Title
Megan Sugar Corp. vs. Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 68
Case
G.R. No. 170352
Decision Date
Jun 1, 2011
NFSC's loan default led to foreclosure; CIMICO intervened, transferring rights to MEGAN. MEGAN challenged RTC jurisdiction but was estopped due to active participation, upheld by SC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 2549)

Petitioner

Megan Sugar Corporation, assignee of CIMICO’s rights and obligations under its Memorandum of Agreement with NFSC for crop years 2000–2003.

Respondents

  1. Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 68, Dumangas – issuances of Orders directing deposit of millers’ shares in escrow and granting execution
  2. New Frontier Sugar Corporation and Equitable PCI Bank – involved in foreclosure and interlocutory proceedings

Key Dates

– July 23, 1993: NFSC obtains loan from EPCIB, mortgaging land and mill
– Nov. 17, 2000: NFSC–CIMICO MOA for CIMICO’s mill operation
– Apr. 19, 2002: NFSC sues CIMICO for breach of MOA
– May 10, 2002: EPCIB conducts extrajudicial foreclosure; acquires NFSC land and mill
– Sept. 16, 2002: CIMICO’s amended complaint impleads EPCIB and PISA; RTC issues restraining order
– Oct. 3, 2002: MEGAN and CIMICO MOA; MEGAN begins mill operations Nov. 18, 2002
– Nov. 22 & Nov. 29, 2002: Passi Sugar intervenes; Atty. Sabig appears for MEGAN
– Jan. 16, 2003: RTC orders MEGAN to deposit millers’ share in escrow
– Feb. 19 & Feb. 28, 2003: RTC denies reconsideration and grants execution of escrow order
– Mar. 5, 2003: MEGAN files CA petition for certiorari under Rule 45
– Aug. 23, 2004 & Oct. 12, 2005: Court of Appeals denies petition and motion for reconsideration
– June 1, 2011: Supreme Court decision affirming CA

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions)
– Rule 45, Rules of Court (certiorari jurisdiction)
– Doctrine of estoppel and ostensible authority in corporate representation

Procedural History

MEGAN, having assumed CIMICO’s rights, appeared before the RTC via Atty. Sabig on Passi Sugar’s intervention motion. Despite objections, RTC allowed his participation. Subsequent interlocutory orders directed MEGAN to escrow millers’ share and granted execution. MEGAN challenged RTC jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals by arguing that Atty. Sabig lacked corporate authority and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over a non-party. The CA dismissed the petition on estoppel grounds. MEGAN elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether MEGAN is estopped from questioning RTC orders because of Atty. Sabig’s acts
  2. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory orders dated January 16, February 19, and February 28, 2003

Analysis

– The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s application of estoppel by conduct and ostensible authority. MEGAN knowingly clothed Atty. Sabig with authority by permitting him to appear, by forwarding court papers to him at MEGAN’s operations site, and by inaction to repudiate his status.
– Concha’s presence in court, repeated participation in hearings, and MEGAN’s board composition evidenced MEGAN’s awareness of and acquiescence to Atty. Sabig’s representation.
– MEGAN never timely disavowed S

...continue reading

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