SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237628. November 5, 2018.]
PMI COLLEGES, INCORPORATED, REPRESENTED BY ITS STOCKHOLDER AND DIRECTOR, ARCHITECT JAIME G. CLOMA, petitioner, vs.RIZABEL CLOMA SANTOS, ATTY. DOMINADOR R. SANTIAGO, SABINO CZAR "BINGCZAR" CLOMA MANGLICMOT, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237628 (PMI Colleges, Incorporated, represented by its Stockholder and Director, Architect Jaime G. Cloma v. Rizabel Cloma Santos, Atty. Dominador R. Santiago, Sabino Czar "Bingczar" Cloma Manglicmot, et al.)1
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM the August 10, 2017 Decision 3 and the February 5, 2018 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148131 for failure of petitioners PMI Colleges, Incorporated, represented by its Stockholder and Director, Architect Jaime G. Cloma (Architect Cloma), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the August 1, 2016 Order 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila City (RTC), Branch 46, dismissing its Complaint 6 for mismanagement resulting to intra-corporate controversies.
As correctly pointed out by the CA, the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, 7 which was not shown in this case. The RTC correctly dismissed the derivative suit for failure of Architect Cloma to allege and prove that he exhausted all available remedies before resorting thereto, and to show that his cause of action actually devolves upon the corporation, not to him personally. 8 It should be stressed that the legal standing of minority stockholders to bring derivative suits is not a statutory right, there being no provision in the Corporation Code or related statutes authorizing the same, but is instead a product of jurisprudence based on equity. However, a derivative suit cannot prosper without first complying with the legal requisites for its institution. 9 Since the RTC and the CA consistently held that all the legal requisites had not been satisfied in this case, such finding cannot be overturned absent any showing that the latter overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. 10
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The other respondents are Atty. Angelica Brown Cloma, Tom Gerard Vibar Cloma, Jose Marie Ortega, and the other Officers and Directors of the PMI Colleges, Incorporated. See rollo, p. 11.
2.Id. at 11-42.
3.Id. at 46-58. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
4.Id. at 60-61.
5.Id. at 200-205. Penned by Presiding Judge Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa.
6.Id. at 71-83.
7. See id. at 51.
8. See id. at 204.
9.Ching v. Subic Bay Golf and Country Club, Inc., 742 Phil. 606, 621 (2014).
10. See Almojuela v. People, 734 Phil. 636, 651 (2014); citations omitted.