This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| However, the unqualified application of the relationship test has been modified on the ground that the same effectively divests regular courts of jurisdiction over cases for the sole reason that the suit is between the corporation and/or its corporators. It was held that the better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.[33] Under the nature of the controversy test, the dispute must not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must also refer to the enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code as well as the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation.[34] The combined application of the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test has, consequently, become the norm in determining whether a case is an intra-corporate controversy or is purely civil in character. | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| However, the Tabang pronouncement is not controlling because it is too sweeping and does not accord with reason, justice, and fair play. In order to determine whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy or not, the Court considers two elements instead, namely: (a) the status or relationship of the parties; and (b) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. This was our thrust in Viray v. Court of Appeals:[27] | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled in jurisprudence is the rule that in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case, we should consider not only the status or relationship of the parties, but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.[6] To determine the nature of an action and which court has jurisdiction, courts must look at the averments of the complaint or petition and the essence of the relief prayed for.[7] Thus, we examine the pertinent allegations in Eristingcol's complaint, specifically her amended complaint, to wit: Allegations Common to All Causes of Action | |||||
|
2009-02-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The crucial question to be asked then is whether private respondents' ancestral land claim was indeed recognized by Proclamation No. 15, in which case, their right thereto may be protected by an injunctive writ. After all, before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, petitioners must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which injunction is directed are violative of said right.[18] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| In 1996, Section 5 of PD No. 902-A,[28] which was approved on March 11, 1976, was still the law in force-whereby the SEC still had original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving: b) controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members, or associates; between any and/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. Clearly, the controversy involves matters purely civil in character and is beyond the ambit of the limited jurisdiction of the SEC. As held in Viray v. Court of Appeals, "[t]he better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not only [1] the status or relationship of the parties but also [2] the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy."[29] | |||||
|
2005-10-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, when the controversy involves matters purely civil in character, it is beyond the ambit of the limited jurisdiction of the SEC. As held in Viray v. Court of Appeals,[29] the better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not only the status or relationship of the parties, but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. This, however, is now moot and academic due to the passage of Republic Act No. 8799 or The Securities Regulation Code which took effect on August 8, 2000. The Act transferred from the SEC to the regional trial court jurisdiction over cases involving intra-corporate disputes. Thus, whether or not the issue is intra-corporate, it is now the regional trial court and no longer the SEC that takes cognizance of the controversy. | |||||
|
2000-06-19 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| For the SEC to acquire jurisdiction over any controversy under these provisions, two elements must be considered: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.[27] The first element requires that the controversy must arise "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 in so far as it concerns their individual franchises."[28] Petitioners are not stockholders, members or associates of respondent. They are lot buyers and now homeowners in the subdivision developed by the respondent. | |||||