This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| While it would appear that there is substantial identity of parties, since both petitioner and PEPCI are creditors of respondent and both are questioning the Rehabilitation Court's approval of the MRP, the identity of cause of action is absent in the present case. An assiduous scrutiny of the respondent's Petition for Review with the CA and PEPCI's Petition for Review dated September 3, 2008, also filed with the CA, will show that they raised different causes of action. In Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation v. Lim,[48] we have reiterated that no forum shopping exists when two (2) groups of oppositors in a rehabilitation case act independently of each other, even when they have sought relief from the same appellate court, thus:On the charge of forum shopping, we have already ruled on the matter in G.R. Nos. 124185-87. Thus: | |||||
|
2014-09-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Upon a careful examination of the Complaint, this Court finds that the same should not have been dismissed on the ground that it is a nuisance or harassment suit. Although the shareholdings of petitioners are indeed only two out of the 409 alleged outstanding shares or 0.24%, the Court has held that it is enough that a member or a minority of stockholders file a derivative suit for and in behalf of a corporation.[25] | |||||