Case Summary (G.R. No. 232094)
Applicable Law
The legal framework concerning the case is fundamentally grounded in the Constitution of the Philippines, specifically addressing issues relating to the creation of government-controlled corporations and their authority to enter into contracts.
Formation and Capitalization of the NHC
The NHC was established on June 26, 1968, initially with a capital of ₱100,000, which was later significantly increased to ₱100 million. Respondent financial institutions subscribed a substantial amount to the corporation’s shares, reflecting the government's intent to lead a low-cost housing initiative. The rapid increase in capitalization shows the corporation's significant development role within the public sector.
The Lawsuit and Initial Allegations
On March 1, 1969, petitioner Gonzales filed a complaint claiming that the NHC was unlawfully established under the Corporation Law instead of a special law as required by the Constitution. He argued that the actions of the incorporators violated public policy, emphasizing that since NHC was allegedly a void corporation, any contracts entered into by it, particularly with Hildebrand for the supply of construction equipment amounting to DM 64,000,000.00, were thus invalid.
Prior Legal Actions
Before the current complaint, Gonzales had filed a petition for prohibition, which was dismissed by the court, directing him to file for quo warranto instead. The Solicitor General had also initiated a quo warranto petition against the NHC's founders, questioning the legality of its establishment, further complicating Gonzales's repeated legal actions concerning the same issues.
Respondents’ Defenses
In response, the respondents argued that the NHC was a private corporation and that its contracts did not involve public funds, rebutting the grounds of taxpayer standing for this lawsuit. They contended that the allegations in Gonzales’s complaint were a reiteration of previously addressed issues and emphasized that the present lawsuit should be barred due to the ongoing quo warranto proceedings.
Trial Court Decision
The trial court dismissed Gonzales's complaint primarily citing res judicata due to his prior petition and asserting that the quo warranto action must first resolve the legality of NHC’s formation. Moreover, the court ruled against the respondents' counterclaims for damages, stating that the pursuit of the suit should not discourage public participation in governance.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's ruling by awarding attorney's fees and litigation expenses to the respondents, finding Gonzales's case lacked proper foundation. The appellate court's ruling was based on the determination that Gonzales’s action was virtually unfounded.
Supreme Court Review
Gonzales filed a petition for review, challenging the appellate court's jurisdiction and the awarding of attorney fees. The Supreme Court eventually resolved to limit its focus exclusively on these attorney fees given the mixed factual and legal ques
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 232094)
Case Background
- The case involves a taxpayer's suit filed by Ramon A. Gonzales against several respondents including the National Housing Corporation (NHC) and various government agencies.
- NHC was formed on June 26, 1968, with an initial capital of P100,000.00, aimed at supporting the government's low-cost housing program.
- The authorized capital was later increased to P100 million, with significant investments from government financial institutions including the Social Security System (SSS) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
- Gonzales filed a complaint on March 1, 1969, seeking the annulment of a contract between NHC and Hildebrand Maschinehandel, GMDH, for machinery and equipment valued at DM 64,000,000.00.
Allegations of the Petitioner
- Gonzales alleged that NHC was illegally created under the Corporation Law rather than through a special act of Congress, violating constitutional provisions.
- He argued that the establishment of NHC breached the Anti-Graft Law and public policy.
- The petitioner claimed that the involved government financial institutions lacked the authority to invest in NHC, rendering the contract void and unenforceable.
- He sought personal liability from the corporate officers involved in the contract for refunds of payments made under it.
Previous Legal Actions
- Prior to the complaint, Gonzales had filed a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction (G.R. No. L-30080) challenging the legality of NHC, which was dismissed on February 1, 1969.
- Following this, the Solicitor General initiated a quo warr