G.R. No. 153690 G.R. NO. 157381 and G.R. NO. 170889 - DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM, SR., ET AL.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 153690 : August 26, 2008]
DAVID LU, Petitioner, v. PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, ET. AL. & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent.
[G.R. NO. 157381 : August 26, 2008]
PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORP., Petitioners, v. DAVID LU, Respondent.
[G.R. NO. 170889 : August 26, 2008]
JOHN LU YM and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS OF CEBU CITY (former Twentieth Division), DAVID LU, ROSA GO, SILVANO LUDO & CL CORPORATION, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
Before us are three consolidated petitions assailing the decisions rendered and the resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 64523, CA-G.R. SP No. 73383 and CA-G.R. CV No. 81163.
In G.R. No. 153690, David Lu (David) prays that this Court annul and set aside the Decision1 dated December 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 64523 dismissing the initial complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. CEB-25502,3 for non-compliance with the rules on non-forum shopping. Likewise assailed is the court's Resolution4 dated May 28, 2002 denying his motion for reconsideration.
In G.R. No. 157381, Paterno Lu Ym, Sr. (Paterno Sr.), Paterno Lu Ym, Jr. (Paterno Jr.), John Lu Ym (John), Kelly Lu Ym (Kelly) (collectively referred to as the Lu Ym father and sons), and Ludo and Luym Development Corp. (LLDC) assail the CA Decision5 dated February 27, 2003 ordering the RTC to desist from conducting any proceeding relating to the receivership over LLDC.
In G.R. No. 170889, John and LLDC question the CA Resolutions dated September 6, 20046 denying their application for a writ of preliminary injunction; and dated December 8, 20057 denying their motion for reconsideration and further deferring the resolution of the issue on docket fees.
Factual and Procedural Antecedents
LLDC is a family corporation founded by Paterno Sr. and his brothers (the fathers of Rosa, Silvano and David), primarily to hold real estate for the family.8 In 1997, LLDC's Board of Directors authorized the issuance of its 600,000 unsubscribed and unissued shares at par value of P100.00 per share. The Lu Ym father and sons subscribed to and paid most of such shares. David, et al., however, claimed that the 600,000 LLDC stocks were issued in favor of the Lu Ym father and sons for less than their real values. Hence, the complaint9 filed on August 14, 2000, by David, Rosa Go (Rosa), Silvano Ludo (Silvano) and CL Corporation (CL Corp.) against the Lu Ym father and sons, namely: Paterno Sr., Paterno Jr., Victor Lu Ym (Victor), John, Kelly, and LLDC, for Declaration of Nullity of Share Issue, Receivership and Dissolution, before the RTC of Cebu City. The case was raffled to Branch 5 and was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-25502. In said complaint, David, et al. asked that the issuance of said shares be nullified.10 They further asserted that the Lu Ym father and sons gravely abused their powers as members of LLDC's Board of Directors by issuing such shares, to the prejudice of David, et al. They, therefore, asked for the dissolution of the corporation as their ultimate remedy to obtain redress for their grievances.11 To protect the interest of the corporation during the pendency of the case, David et al. asked that a receiver for the corporation be appointed.12
On August 25, 2000, the Lu Ym father and sons moved to dismiss13 the complaint for non-compliance with the Rules of Court on the required certificate of non-forum shopping, since only one of the four plaintiffs signed the same, without any showing that he was authorized to sign on behalf of the other parties. They, likewise, contended that the case was dismissible because they did not exert earnest efforts toward a compromise.
In a Resolution14 dated December 4, 2000, the court denied the motion solely on the ground that the case was exempt from the observance of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. In another Resolution15 dated March 2, 2001, the court held that the signature of only one of the plaintiffs was a substantial compliance with the rules on the certificate of non-forum shopping.
On February 16, 2001, the court, on motion of David, et al., placed LLDC under receivership pendente lite.16 Consequently, the court appointed Atty. Edward U. Du and Mr. Luis A Cañete as receivers.17
Aggrieved, the Lu Ym father and sons elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals assailing the court's resolutions denying their motion to dismiss and their motion for reconsideration; and placing the corporation under receivership and appointing two persons as receivers. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64154, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by only two petitioners.18 They later refiled the case. This time, it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64523.
The appellate court initially dismissed19 the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it denied the Lu Ym father and sons' motion to dismiss and because of the prematurity of the petition on the issue of receivership (since there was still a motion for reconsideration pending before the RTC).20 However, on motion of the Lu Ym father and sons, the court reconsidered its earlier ruling and, consequently, reinstated the earlier petition.21 The Lu Yms then filed a Supplement to their petition.
On December 20, 2001, the CA granted22 the Lu Ym father and sons' petition and, thus, dismissed the complaint filed by David Lu, et al. for the parties' (except David Lu) failure to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. In ruling for the dismissal of the initiatory pleading, the court applied Loquias v. Ombudsman.23 As a consequence of the dismissal of the complaint, the appellate court likewise annulled the resolutions placing the corporation under receivership and appointing the receivers.24 On May 28, 2002, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration25 filed by David Lu, et al. Hence, the Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court filed by David Lu alone in G.R. No. 153690.
Meanwhile, the Lu Ym father and sons filed a Motion for Inhibition against the then RTC Judge Ireneo Gako, Jr., which was granted on October 1, 2002. Thus, the case was re-raffled to Branch 11, presided by Judge Isaias Dican, who directed the parties to amend their respective pleadings in order to conform with the requirements laid down in Sections 4(2) and 6(7), Rule 2 of the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799.26 The case was re-docketed as SRC Case No. 021-CEB.
On October 8, 2002, the Lu Ym father and sons filed in SRC Case No. 021-CEB a Manifestation and Motion praying for the immediate lifting of the receivership order over LLDC which was immediately set for hearing.27 However, the hearing did not proceed as scheduled due to the repeated motions of David to stop it. It turned out later that David instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CA, with Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, on the sole issue of whether or not the RTC should proceed to hear the Lu Ym father and sons' motion to lift the receivership. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 73383.28
On December 4, 2002, the CA issued a Resolution temporarily restraining the RTC from conducting any proceeding in SRC Case No. 021-CEB.29 On February 27, 2003, the appellate court finally resolved to grant the petition and ordered the RTC to desist from conducting any proceeding relating to the receivership over LLDC.30 The court concluded that the proceedings on receivership could not proceed without the parties complying first with the earlier court order which required the parties to amend their pleadings. The court ratiocinated that it could not rule on the propriety of the appointment of a receiver because it would have to base its decision on the pleadings that were yet to be amended. Besides, the pendency of G.R. No. 153690 before this Court necessitated the deferment of any action on the lifting of receivership.
Aggrieved, the Lu Ym father and sons instituted the instant petition in G.R. No. 157381.
Meanwhile, Judge Dican inhibited himself, and the case was thus transferred from Branch 11 to Branch 12.
On March 31, 2003, David filed a Motion to Admit Complaint to Conform to the Interim Rules Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies, which the court admitted on July 18, 2003.31
On January 23, 2004, the Lu Ym father and sons inquired from the Clerk of Court on the amount of docket fees paid by David, et al. John Lu Ym further inquired from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as to the correctness of the amount paid by David, et al. After a series of letters sent to the OCA, the latter informed John that the matter of docket fees should be brought to the attention of the regular courts and not to the OCA which was not in the position to give an opinion.32
On March 1, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision33 on the merits of the case, annulling the issuance of LLDC's 600,000 shares of stocks thereby divesting the Lu Ym father and sons of their shares and canceling their certificates of stocks. The court further ordered the dissolution of LLDC and the liquidation of its assets. Consequently, a management committee was created to take over LLDC, and the corporation's officers were stripped of their powers as such.34 The court further declared that the decision was "immediately executory." Aggrieved, the Lu Ym father and sons seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 81163.
In view of the court's declaration of the executory nature of the assailed decision, the Lu Ym father and sons applied for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),35 which was opposed36 by David.
On January 28, 2004, the appellate court issued a TRO valid for a period of sixty (60) days.37 However, in a Resolution38 dated September 6, 2004, the court denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Since the original records had been transmitted to the appellate court, the RTC was divested of jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents therein. Thus, it ordered that all motions be filed with the CA.
In their motion for reconsideration,39 the Lu Ym father and sons assailed the denial of their application for preliminary injunction and, in addition thereto, they questioned the sufficiency of the docket fees paid by David, et al. in the RTC where the original complaint was filed.
On December 8, 2005, the appellate court did not reconsider its earlier resolution. As to the sufficiency of the docket fees, it ruled that the matter be raised in their appellants' brief and that the issue be threshed out in the appeal on the merits.40 Hence, this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in G.R. No. 170889.
The Issues
G.R. No. 153690
David Lu raises the following issues for resolution.
[a] WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE NUMEROUS FATAL DEFECTS AND RULES OF COURT AND IRCA VIOLATIONS OF RESPONDENTS' APRIL 30, 2001 PETITION, MOTION AND SUPPLEMENT.
[b] WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE RTC CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN REFUSING TO PERMIT IT TO PROCEED AS TO PETITIONER DESPITE [I] PETITIONER'S EXECUTION OF A CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING FOR THE COMPLAINT AND [II] THE FACT [THAT] THE RTC CASE INVOLVES ONLY A PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES.41
On August 19, 2003, the Lu Ym father and sons filed an Urgent Motion with Prayer for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction42 before this Court questioning the RTC's admission of David Lu's amended complaint. They sought to enjoin said admission as it would render moot and academic the cases pending before this Court.
[G.R. NO. 157381
The Lu Ym father and sons base their petition on the following alleged errors:
I.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS NULL AND VOID ON ITS FACE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN ENJOINING THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BELOW IS ALREADY PENDING APPEAL WITH THIS HONORABLE COURT AND IT IS, THEREFORE, THIS HONORABLE COURT THAT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE REMEDIES OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
II.
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WAS WRONGFULLY GRANTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BECAUSE ITS DECISION DID NOT CONTAIN THE BASIC FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, NOR DID IT EVEN DEFINE IT AS AN ISSUE IN THE CASE, NOR WAS THERE ANY GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
III.
EVEN ASSUMING IN GRATIA ARGUMENTI THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL BASIS IN ENJOINING THE TRIAL COURT FROM ACTING ON THE URGENT MOTION OF THE PETITIONERS TO LIFT THE HIGHLY OPPRESSIVE ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP.43
On June 7, 2006, David filed a Manifestation44 that the cases pending before this Court are moot and academic - G.R. No. 153690 for the admission of the amended complaint which superseded the original complaint; and G.R. No. 157381 for the RTC's act of resolving the case on the merits.45 For their part, the Lu Ym father and sons agree on the mootness of G.R. No. 153690, but not G.R. No. 157381. This is without prejudice to the resolution of the issue they raised on the propriety of the admission of the amended complaint.46
[G.R. NO. 170889
In coming before this Court in this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, John Lu Ym and LLDC raise the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE FOR FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES WHEN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT DISMISSING SRC CASE NO. 021-CEB DESPITE CLEAR SHOWING THAT RESPONDENTS WERE GUILTY OF BAD FAITH IN AVOIDING PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES.47
On January 23, 2006, we issued a Status Quo Order specifically enjoining the implementation of the CA resolutions denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.48
Stripped of the non-essentials and combining all the arguments set forth in the consolidated petitions, the issues for our resolution are as follows:
I. Whether the original complaint filed before the RTC should have been dismissed for:
A. non-compliance with the rules on certificate of non-forum shopping; andcralawlibrary
B. non-payment of the correct docket fees
II. Whether the receivership proceedings were validly suspended pending the amendment of the initial complaint in compliance with the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies
III. Whether a writ of preliminary injunction should have been issued pending the resolution of the appeal on the merits filed before the Court of Appeals.
The Ruling of This Court
In G.R. No. 153690, David claims that the Lu Ym father and sons' petition (in CA-G.R. SP No. 64523) before the CA should not have been entertained because of the following fatal defects: 1) the petition questioning the approval of the receivership was prematurely filed because of the pendency of their motion for reconsideration before the RTC; 2) their motion and supplement were filed without asking leave of court to do so; 3) considering that the motion and supplement contained new allegations, there was a failure to attach a new certificate of non-forum shopping; and 4) the motion and supplement were filed out of time.49
At the outset, we find the procedural issues raised by David to be of no moment. Basic is the rule that a motion for the reconsideration of an assailed order may be filed by an aggrieved party within the reglementary period. No motion for leave to file such motion is required under the Rules or in any other circular of the Supreme Court. As long as the same is filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed order, there is no reason for the courts not to entertain it. In fact, in some exceptional cases as when substantial justice so requires, a motion belatedly filed may still be taken cognizance of. As to the supplemental petition filed without leave of court, suffice it to state that the CA entertained the same, required David to comment thereon, and decided the case on the basis thereof. Such actions of the appellate court adequately show that the supplemental petition was admitted. Lastly, as to the lack of certificate of non-forum shopping in the motion for reconsideration and supplement to the petition, we need only reiterate that the certificate is required only in cases of initiatory pleadings.50
Now on the substantial issues.
In G.R. No. 153690, the assailed CA decision dismissed David et al.'s original complaint for their failure to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision, however, the RTC ordered David et al. to amend the complaint to conform to the interim rules of procedure for intra-corporate controversy. In compliance with the order, David, et al. amended the complaint and filed the same with leave of court. The RTC, thereafter, admitted the amended complaint, proceeded to hear the case, and decided the same on the merits.
While it is true that the Lu Ym father and sons questioned the admission of the aforesaid amended complaint before this Court, the same was done only through an Urgent Motion.51 Under the Rules of Court, the proper mode to challenge such an order, which undoubtedly is interlocutory, is through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. This procedural defect, therefore, bars the Court from ruling on the propriety of such admission. We cannot take cognizance of proceedings before the RTC unless they are brought before us through the proper mode of review. To be sure, the Urgent Motion cannot be a substitute for the remedy of a special civil action for certiorari.52 Consequently, the amended complaint admitted by the RTC stands.
With the issue of admission of the amended complaint resolved, the question of whether or not the original complaint should have been dismissed was mooted. Section 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. In this case, the original complaint was deemed withdrawn from the records upon the admission of the amended complaint.53 This conclusion becomes even more pronounced in that the RTC already rendered a decision on the merits of the said amended complaint, not to mention the Lu Ym father and sons' concurrence in the mootness of the issue in the instant petition.54
It is settled that courts do not entertain a moot question. An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.55 This Court, therefore, abstains from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.56
In G.R. No. 157381, the Lu Ym father and sons insist that the CA had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, more so, to make the same permanent, in view of the pendency of G.R. No. 153690. They argue that the application for a writ should have been filed before this Court and not through a separate special civil action before the CA. They further assert that the CA should not have issued a writ as there was no finding of grave abuse of discretion, to begin with. Lastly, they argue that the order of the trial court requiring the parties to amend their pleadings did not bar the RTC from acting on the provisional remedy of receivership. Since this Court did not issue a restraining order, the receivership proceedings could still proceed.57
It is noteworthy at this point to reiterate the factual circumstances surrounding the instant petition. G.R. No. 157381 has its origin in the Lu Ym father and sons' motion to lift the receivership over LLDC. David, for his part, went up to the CA and asked that the RTC be enjoined from hearing said motion pending resolution of his petition before this Court in G.R. No. 153690 and the amendment of his complaint as ordered by the RTC. David's petition was granted by the appellate court in the assailed decision. It ratiocinated that any matter, principal or collateral, should be held in abeyance pending the amendment of the original complaint. Besides, said the appellate court, the dismissal of the original complaint on which the Lu Ym father and sons based their motion to lift receivership was still the subject of an appeal before this Court.
Again, the propriety of such injunction is mooted by the amendment of the complaint, and the RTC decision in the case on the merits thereof. The appellate court ordered that the hearing on the motion to lift the receivership be held in abeyance primarily because the original complaint was yet to be amended. Upon the amendment of the complaint and the admission thereof by the RTC, the reason for such injunction ceased to exist. Thus, the CA could resolve, as it in fact resolved, the question of whether or not the receivership should be lifted.
The RTC decision on the merits of the case gives this Court more reasons to declare the mootness of the instant petition. It must be recalled that the motion to lift the receivership was filed before the RTC ancillary to the principal action, and what was sought to be enjoined was the hearing on that particular motion. With the decision on the merits rendered by the RTC, albeit still on appeal, there is nothing more to be enjoined. More importantly, the RTC ordered that the receivers cease from performing their functions and that a management committee be created.58 Clearly, these supervening events mooted the petition. Time and again, we have declared that a petition should be denied for the sole reason that the act sought to be enjoined is already fait accompli.59
To reiterate, the trial court's decision on the merits rendered the issue on the propriety of the injunction moot and academic, notwithstanding the fact that said decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeals.60 Courts are called upon to resolve actual cases and controversies, not to render advisory opinions.61
It is true that we have held in a number of cases that the moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving a case. Courts will still decide cases otherwise, moot and academic if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and, fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.62 However, not one of the enumerated exceptions obtains in the instant case. Thus, a denial of the instant petition is warranted.
In G.R. No. 170889, John Lu Ym and LLDC explain that while it may be possible to raise the issue of docket fees in their appellants' brief as suggested by the CA, it would already be too late because the issue would be rendered moot and academic by the dissolution of the corporation. They further question the propriety of the creation of the management committee, arguing that there was non-observance of substantive and procedural rules. As to the issue of estoppel, they claim that they first raised the issue of docket fees only in their motion for reconsideration before the CA because they had yet to await the OCA's response to their inquiry on the correct docket fees. Lastly, they argue that David et al. are now precluded from paying the correct docket fees by the lapse of the prescriptive period. Neither can a lien be created on the judgment in lieu of dismissal.63
In short, John and LLDC seek the dismissal of the initial complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction occasioned by the insufficient payment of docket fees.
A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed fees. The importance of filing fees cannot be gainsaid for these are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of each case. Hence, the non-payment or insufficient payment of docket fees can entail tremendous losses to the government in general and to the judiciary in particular.64
In the instant case, however, we cannot grant the dismissal prayed for because of the following reasons: First, the case instituted before the RTC is one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, the correct docket fees were paid. Second, John and LLDC are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court because of their active participation in the proceedings below, and because the issue of payment of insufficient docket fees had been belatedly raised before the Court of Appeals, i.e., only in their motion for reconsideration. Lastly, assuming that the docket fees paid were truly inadequate, the mistake was committed by the Clerk of Court who assessed the same and not imputable to David; and as to the deficiency, if any, the same may instead be considered a lien on the judgment that may thereafter be rendered.
The Court had, in the past, laid down the test in determining whether the subject matter of an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation by ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If the action is primarily for recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, the money claim being only incidental to or merely a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.65
In the current controversy, the main purpose of the complaint filed before the RTC was the annulment of the issuance of the 600,000 LLDC shares of stocks because they had been allegedly issued for less than their par value. Thus, David sought the dissolution of the corporation and the appointment of receivers/management committee.66 To be sure, the annulment of the shares, the dissolution of the corporation and the appointment of receivers/management committee are actions which do not consist in the recovery of a sum of money. If, in the end, a sum of money or real property would be recovered, it would simply be the consequence of such principal action. Therefore, the case before the RTC was incapable of pecuniary estimation. Accordingly, John's and LLDC's contention cannot be sustained. And since David paid the docket fees for an action the subject of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, as computed by the Clerk of Court, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Even assuming that the subject in the instant case is capable of pecuniary estimation, still, the case should not be dismissed because the insufficiency of the fees actually paid was belatedly raised; David relied on the assessment made by the Clerk of Court; and if there is a deficiency, it may instead be considered a lien on the judgment that may hereafter be rendered.
We note that the Lu Ym father and sons belatedly raised the issue of insufficient payment of docket fees in their motion for reconsideration before the CA. A perusal of the records reveals that the Lu Ym father and sons filed several pleadings before the RTC, specifically, a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Lift the Appointment of a Receiver, among others. They, likewise, filed several pleadings before the Court of Appeals and before this Court either as initiatory pleadings or in opposition to those filed by the adverse party. Considering their prompt action and reaction to ensure that their rights are protected, their belated objection to the payment of docket fees is, therefore, inexcusable. Well-established is the rule that after vigorously participating in all stages of the case before the trial court and even invoking the trial court's authority in order to ask for affirmative relief, John and LLDC are barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction.67 If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court's jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.68 Thus, even if, indeed, the docket fees paid were inadequate, this allegation having been raised for the first time on appeal, should be disallowed.69
While it is true that this Court had previously dismissed complaints for non-payment of docket fees, as in the early case of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,70 these cases uniformly involved bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, such that the correct amount of damages claimed was not specifically stated. The Court, in such cases, concluded that there was bad faith on the part of the complainant and a clear intent to avoid payment of the required docket fee, thus, the dismissal of the cases was warranted.
It may be recalled that despite the payment of insufficient fees, this Court refrained from dismissing the complaint/petition in Intercontinental Broasting Corporation (IBC-13) v. Alonzo-Legasto,71 Yambao v. Court of Appeals72 and Ayala Land, Inc. v. Carpo.73 In those cases, the inadequate payment was caused by the erroneous assessment made by the Clerk of Court. In Intercontinental,74 we declared that the payment of the docket fees, as assessed, negates any imputation of bad faith to the respondent or any intent of the latter to defraud the government. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the respondent, and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. In Yambao,75 this Court concluded that petitioners cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required docket fees for, given the prevailing circumstances, such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic or intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In Ayala Land,76 the Court held that despite the jurisdictional nature of the rule on payment of docket fees, the appellate court still has the discretion to relax the rule in meritorious cases.
In the instant case, David paid the docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court. Even if the amount was insufficient, as claimed by John and LLDC, fraud and bad faith cannot be attributed to David to warrant the dismissal of his complaint. Consistent with the principle of liberality in the interpretation of the Rules, in the interest of substantial justice, this Court had repeatedly refrained from dismissing the case on that ground alone. Instead, it considered the deficiency in the payment of the docket fees as a lien on the judgment which must be remitted to the Clerk of Court of the court a quo upon the execution of the judgment.77
Lastly, we now resolve the issue of whether or not the CA abused its discretion in denying the Lu Ym father and sons' application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court sets forth the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, thus:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
In the instant case, John and LLDC failed to satisfy the above requisites. Except for their claim of nullity of the RTC decision because of insufficient payment of docket fees, no evidence was offered to establish the existence of a clear and unmistakable right on their part that must be protected, as well as the serious damage or irreparable loss that they would suffer if the writ is not granted.
It has been consistently held that there is no power, the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuance of an injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that should never be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of action of the defendant and should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.78
Clearly then, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Court of Appeals in denying the Lu Ym father and sons' application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
One final note. We observe that these consolidated cases involve interlocutory orders of the RTC. The delay in the disposition of the main case, which is now pending appeal before the CA, was occasioned by the actions of all the contending parties in seeking affirmative relief before the Court of Appeals and before this Court. Our disposition of these three petitions should now pave the way for the final resolution of the corporate dispute which started as early as 2000.
In view of the above disquisitions, we deem it proper to lift the status quo order which this Court issued on January 23, 2006. The CA is directed to proceed to rule on the appeal with dispatch.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions in G.R. NOS. 153690 and 157381 are DENIED for being moot and academic; while the petition in G.R. No. 170889 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Status Quo Order dated January 23, 2006 is hereby LIFTED.
The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to proceed with CA-G.R. CV No. 81163 and to resolve the same with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
* Additional member replacing Associate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez per raffle dated July 30, 2008.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring, rollo, (G.R. No. 153690) pp. 69-78.
2 It was later re-raffled to Branch 11.
3 Pursuant to the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under R.A. 8799, the case was re-docketed as SRC Case No. 021-CEB.
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), pp. 80-86.
5 Penned by Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola, with Associate Justices Sergio L. Pestaño and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 157381), pp. 313-319.
6 Penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 170889), pp. 72-73.
7 Rollo (G.R. No. 170889), pp. 76-78.
8 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), p. 96.
9 Id. at. 95-102.
10 Id. at 97.
11 Id. at 99.
12 Id. at 101.
13 Id. at 103-108.
14 Id. at 109-110.
15 Id. at 117-118.
16 Id. at 123-128.
17 Rollo ( G.R. No. 157381), pp. 181-182.
18 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), p. 555.
19 Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, with Associate Justices Hilarion L. Aquino and Jose L. Sabio, Jr., concurring, rollo (G.R. No. 153690) pp. 257-259.
20 Id. at 257-259.
21 Id. at 323-324.
22 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring, rollo (G.R. No. 153690), pp. 69-78.
23 G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000,338 SCRA 62.
24 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), pp. 69-78.
25 Id. at 80-86.
26 Rollo (G.R. No. 157381), p. 316.
27 Id. at 24.
28 Id. at 26.
29 Id. at 317.
30 Penned by Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola, with Associate Justices Sergio L. Pestaño and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; id. at 313-319.
31 Rollo (G.R. No. 170889), p. 16.
32 Id. at 22-23.
33 Id. at 10 6-121.
34 Id. at 119-121.
35 Id. at 193-214.
36 Id. at 215-221.
37 Id. at 72.
38 Penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; id. at 72-73.
39 Rollo, pp. 288-320.
40 Id. at 76-78.
41 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), p. 623.
42 Id. at 646-664.
43 Rollo (G.R. No. 157381), pp. 17-52.
44 Id. at 645-649.
45 Id. at 649.
46 Id. at 654-658.
47 Rollo (G.R. No. 170889), pp. 483-484.
48 Id. at 141-142.
49 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), pp. 613-637.
50 Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
51 Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), pp. 646-664.
52 See Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc., et al. v. Manay, et al., G.R. No. 175338, April 29, 2008.
53 Figuracion v. Libi, G.R. No. 155688, November 28, 2007, citing The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Breva, 442 SCRA 217, 223 (2004); Negros Merchants Enterprises, Inc. v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 150918, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 478, 487.
54 Rollo (G.R. No. 157381), pp. 654-657.
55 Pulido v. Abu, G.R. No. 170924, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 483, 496; Garayblas v. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 149493, June 22, 2006, 492 SCRA 202, 216.
56 Pulido v. Abu, id. at 496.
57 Rollo (G.R. No. 157381), pp. 17-52.
58 Rollo (G.R. No. 170889), pp. 119-120.
59 Caneland Sugar Corporation v. Alon, G.R. No. 142896, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 28, 32.
60 See Kho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002; See also La Vista Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 498 (2002).
61 Ticzon v. Videopost, Manila, 389 Phil. 20,30 (2000).
62 Manalo v. Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 290, 303.
63 Rollo (G.R. No. 170889), pp. 464-559.
64 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 163878, December 12, 2006, 510 SCRA 685, 700.
65 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation, id. at 700, citing Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, 88 SCRA 623 (1970); Russell v. Hon. Vestil, 364 Phil. 392, 400 (1999).
66 In their original complaint, David, et.al. specifically prayed:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, as follows:
1. Declare null and void the issuance of 600,000 unsubscribed and unissued shares to Defendants Lu Ym father and sons and their spouses, children and holding companies, for a price of only one-eighteenth of their real value, as having been done in breach of directors' fiduciary duty to stockholders, in violation of Plaintiffs' minority stockholders' rights, and in unjust enrichment of the Defendants, majority/controlling stockholders/directors, at the expense of their cousins, the other stockholders.
2. Order the dissolution of Defendant Ludo and LuYm Development Corporation, in order to protect the rights and redress the injuries of Plaintiffs;
3. During the pendency of the instant case, order the appointment of a receiver pendente lite for LuDo and LuYm Development Corporation.
Such other reliefs as may be just and equitable on the premises are likewise prayed for; rollo, G.R. No. 170889, pp. 84-85.
In his amended complaint, David specifically prayed:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, as follows:
1. Declare null and void the issuance of 600.000 unsubscribed and unissued shares of the defendant corporation to Defendants Lu Ym father and sons and their spouses, children, and holding companies, for a price of one-eighteenth of their real value, for being inequitable, having been done in breach of director's fiduciary duty to stockholders, in violation of Plaintiffs' minority stockholders' rights, and in unjust enrichment of the Defendants, majority controlling stockholders/directors, at the expense of their cousins, the other stockholders.
2. Order the dissolution of Defendant Ludo and Luym Development Corporation, in order to protect the rights and redress the injuries of Plaintiffs;
3. Order the creation of a management committee pendente lite, and order receiver Luis Cañete to turn over all assets and records to the management committee.
Such other relief as may be just and equitable on the premises are likewise prayed for. [Rollo (G.R. No. 153690), pp. 689-690.]
67 Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 460, 473; Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105180, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 477, 491.
68 Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, id. at 473.
69 Idolor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161028, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 396, 404.
70 No. L-75919, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 562.
71 G.R. No. 169108, April 18, 2006, 487 SCRA 339.
72 G.R. No. 140894, November 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 141.
73 G.R. No. 140162, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 579.
74 Supra note 71, at 350.
75 Supra note 72, at 148.
76 Supra note 73, at 585.
77 Moskowsky v. Court of Appeals, 366 Phil. 189, 196 (1999); Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105180, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 477, 491.
78 Yujuico v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 168639, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 243, 263; MIAA v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 369, 382 (2003), citing Garcia v. Burgos, 291 SCRA 546 (1998).
