Case Summary (G.R. No. 135981)
Background of the Dispute
The IBAA was formed in 1974 through a memorandum of agreement, wherein the founding banks, including BA, had restrictions on transferring shares without offering them first to the other parties. The ASIA GROUP filed a complaint alleging that Gotianun and BA violated this agreement by engaging in a sale of shares without proper notification, which they argued caused them damages.
Proceedings Before the SEC
A series of SEC orders emanated from the case, with substantial disputes about the roles and rights of the various parties involved. Key SEC orders issued restrictions on the management structure of IBAA and proceedings surrounding the share transfer. These orders led to multiple petitions to the Supreme Court challenging their validity.
Dismissal of Claims and Settlement
In 1985, a joint motion was filed by the ASIA GROUP and Gotianun, seeking dismissal of claims against each other while reserving the right to continue actions against BA. This motion stipulated that the ASIA GROUP recognized the Gotianun Group's rights to the shares and set out a settlement that left BA as the only defendant in ongoing proceedings.
Appeal and Certiorari
Following the dismissal of their claims, BA petitioned the Court of Appeals, arguing that the SEC's orders were erroneous and that both Gotianun and BA were intertwined in the same cause of action. The Court of Appeals dismissed BA’s appeal, indicating that the SEC judgments had become final and that BA's claims lacked merit.
Supreme Court's Ruling
When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, asserting that the SEC ruling dismissing the claims against Gotianun was a final order that resolved all issues between the ASIA GROUP and Gotianun, thus allowing the actions against BA to proceed independently. The Court ruled that BA failed to appeal the judgment within the time limits, affirming the finality of the decision.
Distinction of Causes of Action
The Supreme Court further clarified that the ASIA GROUP's claim against BA for breaching the right of first refusal was distinct from the actions against Gotianun, who could only be liable if aware of the contractual restrictions when purchasing shares. The Court recognized the legitimacy of the ASIA GROUP’s right to choo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 135981)
Case Background
- The Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA) was established on March 25, 1974, through a Memorandum of Agreement involving three banks: First Insular Bank of Cebu, Bank of Asia, and Bank of America NT & SA, with Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank acquiring 10% of the issued capital stock shortly after formation.
- On July 19, 1978, a class action suit was initiated against Bank of America NT & SA (BA), Andrew Gotianun, and six unknown defendants alleged to be Gotianun's relatives.
- The plaintiffs, referred to as the ASIA GROUP, claimed to represent a majority of the successors in interest of the former Bank of Asia, alleging that the matter at hand was of common interest to the stockholders of IBAA and filed on behalf of all similarly situated stockholders.
Allegations in the Complaint
- The complaint accused Bank of America of violating the Agreement of March 25, 1974, which prohibited the sale of shares without first offering them to the other parties or their nominees.
- The accusation against Gotianun's group was that they induced BA to sell them IBAA shares while disregarding the aforementioned Agreement.
- Plaintiffs sought damages totaling not less than P 16,000,000.00, encompassing actual, moral, and exemplary damages, along with attorney's fees.
Proceedings in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- The SEC proceedings included several significant orders issued by Associate Commissioner Sixto de Guzman, which were challenged in the Supreme Court through special civil actions of certiorari.
- Key orders included:
- An order prohibiting the Vice Chairman