Maglasang v. Maglasang

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231930. July 7, 2021.]

ENGR. GALILEO A. MAGLASANG, MANUEL A. MAGLASANG, BELMINA V. MAGLASANG, AND LUCILE A. MAGLASANG, petitioners, vs.OCTAVIO A. MAGLASANG, RENE A. MAGLASANG, AND ALLAN A. MAGLASANG, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 July 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 231930 (Engr. Galileo A. Maglasang, Manuel A. Maglasang, Belmina V. Maglasang, and Lucile A. Maglasang v. Octavio A. Maglasang, Rene A. Maglasang, and Allan A. Maglasang.) — On November 12, 2013, Octavio A. Maglasang, Rene A. Maglasang, and Allan A. Maglasang (Octavio, et al.), filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for injunctive relief against Engr. Galileo A. Maglasang, Manuel A. Maglasang, Belmina V. Maglasang, and Lucile A. Maglasang (Galileo, et al.), before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 12 (RTC), docketed as Special Civil Action No. 836. Allegedly, on August 13, 2013, Octavio, et al., called for a special election of members and officers of the Board of Trustees (BOT members) of Zamboanga del Sur Maritime Institute of Technology (ZSMIT). On September 8, 2013, Octavio, et al., attempted to take over the management and operation of the school as the new legitimate BOT members and officers. However, Galileo, et al., excluded Octavio, et al., and continued to manage and operate ZSMIT. Hence, Octavio, et al., prayed for the RTC's issuance of an order directing Galileo, et al., to desist from participating in the management and operation of ZSMIT, and from exercising the functions of BOT members and officers. 1 On the other hand, Galileo, et al., disputed the validity of the special election and maintained that they were the legitimate BOT members and officers of ZSMIT. Moreover, Galileo, et al., sought to dismiss the petition for having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. 2

In a Decision 3 dated April 21, 2014, the RTC took cognizance of the petition and ruled that it was timely filed. On the merits, the RTC declared the August 13, 2013 special election void, and ordered the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to supervise a new election of ZSMIT's BOT members and officers, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered in the herein case in the following manner:

1.) Declaring the membership of the respondents Belmina V. Maglasang and Lucile A. Maglasang to petitioner-corporation ZSMIT null and void and their election as members of the Board of Trustees and Officers of ZSMIT as a consequence thereof is likewise declared null and void and they are hereby directed to cease and desist from acting and representing themselves as such effective immediately and to relinquished [sic] all the functions and duties they have been exercising as such to the newly elected and installed members of the Board of Trustees and Officers of the ZSMIT in the manner set forth hereunder.

2.) Declaring all the elections of the Board of Trustees and Officers of the petitioner-corporation ZSMIT held after the assumption of respondents Belmina V. Maglasang and Lucile A. Maglasang as members of ZSMIT as null and void.

3.) Declaring the elections of the Board of Trustees and Officer of petitioner-corporation ZSMIT by the petitioners herein on August 13, 2013 as likewise null and void and consequently, the qualified members before the controversies between the herein parties ensued in 2002 as stated in the Articles of Incorporation is hereby reinstated as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

4.) Directing the afore-named existing members of the petitioner-corporation to conduct an election of the Board of Trustees and Officers of the petitioner-corporation ZSMIT for the year 2014-2015 which members and officers shall immediately hold office as such until a new set of members and officers of the petitioner-corporation ZSMIT shall be elected in the manner set forth and as mandated in Article 1 of its Articles and By-laws within 30 days from receipt hereof with the assistance and supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zamboanga del Sur Office and to submit the results of the same to this Court for its approval and submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission who is directed to register the same in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulation pertinent and relevant thereto and upon payment of the required fees therefor.

5.) The Securities and Exchange Commission, Zamboanga del Sur Office is hereby directed to assist and supervise the conduct of the elections aforementioned mandated by this Court and appoint any such officers or employees as may be needed for such purpose. All expenses incurred therein shall be assessed and paid by the petitioner-corporation as administrative costs.

6.) Directing the new set of Board of Trustees and Officers of the petitioner-corporation ZSMIT so elected to immediately assume their duties and responsibilities as such in accordance with the mandate of the corporations' Articles and By-laws.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. 4

Aggrieved, Galileo, et al., elevated the case to the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 06178-MIN. 5 Galileo, et al., argued that the petition for prohibition and mandamus was filed out of time and should have been dismissed outright. Moreover, the RTC went beyond its jurisdiction in calling for a new election which was not a relief prayed for by any of the parties. 6

In its Decision 7 dated December 28, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling and held that the petition for prohibition and mandamus was timely filed. Further, the CA explained that the RTC has jurisdiction to order an election pursuant to the Interim Rules of Intra-Corporate Controversies, to wit:

In the instant case, respondents filed the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus to proscribe petitioners from further assuming the functions and duties as officers and members of the Board of Trustees of ZSMIT. As borne by the records, the petition was triggered by September 8, 2013 incident wherein respondents were prevented by the petitioners from taking over the management of said school. Thus, the 60-day reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus should be reckoned from said date. Accordingly, respondents had until November 12, 2013 within which to file the petition. Prescinding from the foregoing, the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus filed on November 12, 2013 was filed within the reglementary sixty (60)-day period.

xxx xxx xxx

In this case, it is undisputed that the RTC has the power to hear and decide the intra-corporate controversy of the parties herein. Concomitant to said power is the authority to issue orders necessary or incidental to the carrying out of the powers expressly granted to it. Thus, the RTC may, in appropriate cases, order the holding of an election of the board of trustees and officers of a corporation involving an intra-corporate dispute under its supervision. Accordingly, the RTC acted well within its jurisdiction when it ordered the conduct of election of the Board and Trustees of ZSMIT. 8

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 9 (Emphasis supplied.)

On February 1, 2017 and February 17, 2017, Galileo, et al., filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, 10 which were denied. 11 Hence, this Petition for Review 12 on certiorari. Galileo, et al., reiterated that the petition for prohibition and mandamus was filed beyond the reglementary period and that the RTC has no authority to call for a new election. 13

The petition is meritorious.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that a petition for prohibition and mandamus must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the assailed act or omission. Here, it is obvious that the CA erred in computing the reglementary period reckoned from September 8, 2013, or the date Galileo, et al., allegedly prevented Octavio, et al., from taking over the management and operation of ZSMIT. To be sure, Octavio, et al., have 60 days from September 8, 2013, or until November 7, 2013, within which to file the petition. Yet, Octavio, et al., filed the petition only on November 12, 2013, or five days beyond the reglementary period. Hence, the CA and the RTC should have dismissed the petition.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that "no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason." However, Octavio, et al., did not present any compelling reason to warrant liberality. On this point, the Court reminds that prohibition and mandamus are prerogative writs of equity. 14 Given their extraordinary nature, the party availing these remedies must strictly observe the rules and non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere technicality. 15 More importantly, the grant of a petition for prohibition and mandamus must be based on a clear legal right to the relief prayed for. 16 In this case, Octavio, et al.,'s individual right to assume ZSMIT's management is still undetermined. Notably, the RTC declared void the August 13, 2013 special election and called the SEC to supervise a new election. Verily, a petition for prohibition and mandamus is not a remedy to establish a right. Rather, it is a remedy used to enforce a right already clearly established. 17

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City's Decision dated December 28, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 06178-MIN, and the Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City, Branch 12's Decision dated April 21, 2014 in Special Civil Action No. 836 are REVERSED. The petition for prohibition and mandamus is DENIED.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 203-206.

2. CA rollo, pp. 599-611.

3.Rollo, pp. 203-216. Penned by Presiding Judge Gregorio V. Dela Peña, III.

4.Id. at 213-215.

5. CA rollo, pp. 2-20.

6.Id. at 36-37.

7.Rollo, pp. 32-45. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.

8.Id. at 38-40.

9.Id. at 44.

10.Id. at 54.

11.Id. at 53-54.

12.Id. at 9-31.

13.Id. at 9-23.

14.Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Hon. Presbitero, Jr., 757 Phil. 454, 470 (2015), citing Spouses Caviles v. Court of Appeals, 438 Phil. 13, 25 (2002).

15.Gov. Cerilles v. Civil Service Commission, 821 Phil. 221, 232-233 (2017), citing Garcia, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 570 Phil. 188, 193 (2008); and Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary Gonzales, 701 Phil. 96, 104-105 (2013).

16. See MIAA v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners. Asso., Inc., 508 Phil. 354, 373 (2005).

17.Id. at 371.