DAVID LU vs LU YM SR.

Thus, this case.

TOPIC: Jurisdiction; legal fees; estoppel

ISSUES:

FACTS:

1.

David Lu applied for receivership and dissolution of the issued

shares to Lu Ym Sr. and sons who purchased majority of the
unsubscribed and unissued shares of LLDC.

2.

David Lu et al are minority shareholders of the corporation who

claim to have been prejudiced by the transaction.

3.

David Lu contends that Lu Ym acquired the shares for less

than their actual values.
Lu Ym father and sons moved to dismiss the petition since only
one of the four plaintiffs signed the verification petition without
showing that he was authorized to sign in behalf of the other
parties. This was dismissed by the RTC on the ground that the
signature of one complainant serves as substantial compliance
with the rules. Lu Ym went to the CA and his appeal was
likewise dismissed since the certification against forum
shopping were signed by only two petitioners.
Later, Lu Ym refiled the case and CA initially dismissed the
petition since they deemed that the petition was premature
considering that there is still a motion for reconsideration
pending at the RTC.
Upon motion of Lu Ym, the case was reinstated and Lu Ym
filed a supplement to their petition.
The initiatory pleading filed by David Lu was dismissed by
the CA. Thereafter, the RTC ordered David Lu et al to
amend their pleading.
Lu Ym father and sons filed a manifestation and motion
praying for the immediate lifting of the receivership which
was immediately set for hearing. The hearing did not
proceed on schedule due to repeated motions of David Lu
to stop it.
It turned out that a SCA for certiorari and prohibition was
filed by David before the CA on the sole issue of whether
or not RTC should proceed with Lus petition to lift the
receivership. This was granted by the CA. Lu Ym father
and sons contends that the CA had no jurisdiction in
issuing the writ of preliminary injunction by virtue of the
pendency of their urgent motion.
Aggrieved, Lu Ym father and sons instituted another petition
raising the issue on the correctness of the amount of docket
fees paid by David et al.
Thereafter, the RTC ruled cancelled certificate of shares of
stocks issued to Lu Ym father and sons and ordered the
liquidation of LLDC and its assets and declared that the
decision was immediately executory.

Whether or not the RTC should have dismissed the

petition by David Lu for non-compliance with the rules
of forum shopping; and
Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction to issue a writ
of preliminary injunction against the motion to lift
receivership.
Insufficient amount of docket fees were paid.

HELD:
(1) Subsequent to the dismissal of David Lus initiatory
pleading by the CA, the RTC ordered David Lu et al to
amend their pleading.
When Lu Ym father and sons questioned the
admission of the amended complaint, the same was
done through an urgent motion. SC said that the
proper remedy would have been to file a special
action for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, the
amended complaint admitted by the RTC still stands
and the procedural defect is no longer curable.
Therefore, the issue on whether or not the RTC
should have dismissed David Lus initiatory pleading
was mooted. (Estoppel bitches!)
(2) Again, the court said that the propriety of the writ of
preliminary injunction was mooted by the amendment
of the complaint. The very reason for the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction against the urgent
motion to lift receivership is because the original
complaint is yet to be amended.
(3) The court ruled that the case instituted before the
RTC raises an issue on the issuance of the shares of
stocks which were allegedly issued for less than their
par value. Hence, the claim is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Even assuming that the claim is capable
of pecuniary estimation, the case still stands because
the issue insufficiency of fees paid was belatedly
raised. David Lu merely relied on the assessment by
the Clerk of Court, thereby there is no bad faith on his
part and even if there was deficiency, the same could
be considered a lien on the judgement that may be
hereby rendered.
(Estoppel again!) Furthermore, Lu Ym father and
sons are estopped from further assailing the
jurisdiction of the court because of their active
participation in the proceedings.
TEST FOR PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
1.

If the action is primarily for the recovery of

sum of money, it is capable of pecuniary
estimation.

2.

If the claim is only incidental to the relief

sought and is not the lis mota of the
complaint, the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.

Lu Ym father and sons countered with another TRO which was

initially granted by the RTC but referred the same to the CA
since all the original records had been transmitted thereto.
In their motion for reconsideration, Lu Ym raised an issue that
the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the
wrong amount of docket fees were paid by David Lu et al. The
same was denied.

Republic vs SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
24 years ago, PCGG commenced a complaint for
reconveyance, reversion, accounting restitution and
damages against Bienvenido Tantoco et al.
Instead of filing for an answer, the defendants filed a
MOTION TO STIKE OUT SOME PORTIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT and applied for Bill of Particulars. Both
motions were denied.
In 1989, defendants Tantoco and Santiago filed with the
SB a pleading demonimated as INTERROGATORIES
TO THE PLAINTIFF which was amended a month
thereafter with a MOTION FOR PRODUCTION AND
INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS. This time, SB granted
their pleadings.
Thereafter, the PCGG elevated the issue to the SC. The
SC affirmed the Sandiganbayan.
During the pre-trial, the PCGG produced the documents
before the respondents counsel. Thereafter the pre-trial
was declared closed. However, PCGG produced and
cause the pre-marking of additional documents named
MMM to AAAAAAA.
Respondents then filed a Motion under RULE 29
claiming that the additional documents were never
produced at the discovery of the proceedings and for
petitioner to be sanctioned for contempt. SB denied this
motion and proceeded with the trial.
Upon trial, new documents not shown at discovery were
still marked therefore, respondents moved to ban the
offering of such as exhibits and challenged the
authenticity of these documents. SB granted this initially
before admitting them again upon petitioners motion for
reconsideration. Respondents then filed a motion for
reconsideration.
Upon review, the court ruled in favor of the respondents
and prevented the offering of exhibits MMM to
AAAAAAA since the exhibits involved have not passed
the test of admissibility.
Thus, petitioner filed this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the SB committed grave abuse of
discretion in including the documents due to petitioners
own failure to produce them at the pre-trial. (petitioner
raised this issue to prove a point that the SB committed
grave abuse of discretion because of contrary rulings to
its earlier resolutions)
HELD:
We deny the petition.

After a careful scrutiny of the records, We find that in

excluding Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA," the
Sandiganbayan properly exercised its discretion over
evidence formally offered by the prosecution. Nothing
therein shows that the court gravely exceeded its
jurisdiction.
The authority of the trial court to control its own
discovery processes cannot be undermined. In this case,
the Sandiganbayans exercise of this power is neither
whimsical nor oppressive.
A writ of certiorari is available only to review final
judgments or decrees, and will be refused where there
has been no final judgment or order and the proceeding
for which the writ is sought is still pending and
undetermined in the lower tribunal. Pursuant to this rule,
it has been held that certiorari will not lie to review or
24
correct discovery orders made prior to trial. case, the
Sandiganbayans exercise of this power is neither
whimsical nor oppressive.

PIATCO vs TAKENAKA
FACTS:
Respondents herein are both foreign corporations but
Takenaka is the one licensed to do business in the Philippines.
By way of Concession agreement, RP awarded to PIATCO the
right to build and operate NAIA terminal III. Petitioner then
contracted the respondents to construct and equp NAIA III.
Respondents filed a complaint two collection suits in London
claiming that the petitioner made no further payments.
The foreign court ruled in favor of the private respondents.
Thereafter, they filed a complaint to enforce the orders of the
foreign court.

During the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss on April 7,

2006, private respondents asked for time to file their
Opposition. Private respondents subsequently filed
their Opposition, which was followed by petitioner's
Reply, private respondents' Rejoinder and petitioner's
Sur-Rejoinder.
Private respondents opposed the said Motions and
Request, arguing that the Motion to Dismiss need not
be heard anew because the ground sought to be
proved, i.e., payment, novation or extinguishment of
obligation, was based on mere newspaper reports
which are hearsay evidence. Private respondents also
asserted that Mr. Kurebayashi may not be compelled to
testify as an adverse party witness without first being
served interrogatories.
Private respondents opposed the said Motions and
Request, arguing that the Motion to Dismiss need not
be heard anew because the ground sought to be
proved, i.e., payment, novation or extinguishment of
obligation, was based on mere newspaper reports
which are hearsay evidence. Private respondents also
asserted that Mr. Kurebayashi may not be compelled to
testify as an adverse party witness without first being
served interrogatories. They further argued that
discovery of documents may not be allowed until the
answer is filed since the materiality of the document
requested cannot be determined until the issues are
joined.
Thereafter, petitioner served the respondent with
Written Interrogatories. Respondents move to expunge
such since the same was served without leave of court.
Thus, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to serve its
Written Interrogatories. That same day, respondent
judge issued the first assailed Omnibus Order denying

petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Set the

Motion to Dismiss for hearing, Motion for Production
and Inspection of Documents, and Written
Interrogatories.
Aggrieved, petitioner went to the SC to assail the
respondent judges decision.
CA ruled partially in favor of the respondents on appeal
setting aside the omnibus order denying the Motion for
Production and Inspection of Documents and Written
Interrogatories. The order which quashed the Supoena
duces tecum was likewise set aside. The assailed June
26, 2006 and January 15, 2007 Omnibus Orders are
AFFIRMED IN PART insofar as they denied the Motion to
Set the Motion to Dismiss for hearing, and the Motion
to Dismiss.