Title
Empire Insurance, Inc. vs. Bacalla, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 195215
Decision Date
Mar 6, 2019
A liquidation case involving 650,225 Prudential Bank shares allegedly acquired fraudulently, focusing on proper filing fees and injunction validity for asset preservation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195215)

Relevant Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, in its order dated September 24, 2004, declared the involuntary dissolution of several corporations associated with the Tibayan Group, allowing claims of creditors to be settled from the companies' assets. Subsequently, Atty. Bacalla, as the appointed receiver, sought to protect the Prudential Bank shares from being sold, citing risks posed to these shares' ownership during ongoing litigation.

Legal Framework

The significant legal framework in this case is anchored in the provisions for the involuntary dissolution of corporations as outlined in the Corporation Code and the procedures for preliminary injunctions stipulated in the Rules of Court. The intricacies of rights to property and appropriate computation of filing fees based on either market or par value also feature prominently in this context.

Background of the Case

On August 25, 2005, Atty. Bacalla filed for injunctive relief to prevent the disposition of Prudential Bank shares, leading to a trial court ruling that enjoined such actions and allowed Bacalla to recover those shares through a formal action for securities fraud, declaring nullity and seeking specific performance against several defendants.

Filing Fee Controversy

The defendants contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to allegedly inadequate filing fees, insisting that these should be based on the market value rather than the par value of the shares. The trial court ruled that proper filing fees had been paid, standing by the clerk’s earlier computations and emphasizing procedural regularity.

Court of Appeals Decisions

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the issuance of a preliminary injunction, concluding that the respondents (Bacalla group) demonstrated a clear legal right and urgency that justified the injunction to prevent irreparable harm during the litigation process.

Rulings on the Preliminary Injunction

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, maintaining that the Bacalla group had est

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.