Title
Supreme Court
Cecilia Que Yabut, Eumir Carlo Que Camara, and Ma. Corazon Que Garcia vs. Carolina Que Villongco, Ana Maria Que Tan, and Angelica Que Gonzales
Case
G.R. No. 242353
Decision Date
Jan 22, 2024
Family corporation dispute over share transfers, contested elections, and quorum validity; Supreme Court voids orders, remands for further proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242353)

Context of the Dispute

The consolidated cases arise from a familial dispute regarding the validity of stock transfers in Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation. The conflict has triggered a cycle of litigation primarily concerning annual stockholders' meetings and the election of corporate directors and officers. The crux of the dispute involves the 3,140 shares of stock previously held by Geronima Gallego Que, which were allegedly distributed among her children. This distribution is contested by certain heirs, impacting corporate governance and stockholder rights.

Background of the Cases

The cases, G.R. No. 242353 and G.R. No. 253530, reflect ongoing claims by the Yabut Group (Cecilia, Corazon, and Luisa’s family) against the Villongco Group (Carolina, Ana Maria, and Angelica’s family). The Court of Appeals had earlier declared elections held in 2014 and subsequent years void due to the lack of a proper quorum, largely influenced by the disputed shares. The Regional Trial Court also echoed similar void declarations, particularly around the election of directors.

Proceedings in G.R. No. 242353

On January 31, 2015, another attempt was made by petitioners to hold an annual stockholders' meeting, where they were again elected as directors. Respondents challenged this election, leading to a court ruling that found the meeting void due to the absence of quorum. The Court of Appeals confirmed the lower court's ruling citing procedural deficiencies in the lower court's dismissals regarding electoral contests.

Proceedings in G.R. No. 253530

On January 28, 2017, the petitioners reconvened a stockholders' meeting, leading to yet another election contested by respondents. The Regional Trial Court dismissed this challenge, asserting that ongoing litigation in an earlier civil case barred this contest. However, the Court of Appeals overturned this dismissal, finding the trial court's rationale lacking legal foundation, prompting a remand for proceedings on the merits.

Legal Analysis

The core legal issues examined involve the validity of election orders in 2015 and 2017. The Court emphasized that the trial court must articulate distinct factual and legal bases when issuing decisions, as mandated by Section 14, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution and Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. Both orders were deemed insufficiently articulated, failing to provide clear reasoning or a legitimate legal basis for their outcomes.

Mootness of the 2017 Election Contest

The subsequent meetings and elections held post-2017 did not moot the issues raised in the earlier election contest. The Court underscored that the principle of mootness applies only when no live controversy persists. Despite new elections occurring, the underlying legitimacy of the contested meetings remained unresolved — a pertinent issue that could recur in future dealings.

Elements of Litis Pendentia

The Court found that the elements of litis pendentia were absent between the election contests and the Civil Case No. CV-940-MN. Although both sets of litigation featured overlapping parties, their causes of action and sought reliefs were sufficiently distinct to preclude one from prejudging the other.

Quorum Determination

Concerning determinations of quorum in stock

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.