Title
Co Sr. vs. The Philippine Canine Club, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 190112
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2015
PCCI members expelled for joining rival kennel club AKCUPI challenged amended By-laws; SC granted injunction for threatened members, denied for expelled.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190112)

Petitioners

Primo Co, Sr.; Edgardo Cruz; Fe Lanny L. Alegado; Jester B. Ongchuan; Joseph Ongchuan; and Lucianne Cham.

Respondent

Philippine Canine Club, Inc. (PCCI).

Key Dates

• May 17, 2008 – PCCI amends its by-laws without participation of non-voting members.
• August 22, 2008 – Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) certifies effectiveness of the amended by-laws.
• December 15, 2008 – PCCI’s Board orders suspension and expulsion letters issued to petitioners Co, Cruz, Alegado, and Jester; threats extended to Joseph and Cham.
• January 7, 2009 – Petitioners file for annulment of the amended by-laws, injunction, damages, and apply for temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City.
• January 14, 2009 – RTC grants TRO.
• February 4, 2009 – RTC issues writ of preliminary injunction.
• June 15, 2009 – Court of Appeals (CA) reverses RTC.
• October 29, 2009 – CA denies petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
• April 22, 2015 – Supreme Court renders decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Corporation Code of the Philippines (Section 6 on member amendments); Rule 58 on provisional remedies; Rule 45 on certiorari; and established jurisprudence on injunctive reliefs.

Factual Background

The petitioners joined AKCUPI while remaining PCCI members. PCCI amended Article VI of its by-laws to expand grounds for suspension and expulsion, including “direct or indirect participation” in organizations deemed prejudicial. SEC approval followed. PCCI’s Board then suspended and expelled four petitioners and threatened similar sanctions against Joseph and Cham, citing their AKCUPI affiliations. The petitioners challenged the amendments’ validity and sought injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the amended by-laws and disciplinary actions.

Issues

  1. Whether a court may enjoin enforcement of by-laws amendments and disciplinary measures already in effect or implemented.
  2. Whether injunctive relief under Dayrit v. Delos Santos applies when some acts are already consummated and others remain threatened.

Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court held that a preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy designed solely to maintain the status quo pending final adjudication. Acts already consummated—here the suspension and expulsion of Co, Cruz, Alegado, and Jester—cannot be restrained by injun

...continue reading

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