts’ purview. This led to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on November 5, 1985, commanding the respondents not to vote on the shares in question.

Court of Appeals and Subsequent Rulings

Respondents subsequently sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which ultimately rendered a decision on November 28, 1986, annulling the trial court’s orders. They disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning concerning jurisdiction and the enforcement of foreign judgments, concluding that there was no foreign judgment requiring enforcement in the Philippines. The decision was reinforced when the motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was denied by the appellate court on January 23, 1987. The matters were consolidated for review.

Legal Principles and Conclusion

This case primarily examines whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction in light of the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.