Manila
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015 ]
MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D. GONZALES, PETITIONERS, VS. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG HWAN JANG A.K.A. STEVE JANG, SANG RAK KIM, MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI II, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court, via a petition for review on certiorari,1 from the Orders dated April 17, 20122 and July 9, 20123 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (Branch 276) dismissing Civil Case No. 11-077 for lack of jurisdiction.
The Facts
On August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales4 and Francis Martin D. Gonzales (petitioners) filed a Complaint5 for "Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Status Quo Order, Three (3) and Twenty (20)-Day Temporary Restraining Orders, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Damages" against respondents GJH Land, Inc. (formerly known as S.J. Land, Inc.), Chang Hwan Jang, Sang Rak Kim, Mariechu N. Yap, and Atty. Roberto P. Mallari II6 (respondents) before the RTC of Muntinlupa City seeking to enjoin the sale of S.J. Land, Inc.'s shares which they purportedly bought from S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010. Essentially, petitioners alleged that the subscriptions for the said shares were already paid by them in full in the books of S.J. Land, Inc.,7 but were nonetheless offered for sale on July 29, 2011 to the corporation's stockholders,8 hence, their plea for injunction.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch 276, which is not a Special Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011, said branch issued a temporary restraining order,9 and later, in an Order10 dated August 24, 2011, granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
After filing their respective answers11 to the complaint, respondents filed a motion to dismiss12 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, pointing out that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute and should, thus, be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court of Muntinlupa City.13
The RTC Ruling
In an Order14 dated April 17, 2012, Branch 276 granted the motion to dismiss filed by respondents. It found that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute that is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs designated as Special Commercial Courts. It pointed out that the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 (Branch 256) was specifically designated by the Court as the Special Commercial Court, hence, Branch 276 had no jurisdiction over the case and cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction on the matter, including the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.15 Accordingly, it dismissed the case.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,16 arguing that they filed the case with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa City which assigned the same to Branch 276 by raffle.17 As the raffle was beyond their control, they should not be made to suffer the consequences of the wrong assignment of the case, especially after paying the filing fees in the amount of ₱235,825.00 that would be for naught if the dismissal is upheld.18 They further maintained that the RTC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes under Republic Act No. (RA) 8799,19 but since the Court selected specific branches to hear and decide such suits, the case must, at most, be transferred or raffled off to the proper branch.20
In an Order21 dated July 9, 2012, Branch 276 denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that it has no authority or power to order the transfer of the case to the proper Special Commercial Court, citing Calleja v. Panday22 (Calleja); hence, the present petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.1aшphi1
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, the Court finds Branch 276 to have correctly categorized Civil Case No. 11-077 as a commercial case, more particularly, an intra-corporate dispute,23 considering that it relates to petitioners' averred rights over the shares of stock offered for sale to other stockholders, having paid the same in full. Applying the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test, the suit between the parties is clearly rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship and pertains to the enforcement of their correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation,24 hence, intra-corporate, which should be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court as provided under A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC25 dated June 17, 2003 in relation to Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure to be followed when a commercial case - such as the instant intra-corporate dispute -has been properly filed in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court but is, however, later wrongly assigned by raffle to a regular branch of that station.
As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court's exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court.26 In Lozada v. Bracewell,27 it was recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000. By virtue of said law, jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 528 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A29 was transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general jurisdiction. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:
SEC. 5. Powers and Functionsof the Commission. - x x x
x x x x
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed. (Emphasis supplied)
The legal attribution of Regional Trial Courts as courts of general jurisdiction stems from Section 19 (6), Chapter II of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,30 known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980":
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
x x x x
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; x x x x
As enunciated in Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. CA:31
The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.32
To clarify, the word "or" in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally used by the legislature to particularize the fact that the phrase "the Courts of general jurisdiction" is equivalent to the phrase "the appropriate Regional Trial Court." In other words, the jurisdiction of the SEC over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise known as), the proper Regional Trial Courts. This interpretation is supported by San Miguel Corp. v. Municipal Council,33 wherein the Court held that:
[T]he word "or" may be used as the equivalent of "that is to say" and gives that which precedes it the same significance as that which follows it. It is not always disjunctive and is sometimes interpretative or expository of the preceding word.34
Further, as may be gleaned from the following excerpt of the Congressional deliberations:
Senator [Raul S.] Roco: x x x.
x x x x
x x x. The first major departure is as regards the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been authorized under this proposal to reorganize itself. As an administrative agency, we strengthened it and at the same time we take away the quasi-judicial functions. The quasi-judicial functions are now given back to the courts of general jurisdiction - the Regional Trial Court, except for two categories of cases.
In the case of corporate disputes, only those that are now submitted for final determination of the SEC will remain with the SEC. So, all those cases, both memos of the plaintiff and the defendant, that have been submitted for resolution will continue. At the same time, cases involving rehabilitation, bankruptcy, suspension of payments and receiverships that were filed before June 30, 2000 will continue with the SEC. in other words, we are avoiding the possibility, upon approval of this bill, of people filing cases with the SEC, in manner of speaking, to select their court.35
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, one must be disabused of the notion that the transfer of jurisdiction was made only in favor of particular RTC branches, and not the RTCs in general.
Consistent with the foregoing, history depicts that when the transfer of SEC cases to the RTCs was first implemented, they were transmitted to the Executive Judges of the RTCs for raffle between or among its different branches, unless a specific branch has been designated as a Special Commercial Court, in which instance, the cases were transmitted to said branch.36 It was only on November 21, 2000 that the Court designated certain RTC branches to try and decide said SEC cases37 without, however, providing for the transfer of the cases already distributed to or filed with the regular branches thereof. Thus, on January 23, 2001, the Court issued SC Administrative Circular No. 08-200138 directing the transfer of said cases to the designated courts (commercial SEC courts). Later, or on June 17, 2003, the Court issued A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC consolidating the commercial SEC courts and the intellectual property courts39 in one RTC branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Special Commercial Court, to streamline the court structure and to promote expediency.40 Accordingly, the RTC branch so designated was mandated to try and decide SEC cases, as well as those involving violations of intellectual property rights, which were, thereupon, required to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Courts, to wit:
1. The Regional Courts previously designated as SEC Courts through the: (a) Resolutions of this Court dated 21 November 2000, 4 July 2001, 12 November 2002, and 9 July 2002 all issued in A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC; (b) Resolution dated 27 August 2001 in A.M. No. 01-5-298-RTC; and (c) Resolution dated 8 July 2002 in A.M. No. 01-12-656-RTC are hereby DESIGNATED and shall be CALLED as Special Commercial Courts to try and decide cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights which fall within their jurisdiction and those cases formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission:
x x x x
4. The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases arising within their respective territorial jurisdiction with respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the respective provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court;41
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
It is important to mention that the Court's designation of Special Commercial Courts was made in line with its constitutional authority to supervise the administration of all courts as provided under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
The objective behind the designation of such specialized courts is to promote expediency and efficiency in the exercise of the RTCs' jurisdiction over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A. Such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of jurisdiction to all RTCs under RA 8799 since in the first place, the Court cannot enlarge, diminish, or dictate when jurisdiction shall be removed, given that the power to define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction is, as a general rule, a matter of legislative prerogative.42 Section 2, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
x x x x
Here, petitioners filed a commercial case, i.e., an intra-corporate dispute, with the Office of the Clerk of Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court, in accordance with A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC. It is, therefore, from the time of such filing that the RTC of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action.43 Unfortunately, the commercial case was wrongly raffled to a regular branch, e.g., Branch 276, instead of being assigned44 to the sole Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is Branch 256. This error may have been caused by a reliance on the complaint's caption, i.e., "Civil Case for Injunction with prayer for Status Quo Order, TRO and Damages,"45 which, however, contradicts and more importantly, cannot prevail over its actual allegations that clearly make out an intra-corporate dispute:
16. To the surprise of MLCG and FMDG, however, in two identical letters both dated 13 May 2011, under the letterhead of GJH Land, Inc., Yap, now acting as its President, Jang and Kim demanded payment of supposed unpaid subscriptions of MLCG and FMDG amounting to ₱10,899,854.30 and ₱2,625,249.41, respectively.
16.1 Copies of the letters dated 13 May 2011 are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes "J" and "K", repectively.
17. On 29 July 2011, MLCG and FMDG received an Offer Letter addressed to stockholders of GJH Land, Inc. from Yap informing all stockholders that GJH Land, Inc. is now offering for sale the unpaid shares of stock of MLCG and FMDG. The same letter states that the offers to purchase these shares will be opened on 10 August 2011 with payments to be arranged by deposit to the depository bank of GJH Land, Inc.
17.1 A copy of the undated Offer Letter is attached hereto and made and made an integral part hereof as Annex "L".
18. The letter of GJH Land, Inc. through Yap, is totally without legal and factual basis because as evidenced by the Deeds of Assignment signed and certified by Yap herself, all the S.J. Land, Inc. shares acquired by MLCG and FMDG have been fully paid in the books of S.J. Land, Inc.
19. With the impending sale of the alleged unpaid subscriptions on 10 August 2011, there is now a clear danger that MLCG and FMDG would be deprived of these shares without legal and factual basis.
20. Furthermore, if they are deprived of these shares through the scheduled sale, both MLCG and FMDG would suffer grave and irreparable damage incapable of pecuniary estimation.
21. For this reason, plaintiffs now come to the Honorable Court for injunctive relief so that after trial on the merits, a permanent injunction should be issued against the defendants preventing them from selling the shares of the plaintiffs, there being no basis for such sale.46
According to jurisprudence, "it is not the caption but the allegations in the complaint or other initiatory pleading which give meaning to the pleading and on the basis of which such pleading may be legally characterized."47 However, so as to avert any future confusion, the Court requires henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its caption and the body, which parameters are defined in the dispositive portion of this Decision.
Going back to the case at bar, the Court nonetheless deems that the erroneous raffling to a regular branch instead of to a Special Commercial Court is only a matter of procedure - that is, an incident related to the exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, should not negate the jurisdiction which the RTC of Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such a scenario, the proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed; instead, Branch 276 should have first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then assign said case to the only designated Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch 256.
Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC acquiring jurisdiction over the case has multiple special commercial court branches; in such a scenario, the Executive Judge, after re-docketing the same as a commercial case, should proceed to order its re-raffling among the said special branches.
Meanwhile, if the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then it should refer the case to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial region.48 Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should re-docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case among those special branches.
In all the above-mentioned scenarios, any difference regarding the applicable docket fees should be duly accounted for. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, refunded.
At this juncture, the Court finds it fitting to clarify that the RTC mistakenly relied on the Calleja case to support its ruling. In Calleja, an intra-corporate dispute49 among officers of a private corporation with principal address at Goa, Camarines Sur, was filed with the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 58 instead of the RTC of Naga City, which is the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court for Camarines Sur. Consequently, the Court set aside the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur's order to transfer the case to the RTC of Naga City and dismissed the complaint considering that it was filed before a court which, having no internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, had no jurisdiction over those kinds of actions, i.e., intra-corporate disputes. Calleja involved two different RTCs, i.e., the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur and the RTC of Naga City, whereas the instant case only involves one RTC, i.e., the RTC of Muntinlupa City, albeit involving two different branches of the same court, i.e., Branches 256 and 276. Hence, owing to the variance in the facts attending, it was then improper for the RTC to rely on the Calleja ruling.
Besides, the Court observes that the fine line that distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction had been clearly blurred in Calleja. Harkening back to the statute that had conferred subject matter jurisdiction, two things are apparently clear: (a) that the SEC's subject matter jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A was transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction, i.e., the appropriate Regional Trial Courts; and (b) the designated branches of the Regional Trial Court, as per the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, shall exercise jurisdiction over such cases. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:
SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. - x x x
x x x x
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases, x x x.
In contrast, the appropriate jurisprudential reference to this case would be Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,50 which involves a criminal complaint for violation of intellectual property rights filed before the RTC of Cebu City but was raffled to a regular branch thereof (Branch 21), and not to a Special Commercial Court. As it turned out, the regular branch subsequently denied the private complainant's motion to transfer the case to the designated special court of the same RTC, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The CA reversed the regular branch and, consequently, ordered the transfer of the case to the designated special court at that time (Branch 9). The Court, affirming the CA, declared that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter. In view, however, of the designation of another court as the Special Commercial Court in the interim (Branch 11 of the same Cebu City RTC), the Court accordingly ordered the transfer of the case and the transmittal of the records to said Special Commercial Court instead.51 Similarly, the transfer of the present intra-corporate dispute from Branch 276 to Branch 256 of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, subject to the parameters above-discussed is proper and will further the purposes stated in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC of attaining a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
For further guidance, the Court finds it apt to point out that the same principles apply to the inverse situation of ordinary civil cases filed before the proper RTCs but wrongly raffled to its branches designated as Special Commercial Courts. In such a scenario, the ordinary civil case should then be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then order the raffling of the case to all branches of the same RTC, subject to limitations under existing internal rules, and the payment of the correct docket fees in case of any difference. Unlike the limited assignment/raffling of a commercial case only to branches designated as Special Commercial Courts in the scenarios stated above, the re-raffling of an ordinary civil case in this instance to all courts is permissible due to the fact that a particular branch which has been designated as a Special Commercial Court does not shed the RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of statutory law, i.e., Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129.52 To restate, the designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the administration of all courts and the personnel thereof.53 Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the designation of Special Commercial Courts is, to stress, merely an incident related to the court's exercise of jurisdiction, which, as first discussed, is distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is therefore not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
In fine, Branch 276's dismissal of Civil Case No. 11-077 is set aside and the transfer of said case to Branch 256, the designated Special Commercial Court of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, under the parameters above-explained, is hereby ordered.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated April 17, 2012 and July 9, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 in Civil Case No. 11-077 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 11-077 is REFERRED to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Muntinlupa City for re-docketing as a commercial case. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall ASSIGN said case to Branch 256, the sole designated Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is ORDERED to resolve the case with reasonable dispatch. In this regard, the Clerk of Court of said RTC shall DETERMINE the appropriate amount of docket fees and, in so doing, ORDER the payment of any difference or, on the other hand, refund any excess.
Furthermore, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following guidelines shall be observed:
1. If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its regular branch, the proper courses of action are as follows:
1.1 If the RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, assigned to the sole special branch;
1.2 If the RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, raffled off among those special branches; and
1.3 If the RTC has no internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be referred to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial region. Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should re- docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case among those special branches.
2. If an ordinary civil case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case. Thereafter, it shall be raffled off to all courts of the same RTC (including its designated special branches which, by statute, are equally capable of exercising general jurisdiction same as regular branches), as provided for under existing rules.
3. All transfer/raffle of cases is subject to the payment of the appropriate docket fees in case of any difference. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, refunded.
4. Finally, to avert any future confusion, the Court requires that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its caption and body. Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, upon motion or by order of the court motu proprio, be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing after due rectification. This last procedural rule is prospective in application.
5. All existing rules inconsistent with the foregoing are deemed superseded.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J. Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., I concur in the result. I subscribe to the ruling in the Calleja case that the misfiling of a commercial case with a court not duly designated Special Commercial Court is an error of jurisdiction. However the Supreme Court has constitutional and legal basis [RA 8799 to promulgated the guidelines here for future cases.
Leonen, J., see concurring opinion.
Perez, J., I submitted a dissenting opinion.
Brion, and Mendoza, JJ., on leave.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on November 10, 2015 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on December 14, 2015 at 11:30 a.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-ANAMA
Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 10-28.
2 Id. at 34-38. Penned by Presiding Judge Antonietta Pablo-Medina.
3 Id. at 39-41.
4 "Francis Martin C. Gonzales" in some parts of the records.
5 Dated August 2, 2011. Rollo, pp. 42-53.
6 "Atty. Roberto P. Mallari" in some parts of the records.
7 Rollo, p. 44.
8 Id. at 47.
9 Id. at 90-91.
10 Id. at 92-97.
11 Id. at 14.
12 Dated February 7, 2011. (Id. at 98-114.)
13 Id. at 107-110.
14 Id. at 34-38.
15 Id. at 37.
16 Dated May 8, 2012. Id. at 152-160.
17 Id. at 152-154.
18 Id. at 154-155.
19 Otherwise known as "The Securities Regulation Code."
20 Rollo, p. 155.
21 Id. at 39-41.
22 518 Phil. 801 (2006).
23 Rollo, p. 37.
24 See Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation v. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 110, 120-121; citations omitted.
25 Entitled "RE: CONSOLIDATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COURTS WITH COMMERCIAL COURTS" (July 1, 2003). Prior to A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, however, the Court had already issued several resolutions in A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC (Entitled "RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN BRANCHES OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO TRY AND DECIDE CASES FORMERLY COGNIZABLE BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION" [November 21, 2000), A.M. No. 01-5-298-RTC (August 27, 2001), and A.M. No. 01- 12-656-RTC (July 8, 2002) to implement the provisions of Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
26 See Herrera, Oscar M., Remedial Law, Vol. I, 2007 Ed., p. 73.
27 G.R. No. 179155, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 371, 381.
28 SEC. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving.
a. Devices or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholder, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission.
b. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among' stockholders, members, or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;
c. Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations.
29 Entitled "REORGANIZATION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WITH ADDITIONAL POWERS AND PLACING THE SAID AGENCY UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT" (March 11, 1976).
30 Entitled "AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (approved on August 14, 1981).
31 427 Phil. 604 (2002).
32 Id. at 612.
33 152 Phil. 30(1973).
34 Id. at 38.
35 See Transcript of Session Proceedings in Securities Act of 1998, SB. NO. 1220/CR. No 6 RA 8799 dated July 17, 2000, p. 222.
36 See Resolution dated August 22, 2000 in A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, entitled "In RB: Transfer OF CASES from the Securities and exchange Commission to the Regular Courts Pursuant to R. A. No. 8799."
37 See Resolution dated November 21, 2000 in A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC, entitled "RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN BRANCHES OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO TRY AND DECIDE CASES FORMERLY COGNIZABLE BYTHF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION."
38 Entitled "Transfer to Designated Regional Trial Courts of SEC Cases Enumerated in Section 5, P. D. No. 902-A from the Regular Regional Trial Courts" (March 1,2001). Designated to try violations of intellectual property rights under RA 8293, otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines" and under SC A.O. No. 113-95 (Entitled "RE: Designation of Special Courts for Intellectual Property Rights" [October 2, 1995), as amended by SC A.O. No. 104-96 (Entitled "Re: Designation of Special Courts for Kidnapping, Robbery, Carnapping, Dangerous Drugs Cases and Other Heinous Crimes; Intellectual Property Rights Violations and Jurisdiction in Libel Cases" [October 21, 1996) and A.M. No. 02-1-11-SC (Entitled "Re: Designation of an Intellectual Property Judge for Manila" [February 19,2002).
40 Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 514 Phil. 307, 316 (2005). See also final whereas clause of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC.
41 See OCA Circular No. 82-2003, entitled "SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Courts with Commercial Courts" (June 30, 2003).
42 See Tinitigan v. Tinitigan, Sr.,188 Phil. 597, 611 (1980).
43 See Herrera, Oscar M., Remedial Law, Vol. I, 2007 Ed., p. 112-113. See also Tinitigan v. Tinitigan, Sr., id.
44 Item 6 of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC provides:
6. In order to ensure a just and equitable distribution of cases, the designated Special Commercial Court shall continue to participate in the raffles of other cases. Provided, however, that the Executive Judge concerned shall adopt a procedure whereby every IP and SEC case assigned to a Special Commercial Court should be considered a case raffled to it and duly credited to such court. (Emphasis supplied)
45 See rollo, p. 42.
46 Id. at 47-48.
47 Republic of the Phils, v. Nolasco, 496 Phil. 853, 867 (2005).
48 See Item No. 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, as amended, dated June 15, 2015.
49 A case for quo warranto against members of the board of directors and officers of St John Hospital, Incorporated, docketed as Civil Case No. T-1007.
50 Supra note 40.
51 See id. at 314-316.
52 Section 19 of BP 129, entitled "AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," as amended by RA 7691, entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980,'" reads:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200.000.00):
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or. in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
53 Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
x x x x
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
x x x x
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
