Title
Commart , Inc. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission
Case
G.R. No. 85318
Decision Date
Jun 3, 1991
Brothers' corporate dispute over mismanagement, fund diversion; minority stockholder derivative suit upheld despite corporation's dismissal attempt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 85318)

Petition Overview

Petitioners seek to reverse the SEC's en banc Order dated September 12, 1988, which denied their petition for certiorari and remanded SEC Case No. 2673 for further proceedings. This decision was claimed to be issued in a state of grave abuse of discretion and asserted a lack of jurisdiction.

Corporate Structure and Deviations

Commart was established by Jesus and Mariano Maglutac for brokerage purposes. In 1984, Mariano sold his shares to Jesus under a "Cooperative Agreement," which aimed to facilitate Mariano’s entry into his own business. Despite Mariano's departure, his wife, Alice, retained her shares and continued to serve as a director.

Allegations of Misappropriation

Following Mariano's sale of his shares, he and Alice Maglutac filed a complaint with the SEC alleging that Jesus and Corazon Maglutac were siphoning off corporate funds into their personal accounts. The complaint detailed wrongful financial arrangements resulting in the diversion of $2.5 million of commission income to the private benefit of Jesus Maglutac.

Motions to Dismiss

The initial responses from the respondents included multiple motions to dismiss, arguing lack of capacity and jurisdiction. The case saw ongoing disputes regarding the nature of the complaint and whether it constituted a valid derivative suit.

SEC's Rulings on Dismissals

Despite the motions to dismiss, the SEC maintained that the complaint qualified as a derivative suit, essential for minority shareholders to protect corporate interests. Indeed, the SEC further ruled that exhaustion of intra-corporate remedies could be waived if such avenues were deemed futile.

Role of the Hearing Panel

A subsequent modification of the SEC’s hearing panel's orders led to the dismissal of claims against Mariano but affirmed the standing of Alice as a minority stockholder. The SEC noted that the complaints' allegations sufficiently established jurisdiction.

Grounds for Petitioners' Reversal

The petitioners raised two primary issues for reversal: the alleged error in the SEC's handling of dismissals and whether Alice's ownership of shares in a competitor constituted a conflict of interest precluding her claims.

SEC’s Justification of Jurisdiction

The SEC concluded

...continue reading

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