0003 01 gamboa v. victoriano, 90 scra 40 [1979]

7/25/2019 0003 01 Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40 [1979]

1/4

Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40 [1979]

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-40620 May 5, 1979

RICARDO L. GAMBOA, LDIA R. GAMBOA,

!ONORIO DE 1A RAMA, EDUARDO DE LA RAMA,

a"# $%& !EIRS O' MERCEDES DE LA RAMA-

BORROMEO,petitioners,

vs.

!ON. OSCAR R. (ICTORIANO a) P*&)+#+" #& o/

$%& Co*$ o/ '+*)$ I")$a"& o/ N&*o) O+#&"$a, B*a"%

II, BENAMIN LOPUE, SR., BENAMIN LOPUE, R.,

LEONITO LOPUE, a"# LUISA U. DACLES respondents.

Exequiel T. A Alejandro for petitioners.

Acua, Lirazan & Associates for private respondents.

CONCEPCION R., J,:

Petition for certiorari to revie the order of the respondent

!ud"e, dated #anuar$ %, &'(), den$in" the petitioners* +otion

to dis+iss the co+plaint filed in Civil Case No. &%)( of the

Court of -irst Instance of Ne"ros Occidental,

entitled, "Benjamin Lopue r., et al., plaintiffs, versus !icardo

am#oa, et al., defendants, as ell as the order dated /pril 0,

&'(), den$in" the +otion for the reconsideration of Said

order.

In the afore+entioned Civil Case No. &%)( of the Court of

-irst Instance of Ne"ros Occidental, the herein petitioners,

Ricardo 1. 2a+boa, 1$dia R. 2a+boa, 3onorio de la Ra+a,

Eduardo de la Ra+a, and the late Mercedes de la Ra+a4

5orro+eo, no represented b$ her heirs, as ell as Ra+on de

la Ra+a, Pa6 de la Ra+a45attistu66i, and En6o 5attistu66i,

ere sued b$ the herein private respondents, 5en!a+in 1opue,

Sr., 5en!a+in 1opue, #r., 1eonito 1opue, and 1uisa 7. Dacles

to nullif$ the issuance of 8%9 shares of stoc: of the Inocentes

de la Ra+a, Inc. in favor of the said defendants. ;he "ist of the

co+plaint, filed on /pril 0, &'(%, is that the plaintiffs, ith the

e


2/4


corporation, and fro+ disposin", transferrin", sellin", or

otherise i+pairin" the value of the 8%9 shares of stoc:

ille"all$ issued b$ the defendants= that a receiver be appointed

to preserve and ad+inister the propert$ and funds of the

corporation= that defendants 1$dia de la Ra+a42a+boa,

3onorio de la Ra+a, and En6o 5attistu66i be declared as

usurpers or intruders into the office of director in the

corporation and, conse>uentl$, oustin" the+ therefro+ and

declare 1uisa 7. Dacles as a le"all$ elected director of the

corporation= that the sale of 8%9 shares of stoc: of the

corporation be declared null and void= and that the defendants

be ordered to pa$ da+a"es and attorne$*s fees, as ell as the

costs of suit .1

/ctin" upon the co+plaint, the respondent !ud"e, after proper

hearin", directed the cler: of court to issue the correspondin"

rit of preli+inar$ in!unction restrainin" the defendants

and?or their representatives, a"ents, or persons actin" in their

behalf fro+ the co++ission or continuance of an$ act tendin"

in an$ a$ to pre!udice, di+inish or otherise in!ure

plaintiffs* ri"hts in the corporate properties and funds of the

corporation Inocentes de la Ra+a, Inc.* and fro+ disposin",

transferrin", sellin" or otherise i+pairin" the value of the

certificates of stoc: alle"edl$ issued ille"all$ in their na+es on

-ebruar$ &&, &'(%, or at an$ date thereafter, and orderin" the+

to deposit ith the Cler: of Court the correspondin"

certificates of stoc: for the 8%9 shares issued to said

defendants on -ebruar$ &&, &'(%, upon plaintiffs* postin" a

bond in the su+ of P),., to anser for an$ da+a"es

and costs that +a$ be sustained b$ the defendants b$ reason of

the issuance of the rit, cop$ of the bond to be furnished to

the defendants. 2Pursuant thereto, the defendants deposited

ith the cler: of court the corporation*s certificates of stoc:

Nos. 8 to 8A, inclusive, representin" the disputed 8%9 shares

of stoc: of the corporation.

On October 9&, &'(%, the plaintiffs therein, no private

respondents, entered into a co+pro+ise a"ree+ent ith the

defendants Ra+on de la Ra+a, Pa6 de la Ra+a 5attistu66i and

En6o 5attistu66i ,4hereb$ the contractin" parties ithdre

their respective clai+s a"ainst each other and the aforena+ed

defendants aived and transferred their ri"hts and interests

over the >uestioned 8%9 shares of stoc: in favor of the

plaintiffs, as follosB

9. ;hat the defendants Ra+on 1. de la Ra+a, Pa6 de la Ra+a

5attistu66i and En6o 5attistu66i ill aive, cede, transfer or

other ise conve$, as the$ hereb$ aive, cede, transfer and

conve$, free fro+ all liens and encu+brances unto the

plaintiffs, in such proportion as the plaintiffs +a$ a+on"

the+selves deter+ine, all of the ri"hts, interests, participation

or title that the defendants Ra+on 1. de la Ra+a, Pa6 de la

Ra+a 5attistu66i En6o 5attistu66i no have or +a$ have in

the ei"ht hundred tent$4three 8%9 shares in the capita

stoc: of the corporation INOCEN;ES DE1/ R/M/, INC.

hich ere issued in the na+es of the defendants in the

above4entitled case on or about -ebruar$ &&, &'(%, or at an$

date thereafter and hich shares are the sub!ect4+atter of the

present suit.

;he co+pro+ise a"ree+ent as approved b$ the trial court on

Dece+ber 0, &'(%,5/s a result, the defendants filed a +otion

to dis+iss the co+plaint, on Nove+ber &', &'(0, upon the

"roundsB & that the plaintiffs* cause of action had been

aived or abandoned= and % that the$ ere estopped fro+

further prosecutin" the case since the$ have, in effect

ac:noled"ed the validit$ of the issuance of the disputed 8%9

shares of stoc:. ;he +otion as denied on #anuar$ %, &'(). 6

;he defendants also filed a +otion to declare the defendants

Ra+on 1. de la Ra+a, Pa6 de la Ra+a 5attistu66i and En6o

5attistu66i in conte+pt of court, for havin" violated the rit of

preli+inar$ in!unction hen the$ entered into the aforesaid

co+pro+ise a"ree+ent ith the plaintiffs, but the respondent

!ud"e denied the said +otion for lac: of +erit. 7

Page 2of 4


3/4


On -ebruar$ &, &'(), the defendants filed a +otion for the

reconsideration of the order den$in" their +otion to dis+iss

the co+plaint* and subse>uentl$, an /ddendu+ thereto,

clai+in" that the respondent court has no !urisdiction to

interfere ith the +ana"e+ent of the corporation b$ the board

of directors, and the enact+ent of a resolution b$ the

defendants, as +e+bers of the board of directors of the

corporation, alloin" the sale of the 8%9 shares of stoc: to the

defendants as purel$ a +ana"e+ent concern hich the

courts could not interfere ith. @hen the trial court denied

said +otion and its addendu+, the defendants filed the instant

petition for certiorari for the revie of said orders.

;he petition is ithout +erit. ;he >uestioned order den$in"

the petitioners* +otion to dis+iss the co+plaint is +erel$

interlocutor$ and cannot be the sub!ect of a petition for

certiorari. ;he proper procedure to be folloed in such a case

is to continue ith the trial of the case on the +erits and, if the

decision is adverse, to reiterate the issue on appeal. It ould

be a breach of orderl$ procedure to allo a part$ to co+e

before this Court ever$ ti+e an order is issued ith hich he

does not a"ree.

5esides, the order den$in" the petitioners* +otion to dis+iss

the co+plaint as not capriciousl$, arbitraril$, or hi+sicall$

issued, or that the respondent court lac:ed !urisdiction over the

cause as to arrant the issuance of the rit pra$ed for. /s

found b$ the respondent !ud"e, the petitioners have not aived

their cause of action a"ainst the petitioners b$ enterin" into a

co+pro+ise a"ree+ent ith the other defendants in vie of

the e


4/4


corporation. /t an$ rate, it is $et too earl$ in the proceedin"s

since the issues have not been !oined. 5esides, +is!oinder of

parties is not a "round to dis+iss an action. 1

@3ERE-ORE, the petition should be, as it is hereb$

DISMISSED for lac: of +erit. @ith costs a"ainst the

petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Antonio, Aquino, antos and A#ad antos $$., concur.

3'oo$"o$&)

& Rollo, p. 08.

%%d., p. &.9%d., p. &%.

0%d., p. A9.

)%d., p. &%.A%d., p. &).

(%d., p. ''.

8%d., p. 0, par. VII of the Petition.

'%d., p. &0(, p. % of Me+orandu+ for the Respondents.& 2ovt. vs. El 3o"ar -ilipino, ) Phil. 9''.

&& In"ersoll vs. Malabon Su"ar Co.,)9 Phil.(0).

&% Republic 5an: vs. Cuaderno, 14%%9'', March 9, &'A(, &'

SCR/ A(& and cases cited therein.&9 Sec. &&, Rule 9, Revised Rules of Court.

Mr. #ustice /ntonio P. 5arredo is on leave

Page 4of 4

0003 01 gamboa v. victoriano, 90 scra 40 [1979]

Documents