This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-04-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Having already discussed the matter extensively in the decision sought to be reconsidered, we no longer find any reason to go into great detail in discussing the reasons why the first and second causes of action pleaded in STRADEC's 31 July 2006 amended complaint qualify as intra-corporate disputes cognizable by Branch 2 of the RTC of Batangas City, sitting as a Special Commercial Court (SCC). Fundamental is the rule that nature of the action, as well as the court or body which has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint, irrespective of whether or not plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[24] It has been held that only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place, are considered for purposes of applying the test.[25] Applying the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test already discussed in our 17 November 2010 decision, we find that STRADEC's causes of action for the nullification of the loan and pledge over its SIDC shareholdings contracted by respondents Yujuico and Sumbilla as well as the avoidance of the notarial sale conducted by respondent Raymond M. Caraos both qualify as intra-corporate disputes.[26] It cannot, therefore, be argued that said causes of action were misjoined with STRADEC's third and fourth causes of action for the cancellation of the transfer of its shares in SIDEC's books, the invalidation of the 30 July 2005 and 20 July 2006 SIDC stockholders' meetings, attorney's fees and the costs. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Consequently, in Sta. Clara Homeowners' Association v. Gaston[14] and Metro Properties, Inc. v. Magallanes Village Association, Inc.,[15] the Court recognized HIGC's "Revised Rules of Procedure in the Hearing of Home Owner's Disputes," pertinent portions of which are reproduced below: RULE II | |||||