FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231726. July 28, 2021.]
MABINI COLLEGES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PAUL C. ABAÑO, petitioner, vs.RAINIER A. IBANA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 231726 (Mabini Colleges, Inc., represented by its President, Paul C. Abaño v. Rainier A. Ibana, et al.). — Prefatorily, it bears emphasis that the Court reviews errors of judgment grounded only on questions of law in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not the Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) speak as one in their findings and conclusions. 1 Notably, the Court's jurisdiction in a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision and/or resolution granting or denying a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is even narrower. In such circumstance, the Court will examine the assailed ruling from the prism of whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion and not whether the RTC decided correctly the merits of the case. 2
Here, the Court finds that the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in denying the motion to drop petitioner as a party in Special Civil Case No. 7810. As a juridical entity, a corporation exercises its powers, such as the right to sue, through its board of directors or trustees and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. 3 To recall, the petitioner, through the court-sanctioned Executive Committee, filed Special Civil Case No. 7810 against Pamela Rossana Apuya, Emma Avellana, Alberto Garcia, Jr., and Wana Anna Baylon (Lukban, et al.) for their alleged unauthorized act of convening the May 1, 2011, annual stockholders' meeting. The RTC subsequently invalidated the May 1, 2011 stockholders' meeting and the consequent election of Lukban, et al. Verily, at the time the case was filed, there was no legitimate Board of Trustees through which petitioner can lawfully exercise its rights. On the other hand, the petitioner, through Lukban, et al., moved to be dropped as the party in Special Civil Case No. 7810. Obviously, Lukban, et al., are the defendants in the case and it would be the height of absurdity, if not unfairness, to grant the motion. Moreover, allowing the motion will practically result in the dismissal of the case rendering moot the other pending issues on disqualification and damages. In sum, the RTC acted prudently in denying the motion to prevent injustice on either party and prejudice as to the final determination of their rights and obligations.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rogelia R. Gatan, et al. v. Jesusa Vinarao, et al., 820 Phil. 257, 270 (2017); Heirs of Teresita Villanueva, et al. v. Heirs of Petronila Suquia Mendoza, et al., 810 Phil. 172, 177-178 (2017); and Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, 596 Phil. 858, 867 (2009).
2.Gomez v. People, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020.
3.Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981, 994 (2001); and Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar, 403 Phil. 391, 403 (2001).