|
LAZARO MADARA, ALFREDO D. ROA III, and
JOAQUIN T. VENUS, Petitioners, -
versus - HON. NORMA C. PERELLO, Presiding Judge of Branch 276,
Regional Trial Court, Muntinlupa City, FELIX M. FALCOTELO, Sheriff-in-Charge
Muntinlupa City, PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION, and PROVIDENT
INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, represented by EDWARD T. MARCELO,
CONSTANCIO D. FRANCISCO, ANNA MELINDA MARCELO-REVILLA, LYDIA J. CHUANICO,
DANIEL T. PASCUAL, LINDA J. MARCELO, JOHN J. MARCELO, CELIA C. CABURNAY,
CELEDONIO P. ESCANO, JR., and the REGISTER OF DEEDS of Muntinlupa City,
Respondents. |
G.R. No. 172449
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
carpio MORALES, TINGA, *CHICO-NAZARIO,
and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: August 20, 2008 |
x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
BRION, J.:
|
|
|
Submitted for our decision
is the Amended Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 December 2005[2]
and its Resolution dated 24 April 2006[3]
in CA-G.R. SP No. 90821,[4]
filed by the petitioners Lazaro Madara (Madara),
Alfredo D. Roa III (Roa), and Joaquin
T. Venus (Venus) [collectively, the petitioners].
THE ANTECEDENTS
The amended petition originated from two
(2) separate amended complaints purportedly
filed by Provident International Resources Corporation as plaintiff (plaintiff
PIRC) with the
The first amended complaint, filed on 15 October 2002 and entitled Provident International Resources
Corporation v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR), Mr. Efraim
Genuino, as Chairman, Mr. Rafael Francisco, as President, JOHN DOES AND JANE
DOES, was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-228.[5] The amended complaint states, among others,
that: (1) the petitioners Madara, Roa and Venus, as well as Jose Ma.
Carlos Zumel and Luis A. Asistio, were elected plaintiff PIRC’s directors for
the year 2002-2003 and that some of them, as well as a certain Santiago Alvarez
(Alvarez) who was elected General
Manager, were subsequently elected corporate officers; (2) despite
information to PAGCOR (the lessee of one of the PIRC properties) of the election
of the new set of directors and corporate officers, PAGCOR continued to remit its
lease rentals to PIRC’s former
corporate officers. The amended complaint
asks: (1) that PAGCOR be ordered to pay its monthly lease rentals to Roa
and/or Alvarez, and/or any of their authorized representatives and no other;
and (2) for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction. Roa,
as the President of plaintiff PIRC, verified the complaint while Venus, in his
capacity as plaintiff PIRC’s Corporate Secretary, signed the Secretary’s
Certificate attesting to Roa’s authority to institute the action.
An Answer in Intervention[6]
was filed also in the name of PIRC (real
PIRC) and the herein private respondents Constancio D. Francisco (Francisco), Edward T. Marcelo (Edward Marcelo), Lydia J. Chuanico (Chuanico), Daniel T. Pascual (Pascual) and Anna Melinda
Marcelo-Revilla (Marcelo-Revilla). The pleading essentially states that the
private respondents, rather than the petitioners, are the bona fide directors and officers of PIRC and that the petitioners,
Zumel, Asistio and Valdez are not even stockholders of PIRC – they are mere
pretenders who intended to grab power and control of PIRC. The private respondents asked for: (1)
the denial of the injunctive reliefs asked in the amended complaint; (2)
the dismissal of the complaint; and (3)
damages and attorney’s fees.
The second amended complaint, filed on 5 December 2002, was docketed as
Civil Case No. 02-238 and entitled Provident
International Resources Corporation v. Edward T. Marcelo, Constancio D. Francisco,
Anna Melinda Marcelo-Revilla, Linda J. Marcelo, John J. Marcelo, Celia C.
Caburnay and Celedonio P. Escaño, Jr.[7] The complaint essentially alleges that: (1)
the original incorporators of PIRC – Chuanico, Franciso, Jose A. Lazaro, Edward
Marcelo and Pascual – merely held the initial paid-up stockholdings in trust
for the real stockholders – the petitioners, Zumel and Asistio; thus, the
incorporators at the time of PIRC’s incorporation in 1979 executed Deeds of
Assignment in blank, Deeds of Transfer in blank, waiver of pre-emptive rights
and endorsement in blank of their stock certificates; (2) on 7 August 2002, the
blank deeds and transfer documents were completed to effect the transfer to the
petitioners, Zumel and Asistio; (3) at a stockholder’s meeting, it was agreed
that the PIRC directors who have not voluntarily resigned shall be considered
removed and an election of new directors conducted; at this election, the
petitioners, Zumel and Asistio were elected new directors and following an
organizational meeting, the new board elected a new set of PIRC officers; (4)
despite the election of the new set of PIRC officers, the named defendants
continue to unlawfully exercise possession of the PIRC office, misrepresent
themselves as directors and officers of PIRC and unlawfully exercise acts on
behalf of PIRC; all these malicious acts caused PIRC damage and prejudice.
The second complaint asks for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or preliminary mandatory injunction and also a permanent injunction to
enjoin the named defendants from acting as directors and officers of PIRC and from
taking custody of corporate records. As
in the first amended complaint, the complaint was verified by Roa and the
Secretary’s Certificate attesting to Roa’s authority was signed by Venus.
In their Answer to the Amended Complaint in Civil
Case No. 02-238 (i.e., to the second complaint), with (1) Motion to
Implead the Real PIRC and the Fraudulent Interlopers as Indispensable Parties (2)
Motion for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses and (3) Compulsory
Counterclaims,[8]
the named defendants (except PAGCOR and its officers) in both Civil Case No.
02-228 and Civil Case No. 02-238 maintained that they are the genuine directors
and officers of PIRC. The named
defendants asked for: (1) the addition of the petitioners, Zumel and
Asistio as parties-plaintiffs and the real
PIRC as party-defendant; (2) the dismissal of the complaint in Civil
Case No. 02-238 after hearing on the affirmative defenses; (3) the
issuance of a writ of permanent injunction against the petitioners, Zumel and
Asistio; and (4) that they be ordered to solidarily pay the named
defendants and real PIRC moral, exemplary, actual and nominal damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and treble costs.
The two amended
complaints were consolidated and were raffled to Branch 256 of the
After trial and
submission of all relevant evidence in the consolidated cases, the RTC ruled in
favor of the intervenors-defendants (the private respondents herein), finding
them to be the true and duly constituted members of the board of directors and
the duly elected officers of PIRC. The
RTC found as well that the petitioners were non-PIRC stockholders and therefore
were not qualified for election either as directors or corporate officers. Having therefore no right to receive the lease
rentals due from PAGCOR, the RTC ordered the petitioners to jointly return to
the real PIRC the rental payments
for the period covering October 19 to
PRESCINDING, the PETITION FOR MANDATORY
INJUNCTION is never denied (sic).
But the Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction, issued for the
INTERVENORS/DEFENDANTS is made permanent, and the Group of plaintiffs directed
to permanently desists (sic) and stop from disturbing the operation of the
Corporation by the same INTERVENOR/DEFENDANTS, who are found to be the true and
duly constituted Officers of the Corporation, legally voted as such Officers
and as Members of the Board of Directors.
The Civil Complaint against them, Civil Case Nos. 02-238 is hereby
dismissed.
It has been shown that the Group
of Plaintiffs, JOSE MA. CARLOS L. ZUMEL, ALFREDO D. ROA III, LAZARO L. MADARA,
JOAQUIN T. VENUS and SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, JR. never had any right to receive
rental from defendant PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION. This Group of Plaintiffs, JOSE MA. CARLOS L.
ZUMEL, ALFREDO D. ROA III, LAZARO L. MADARA, JOAQUIN T. VENUS and SANTIAGO
ALVAREZ, JR. are therefore directed to jointly and unilaterally return to the
Corporation the rental payments for the month of October 19 to November 18,
20002, which they collectively receive, without any right to collect and
receive such rental.
Since by reason of this suit it
has been shown that the Intervenors/Defendants, being EDWARD T. MARCELO,
CONSTANCIO D. FRANCISCO, ANNA MELINDA MARCELO-REVILLA, LINDA J. MARCELO, JOHN
J. MARCELO, CELIA C. CABURNAY and CELEDONIO P. ESCAÑO, sustained injuries and
damages not only to the reputation of the corporation but also personally as
officers and members of the Corporation Board, damages is tolled against the
Plaintiffs, JOSE MA. CARLOS L. ZUMEL, ALFREDO D. ROA III, LAZARO L. MADARA,
JOAQUIN T. VENUS and SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, JR. which they must pay jointly and
unilaterally to the Intervenors/Defendants, being EDWARD T. MARCELO, CONSTANCIO
D. FRANCISCO, ANNA MELINDA MARCELO-REVILLA, LINDA J. MARCELO, JOHN J. MARCELO,
CELIA C. CABURNAY and CELEDONIO P. ESCAÑO, JR. in the sum of FIVE MILLION PESOS
(P5,000,000.00).
Since Intervenors/Defendants
EDWARD T. MARCELO, CONSTANCIO D. FRANCISCO, ANNA MELINDA MARCELO-REVILLA, LINDA
J. MARCELO, JOHN J. MARCELO, CELIA C. CABURNAY and CELEDONIO P. ESCAÑO, JR.
were forced to litigate and defend themselves thru counsel, attorney’s fees in
the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 500,000.00) JOSE MA. CARLOS L. ZUMEL,
ALFREDO D. ROA III, LAZARO L. MADARA, JOAQUIN T. VENUS and SANTIAGO ALVAREZ,
JR. which they must pay jointly and unilaterally.
The actual cost of this
litigation is also tolled against the Group of plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The plaintiff PIRC filed a Notice of Appeal on
Roa, Madara, Venus and Alvarez, then
filed a Motion to Admit Petition for Review with the attached Petition for Review dated
The petitioners then filed before the
trial court a Petition for Relief from
Judgment dated 28 June 2005,[19]
alleging that: (1) they were prevented from (a) presenting rebuttal
evidence, or at the very least, taking an appeal from the supposed denial of
their motion to present rebuttal evidence, (b) filing a memorandum and (c)
sufficiently proving their case through fraud, mistake or excusable negligence;
and (2) they have good and substantial causes of action. They asked: (1) for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction; (2) the
setting aside of the RTC decision dated
In an Order dated 30 June 2005[20]
that resolved the incidents pending before it (namely, the Notice of Appeal,
the Opposition thereto, and private respondents’ motion for the immediate issuance
of the writ of execution), the RTC ruled that its decision had become final and
executory and entry of judgment was in order.
The RTC cited as basis the procedural
errors the plaintiff PIRC committed in filing a notice of appeal instead of a
petition for review, and in later filing a belated petition for review. The RTC also granted the private respondents’
motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
The RTC denied in its Order
dated
Meanwhile, in a Resolution promulgated
on 19 July 2005, the Court of Appeals granted the petitioners’ Ex-Parte
Manifestation and Motion in CA-G.R. SP No. 90147, resulting in the
withdrawal of the Petition for Review.
On
These RTC incidents were still pending
resolution when the petitioners filed on August 10, 2005, a Petition for Certiorari[24]
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals,
assailing on the ground of grave abuse of discretion the following orders
issued by the RTC and the various notices issued by the sheriff –
a.
Decision dated
b.
Order
dated
c.
Writ of Execution dated
d.
Order
dated
e.
Notice to Pay dated
f.
Notice of Levy on Execution dated
g.
Notice of
h. Notice
to Parties of Sheriff’s Auction Sale dated
The petition
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90821. The petition essentially imputed grave abuse
of discretion on the public respondents for issuing the assailed orders and
notices which were commonly directed towards the enforcement of the RTC decision
against the petitioners. The petitioners
posited that the enforcement of the RTC decision and of the court’s orders and
notices against them would violate their right to due process as they were not
parties to the case; even assuming that they
were parties, they were never notified of the proceedings from beginning to end
so that the decision is void as against them.
The private respondents filed an Urgent Manifestation Ex Abudanti Ad Cautelam and a Comment on the petition in
CA-G.R. SP No. 90821. In their
Manifestation, the private respondents alleged that the petitioners committed
forum shopping.[25]
While CA-G.R. SP No. 90821 was pending,
the RTC denied in an Order dated
On 7 November 2005, the petitioners in their own and individual
capacities[27]
filed another Petition for Certiorari
with the Court of Appeals assailing the interrelated 1 July 2005 and 31 August
2005 orders. This petition was
docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 91950.[28]
Significantly, the petitioner never
disclosed – in the present petition before this Court – all these material
developments, including the filing of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 91950. Only the private respondents informed us of
these developments in their Comment on the petition. The petitioners never denied that they filed
CA-G.R. SP No. 91950 with the Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals dismissed
– via the decision assailed in the present petition – the
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90821 for lack of merit and forum shopping. The Court of Appeals found that even if PIRC
had been named as plaintiff in the Civil Cases No. 02-228 and 02-238, the
petitioners were the ones actually interested in the lease rentals due from
PAGCOR in view of their claim that they were the newly elected directors and
officers of PIRC; the petitioners could not deny that they were parties to the
consolidated civil cases because they claimed in their subsequent pleadings
with the RTC that they were the plaintiffs who had commenced the consolidated
civil cases; thus, they voluntarily submitted themselves to the RTC’s
jurisdiction and could not claim denial of due process. The forum shopping conclusion, on the other
hand, was based on the appellate court’s observation that the petition filed before
it was the petitioners’ fourth attempt to question the RTC decision, and that the
petitioners had filed the petition without waiting for the resolution of the
motion for reconsideration of the Order dated 1 July 2005 and the urgent motion
to quash/recall writ of execution the petitioners had filed with the RTC.
The petitioners moved to reconsider
the Decision,[29]
but the Court of Appeals denied the motion in the second order assailed in this
petition.
Thereupon, the petitioners filed the present
petition, asking us to rule on the following ISSUES –
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN HOLDING PETITIONERS
PERSONALLY LIABLE DESPITE THEIR NOT BEING PARTIES TO THE CASE.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONERS
GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING.
The petitioners argue that
they were not parties to the consolidated civil cases and cannot therefore be
bound by the decision; their properties cannot likewise be levied on execution. This argument is anchored on the positions that:
(1) the titles of the
consolidated cases do not include them as they were neither plaintiffs nor
defendants in these cases; if they were defendants they should have been served
with summons; (2)
they never took part in the pre-trial proceedings or in the trial proper; only
the PIRC and the private respondents offered their evidence; (3) the records will show that nobody ever
came forward and appeared as counsel for any of the petitioners; and (4) they had no participation in the
case except to cause the filing of the consolidated civil cases, which they did
as mere representatives.
Additionally, the
petitioners argue that the pleadings cited by the Court of Appeals purportedly showing
that the petitioners were parties to the consolidated cases were filed after
the RTC rendered judgment; this is the natural reaction of persons who, while not
parties to the case, were being held liable under the RTC decision. Thus, the filing of these post-judgment
pleadings cannot mean that they were parties; a mere claim in a post-judgment pleading that
they are parties, which is however negated by the records of the case, is an inconsequential
oversight and should not be considered as voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. They also
claim denial of due process for being denied the opportunity to be heard – they
were not given the chance to file a complaint or answer, to participate in the
pre-trial conference and in the trial by submitting evidence. In sum, they claim that the judgment as against
them is void.[30]
On forum shopping, the petitioners claim that their motion
for reconsideration of the 1 July 2005 Order had been rendered functus officio by the successive
issuances – the Writ of Execution, Notice to Pay, Notice of Levy on Execution,
Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property, the Notice to Parties of
Sheriff’s Auction Sale, the Auction Sale and Certificate of Sale – which left them with no recourse but to
consider their motion denied for purposes of seeking immediate and adequate
reliefs from the Court of Appeals; that, in fact, even after the filing of
their petition with the Court of Appeals, the execution of the RTC decision
proceeded. All these allegedly show
that, to all intents and purposes, there was no more pending motion for
reconsideration at the time they sought relief from the Court of Appeals; the
denial too of the motion for reconsideration on 31 August 2005 was nothing but
a mere formality.[31]
OUR RULING
We see no merit in the
petition as the appellate court’s dismissal of the petition in CA-GR SP No.
90821 on the ground of the petitioners’ forum shopping is correct. Separately from the forum shopping violation before
the Court of Appeals in CA–GR SP No. 90821, the petitioners also committed
forum shopping and violated their forum shopping certification in seeking
relief from this Court. Lastly, on the
merits, we see no reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ finding that the
petitioners were parties to Civil Cases Nos. 02-228 and 02-238 who can be held
liable for the RTC’s decision in these cases.
Forum shopping is the institution of
two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, on the expectation that one or the other court would render a
favorable disposition. It is the losing
party’s attempt, other than by appeal or by the special civil action of
certiorari, to seek a favorable judgment in another forum. By its nature, it is a reprehensible practice
that manipulates the court system and abuses its processes; it degrades the
administration of justice; and it wastes valuable court resources that can
otherwise be used in other priority areas in the dispensation of justice.[32] It is particularly pernicious when it
introduces the possibility – because the losing party is asking different courts to rule on the same or related causes and
to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs - of conflicting decisions
being rendered by different fora on the same issues.[33]
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in another. Otherwise stated, the test
is whether the two (or more) pending cases have identity of
parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs sought.[34] Willful
and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary
dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.”[35]
Forum Shopping at the Court of
Appeals
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the petitioners indulged
in a clear case of forum shopping before it.
One of the assailed orders in CA - GR SP No. 90821 was the RTC’s
We so conclude despite the fact that what the petitioners
filed was a petition for certiorari,
a recourse that – in the usual course and because of its nature and purpose – is
not covered by the rule on forum shopping.
The exception from the forum shopping rule, however, is true only where a
petition for certiorari is properly or regularly invoked in the usual course;
the exception does not apply when the relief sought, through a petition for certiorari,
is still pending with or has as yet to be decided by the respondent court,
tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial body, e.g., a motion for reconsideration of
the order assailed via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, as in the
present case. This conclusion is
supported and strengthened by Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court which
provides that the availability of a remedy in the ordinary course of law
precludes the filing of a petition for certiorari; under this rule, the
petition’s dismissal is the necessary consequence if recourse to Rule 65 is prematurely
taken.
To be sure, the simultaneous remedies the petitioners
sought could result in possible conflicting rulings, or at the very least, to
complicated situations, between the RTC and the Court of Appeals. An extreme possible result is for the
appellate court to confirm that the RTC decision is meritorious, yet the RTC
may at the same time reconsider its ruling and recall its order of
dismissal. In this eventuality, the
result is the affirmation of the decision that the court a quo has backtracked on. Other
permutations depending on the rulings of the two courts and the timing of these
rulings are possible. In every case, our
justice system suffers as this kind of sharp practice opens the system to the
possibility of manipulation; to uncertainties when conflict of rulings arise;
and at least to vexation for complications other than conflict of rulings. Thus, it matters not that ultimately the
Court of Appeals may completely agree with the RTC; what the rule on forum
shopping addresses are the possibility and the actuality of its harmful effects
on our judicial system.
We find no merit too in petitioners’ excuse, offered in the
present petition, that there was no pending motion for reconsideration to speak
of at the time they sought relief from the Court of Appeals, as their motion
had been impliedly but effectively denied by the RTC. This explanation or excuse is significantly
weakened by the petitioners’ subsequent filing of yet another petition for
certiorari assailing for the second time the
Forum Shopping With this Court
The records before us do not disclose whether the petitioners
ever informed the Division of the Court of Appeals handling CA-G.R. SP No.
90821 of the filing of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 91950, in light of the
requirement that the petitioners in a Rule 65 petition are committed to inform
the court of the filing of a similar action or proceeding within 5 days from
knowledge of such filing. The petitioners’
filing of the second petition before the Court of Appeals is however replete
with significance in relation with the present petition before this Court.
In the required sworn certification attached to the
petition for review filed with us, the petitioners stated under oath that they
have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, or that any
such action or proceeding is pending with us, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal agency. Additionally,
they undertook to report to this Court the filing of any similar action or
proceedings within 5 days from knowledge of such filing. Despite this certification and undertaking, the
petitioners never disclosed to this Court the pendency of CA–GR SP No. 91950 or
any of its material developments; thus, we are left in the dark, up to now, on
the status and fate of CA–GR SP No. 91950. As far as we know, there are two
pending cases dealing with the issues before us – CA-G.R. SP No. 91950 and the
present petition.
Clearly, therefore, the petitioners forum-shopped when it
filed the present petition. They also filed with this Court a false
certification of non-forum shopping and blatantly violated as well their
undertaking in their sworn certification.
If only for these reasons, the
present petition for review must be summarily dismissed.
In light of these reasons, we see no need to discuss at
length the other issues the petitioners raised except to say that we see no
reversible error, under the unique fact situation of this case, with the Court
of Appeals’ decision holding the petitioners individually liable under the RTC decision.
(a) The individual petitioners pursued their interests, not
that of the PIRC, in filing the consolidated complaints, although they formally
did so under the cover and in the name of the PIRC. Their interests were not only implied from
the recitals of the complaints but were expressed as well in the various
pleadings they filed, as narrated in the assailed Court of Appeals
decision. No genuine issue of due
process arises after the petitioners had the opportunity to be heard on their
individual interests and after they admitted in their various pleadings that
they were the complainants who had initiated the consolidated cases. [36]
(b) We additionally note that the petitioners actually
misrepresented themselves as stockholders, directors and officers of PIRC – an existing
corporation with duly elected directors and officers – and under their assumed
capacities as officers of the PIRC filed the amended complaints with the RTC
purportedly on PIRC’s behalf. To our
mind, this clearly indicates the petitioners’ design to use the PIRC’s separate
corporate personality as a shield against any possible or potential personal liability. Interestingly enough, after shielding their
individual selves behind the PIRC through misrepresentation, the petitioners
now seek refuge from the various provisions of the Rules of Court on the required
issuance of summons and notices (precondition to acquisition of jurisdiction
over persons and for persons to be considered parties to a case), with the
corresponding right to be heard on their cause.
We are not persuaded by the petitioners’ claim for protection as their
active misrepresentation militates against it; the petitioners cannot now use their
own active misrepresentations to shield them from individual liability. The petitioners are now effectively claiming,
given their peculiar situation, not a right but an undeserved privilege.
(c)
We recognized in our ruling in the very recent case of Provident International Resources Corporation v. Venus (G.R. No.
167041) promulgated last June 17, 2008, the merits of the RTC decision on the
issue of which – between the registered stock and transfer book (STB) of the
plaintiff PIRC and the real PIRC’s 1979 registered STB – is valid. We note that this recently-decided case is
practically between the same parties litigating on opposite sides in the
present case. We said in G.R. No.
167041 that the RTC decision effectively upheld the validity of the
1979-registered STB. We similarly
recognize – in the context of the present case – the finding in the RTC
decision that the members of the real PIRC, and not that of the plaintiff PIRC,
are the bona fide stockholders and
officers of PIRC. This finding, coupled
with other factual and legal findings stated in the RTC decision and in this
Decision, constitutes sufficient basis to hold the petitioners personally and
individually liable for the return of PAGCOR’s wrongfully remitted lease
rentals to, and payment of damages to the members of, the real PIRC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
hereby DISMISS the petition for forum
shopping and for lack of merit. Costs
against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional Member in view of the inhibition of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr..
[1] Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito Tagle (retired, now COMELEC Commissioner), with Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired) and Associate Justice Regalado S. Maambong, concurring, rollo, pp. 109-129.
[3]
[4] Lazaro Madara, Alfredo D. Roa III and Joaquin T. Venus v. Hon.
Norma C. Perello, Presiding Judge of Branch 276, Regional Trial Court,
Muntinlupa City, Felix M. Falcotelo, Sheriff-in-Charge Muntinlupa City,
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, and Provident International
Resources Corporation, rep. by Edward T. Marcelo, Edward T. Marcelo, Constancio
D. Francisco, Anna Melinda Marcelo-Revilla, Lydia J. Chuanico, Daniel T.
Pascual, Linda J. Marcelo, John J. Marcelo, Celia C. Caburnay, Celedonio P.
Escaño, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] See RTC Decision, id., pp. 212-247; specifically, pp. 215-216, 225.
[10]
[11]
[12] See CA Decision, id., pp. 109-129.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] See: Spouses Julita dela Cruz v. Pedro Joaquin, G.R. No. 162788,
[33] See: Top Rate Construction &
General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corporation, G.R. No. 151081,
[34] Young v. Seng, G.R. No. 143464,
[35] Municipality
of Taguig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005, 469 SCRA 580; Rule 7, Section
5 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[36] Rollo, pp. 50-55; CA decision,
pp. 14-19.