InanOrder14datedApril17,2012,Branch276grantedthemotion
todismissfiledbyrespondents.Itfoundthatthecaseinvolvesan The petition is meritorious.
intracorporate dispute that is within the original and exclusive
jurisdictionoftheRTCsdesignatedasSpecialCommercialCourts. At the outset, the Court finds Branch 276 to have correctly
It pointed out that the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 categorized Civil Case No. 11077 as a commercial case, more
(Branch 256) was specifically designated by the Court as the particularly,anintracorporatedispute,23consideringthatitrelates
SpecialCommercialCourt,hence,Branch276hadnojurisdiction to petitioners' averredrights over theshares of stock offered for
over the case and cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction on the saletootherstockholders,havingpaidthesameinfull.Applying
matter, including the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
therelationshiptestandthenatureofthecontroversytest,thesuit
Injunction.15Accordingly, it dismissed the case.
betweenthepartiesisclearlyrootedintheexistenceofanintra
corporate relationship and pertains to the enforcement of their SEC. 5.Powers and Functionsof the Commission. x x x
correlativerightsandobligationsundertheCorporationCodeand
the internal and intracorporate regulatory rules of the x x x x
corporation,24hence,intracorporate,whichshouldbeheardbythe
designatedSpecialCommercialCourtasprovidedunderA.M.No. 5.2TheCommission'sjurisdictionoverallcasesenumerated
030303SC25datedJune17,2003inrelationtoItem5.2,Section5 underSection5ofPresidentialDecreeNo.902Aishereby
of RA 8799. transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the
appropriate Regional Trial Court:Provided,that the
The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure to be
Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may
followedwhenacommercialcasesuchastheinstantintra
designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall
corporate dispute has been properly filed in the official
exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall
stationofthedesignatedSpecialCommercialCourtbutis,
retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intracorporate
however, later wrongly assigned by raffle to a regular
disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved
branch of that station. within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
Asabasicpremise,letitbeemphasizedthatacourt'sacquisitionof payments/rehabilitationcasesfiledasof30June2000untilfinally
jurisdictionoveraparticularcase'ssubjectmatterisdifferentfrom
disposed.(Emphasissupplied)@
incidentspertainingtotheexerciseofitsjurisdiction.Jurisdiction
overthesubjectmatterofacaseisconferredbylaw,whereasa
The legal attribution ofRegional Trial Courts as courts of
court'sexerciseofjurisdiction,unlessprovidedbythelawitself,
general jurisdictionstems from Section 19 (6), Chapter II of
isgovernedbytheRulesofCourtorbytheordersissuedfromtime
Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,30known as "The Judiciary
totimebytheCourt.26InLozadav.Bracewell,27itwasrecentlyheld ReorganizationActof1980":chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
thatthematterofwhethertheRTCresolvesanissueinthe
Section19.Jurisdictionincivilcases.RegionalTrialCourtsshall
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited exercise exclusive original
jurisdictionasaspecialcourtisonlyamatterofprocedure jurisdiction:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
x x x x
PertinenttothiscaseisRA8799whichtookeffectonAugust8,
2000.Byvirtueofsaidlaw,jurisdictionovercasesenumeratedin (6)Inallcasesnotwithintheexclusivejurisdictionofanycourt,
Section528ofPresidentialDecreeNo.902A29wastransferredfrom tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court,
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) tothe RTCs, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasijudicial
beingcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction.Item5.2,Section5ofRA functions; x x x x
8799provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary @
take away the quasijudicial functions.The quasijudicial
As enunciated inDurisol Philippines, Inc. v. functions are now given back to the courts of general
CA:31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary jurisdiction the Regional Trial Court,except for two
Theregionaltrialcourt,formerlythecourtoffirstinstance,isa categories of cases.
courtofgeneraljurisdiction.Allcases,thejurisdictionoverwhichis
notspecificallyprovidedforbylawtobewithinthejurisdictionof Inthecaseofcorporatedisputes,onlythosethatarenowsubmitted
any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial forfinaldeterminationoftheSECwillremainwiththeSEC.So,all
court.32ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary thosecases, both memos of theplaintiff and the defendant, that
@ havebeensubmittedforresolutionwillcontinue.Atthesametime,
casesinvolvingrehabilitation,bankruptcy,suspensionofpayments
To clarify, the word "or" in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was andreceivershipsthatwerefiledbeforeJune30,2000willcontinue
intentionallyusedbythelegislaturetoparticularizethefactthat withtheSEC.inotherwords,weareavoidingthepossibility,upon
thephrase"theCourtsofgeneraljurisdiction"isequivalenttothe approvalofthisbill,ofpeoplefilingcaseswiththeSEC,inmanner
phrase"theappropriateRegionalTrialCourt."Inotherwords,the of speaking, to select their court.35
jurisdictionoftheSECoverthecasesenumeratedunderSection5
ofPD902Awastransferredtothecourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, xxxx(Emphasissupplied)@
thatistosay(or,otherwiseknownas),theproperRegionalTrial
Courts. This interpretation is supported bySan Miguel Corp. v. Therefore,onemustbedisabusedofthenotionthatthetransferof
Municipal Council,33wherein the Court held jurisdiction was made only in favor of particular RTC branches,
that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary and not the RTCs in general.
[T]heword"or"maybeusedastheequivalentof"thatistosay"
and gives that which precedes it the same significance as that Consistent with the foregoing, history depicts that when the
which follows it. It is not always disjunctive and is sometimes transfer of SEC cases to the RTCs was first implemented, they
interpretativeorexpositoryoftheprecedingword.34@ were transmitted to the Executive Judges of the RTCs for raffle
between or among its different branches,unless a specific
Further, as may be gleaned from the following excerpt of the branchhasbeendesignatedasaSpecialCommercialCourt,
Congressionaldeliberations:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary in which instance, the cases weretransmittedto said
Senator [Raul S.] Roco: x x x. branch.36It was only on November 21, 2000 that the Court
designated certain RTC branches to try and decide said SEC
x x x x cases37without, however, providing for the transfer of the cases
alreadydistributedtoorfiledwiththeregularbranches thereof.
xxx.ThefirstmajordepartureisasregardstheSecuritiesand Thus, on January 23, 2001, the Court issued SC Administrative
ExchangeCommission.TheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission Circular No. 08200138directing the transfer of said cases to the
hasbeenauthorizedunderthisproposaltoreorganizeitself.Asan designatedcourts(commercialSECcourts).Later,oronJune17,
administrativeagency,westrengtheneditandatthesametimewe 2003, the Court issued A.M. No. 030303SC consolidating the
commercial SEC courts and the intellectual property under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987
courts39inone RTC branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Constitution:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Special Commercial Court,to streamline the court structure Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative
and to promote expediency.40Accordingly, the RTC branch so supervisionoverallcourtsandthepersonnelthereof.@
designatedwasmandatedtotryanddecideSECcases,aswellas
those involving violations of intellectual property rights, which Theobjectivebehindthedesignationofsuchspecializedcourtsisto
were,thereupon,requiredtobefiledintheOfficeoftheClerkof promote expediency and efficiency in theexerciseof the
Court in theofficial station of the designated Special RTCs'jurisdictionoverthecasesenumeratedunderSection5of
CommercialCourts,towit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary PD902A.Suchdesignationhasnothingtodowiththestatutory
1. The Regional Courts previously designated as SEC Courts confermentofjurisdictiontoallRTCsunderRA8799sinceinthe
throughthe:(a)ResolutionsofthisCourtdated21November2000, first place, the Court cannot enlarge, diminish, or dictate when
4July2001,12November2002,and9July2002allissuedinA.M. jurisdictionshall beremoved,giventhat thepowertodefine,
No.001103SC;(b)Resolutiondated27August2001inA.M.No. prescribe,andapportionjurisdictionis,asageneralrule,a
015298RTC;and(c)Resolutiondated8July2002inA.M.No.01 matteroflegislativeprerogative.42Section2,ArticleVIIIofthe
12656RTC are hereby DESIGNATED and shall be CALLED 1987Constitutionprovides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
asSpecial Commercial Courts to try and decidecases involving Section2.TheCongressshallhavethepowertodefine,prescribe,
violations of Intellectual Property Rights which fall within their and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
jurisdictionandthosecasesformerlycognizablebytheSecurities deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
and Exchange Commission:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
x x x x x x x x
@
4.TheSpecialCommercialCourtsshallhavejurisdictionovercases
arisingwithintheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdictionwithrespect Here, petitioners filed a commercial case,i.e., an intracorporate
totheNationalCapitalJudicialRegionandwithintherespective dispute, with the Office of the Clerk of Court in the RTC of
provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth Judicial Regions. Muntinlupa City, which is theofficial station of the designated
Thus,casesshallbefiledintheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtinthe
SpecialCommercialCourt,inaccordancewithA.M.No.030303
official station of the designated Special Commercial Court;41
SC.Itis,therefore,fromthetimeofsuchfilingthattheRTC
xxxx(Underscoringsupplied)@ of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter or the nature of the action.43Unfortunately,the
ItisimportanttomentionthattheCourt'sdesignationofSpecial commercial case was wrongly raffled to a regular
Commercial Courts was made in line with its constitutional branch,e.g., Branch 276, instead of being assigned44to the
authoritytosupervisetheadministrationofallcourtsasprovided sole Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa
City,whichisBranch256.Thiserrormayhavebeencausedbya
relianceonthecomplaint'scaption,i.e.,"CivilCaseforInjunction
with prayer for Status Quo Order, TRO and Damages," 45which, 21.Forthisreason,plaintiffsnowcometotheHonorableCourtfor
however,contradictsandmoreimportantly,cannotprevailoverits injunctive relief so that after trial on the merits, a permanent
actual allegations that clearly make out an intracorporate injunction should be issued against the defendants preventing
dispute:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary themfromsellingthesharesoftheplaintiffs,therebeingnobasis
16.TothesurpriseofMLCGandFMDG,however,intwoidentical forsuchsale.46@
lettersbothdated13May2011,undertheletterheadofGJHLand,
Inc., Yap, now acting as its President, Jang and Kim demanded Accordingtojurisprudence,"itisnotthecaptionbuttheallegations
payment of supposed unpaid subscriptions of MLCG and FMDG inthecomplaintorotherinitiatorypleadingwhichgivemeaningto
amountingtoP10,899,854.30andP2,625,249.41,respectively. thepleadingandonthebasisofwhichsuchpleadingmaybelegally
16.1Copiesofthelettersdated13May2011areattachedhereto characterized."47However,soastoavertanyfutureconfusion,the
andmadeintegralpartshereofasAnnexes"J"and"K",repectively. Court requires henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the
17.On29July2011,MLCGandFMDGreceivedanOfferLetter action'snaturebothinitscaptionandthebody,whichparameters
addressedtostockholdersofGJHLand,Inc.fromYapinformingall are defined in the dispositive portion of this Decision.
stockholders that GJH Land, Inc. is now offering for sale the
unpaidsharesofstockofMLCGandFMDG.Thesameletterstates Goingbacktothecaseatbar,theCourtnonethelessdeemsthatthe
that the offers to purchase these shares will be opened on 10 erroneous raffling to a regular branch instead of to a Special
August 2011 with payments to be arranged by deposit to the Commercial Court is only a matter of procedure that is, an
depositorybankofGJHLand,Inc. incidentrelatedtotheexerciseofjurisdictionand,thus,should
17.1 A copy of the undated Offer Letter is attached hereto and notnegatethejurisdictionwhichtheRTCofMuntinlupaCityhad
madeandmadeanintegralparthereofasAnnex"L". alreadyacquired.Insuchascenario,thepropercourseof action
18.TheletterofGJHLand,Inc.throughYap,istotallywithout wasnotforthecommercialcasetobedismissed;instead,Branch
legal and factual basis because as evidenced by the Deeds of 276shouldhavefirstreferredthecasetotheExecutiveJudge
AssignmentsignedandcertifiedbyYapherself,alltheS.J.Land, for redocketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the
Inc.sharesacquiredbyMLCGandFMDGhavebeenfullypaidin Executive Judge should then assign said case to the only
the books of S.J. Land, Inc. designated Special Commercial Court in the
station,i.e.,Branch 256.
19.Withtheimpendingsaleoftheallegedunpaidsubscriptionson
10August2011,thereisnowacleardangerthatMLCGand Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC
FMDGwouldbedeprivedoftheseshareswithoutlegaland acquiring jurisdiction over the case hasmultiple special
factual basis. commercial court branches;in such a scenario, the Executive
Judge, after redocketing the sameas a commercial case, should
20.Furthermore,iftheyaredeprivedofthesesharesthroughthe proceed to order itsreraffling among the said special
scheduled sale, both MLCG and FMDG would suffer grave and branches.
irreparable damage incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Meanwhile, if the RTC acquiring jurisdiction hasno branch improper for the RTC to rely on the Calleja ruling.
designated as a Special Commercial Court, then it
shouldreferthecasetothenearestRTCwithadesignatedSpecial Besides, the Court observes that the fine line that distinguishes
Commercial Court branch within the judicial region. 48Upon subject matter jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction had been
referral,theRTCtowhichthecasewasreferredtoshouldredocket clearlyblurredinCalleja.Harkeningbacktothestatutethathad
thecaseasacommercialcase,andthen:(a)ifthesaidRTChas conferred subject matter jurisdiction, two things are apparently
onlyonebranchdesignatedasaSpecialCommercialCourt,assign clear:(a)thattheSEC'ssubjectmatterjurisdictionoverintra
the case to the sole special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has corporatecasesunderSection5ofPresidentialDecreeNo.902A
multiplebranchesdesignatedasSpecialCommercialCourts,raffle was transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction, i.e., the
off the case among those special branches. appropriateRegionalTrialCourts;and(b)thedesignatedbranches
oftheRegionalTrialCourt,aspertherulespromulgatedbythe
Inalltheabovementionedscenarios,anydifferenceregardingthe SupremeCourt,shallexercisejurisdictionoversuchcases.Item
applicabledocketfeesshouldbedulyaccountedfor.Ontheother 5.2,Section5ofRA8799provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
hand,alldocketfeesalreadypaidshallbedulycredited,andany SEC. 5.Powers and Functions of the Commission. x x x
excess, refunded.
x x x x
Atthisjuncture,theCourtfindsitfittingtoclarifythattheRTC
mistakenly relied on theCallejacase to support its ruling. 5.2TheCommission'sjurisdictionoverallcasesenumerated
InCalleja,anintracorporatedispute49amongofficersofaprivate underSection5ofPresidentialDecreeNo.902Aishereby
corporation with principal address at Goa, Camarines Sur, was transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the
filedwiththeRTCofSanJose,CamarinesSur,Branch58instead appropriateRegionalTrialCourt:Provided,thattheSupreme
of the RTC of Naga City, which is the official station of the Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the
designated Special Commercial Court for Camarines Sur. Regional Trial Court branches that shallexercise
Consequently,theCourtsetasidetheRTCofSanJose,Camarines jurisdictionoverthecases,xxx.@
Sur's order to transfer the case to the RTC of Naga City and
dismissedthecomplaintconsideringthatitwasfiledbeforeacourt Incontrast,theappropriatejurisprudentialreferencetothiscase
which, having no internal branch designated as a Special
wouldbeTanv.Bausch&Lomb,Inc.,50whichinvolvesacriminal
Commercial Court, had no jurisdiction over those kinds of
complaint for violation of intellectual property rights filed before
actions,i.e., intracorporate disputes.Calleja involved two theRTCofCebuCitybutwasraffledtoaregularbranchthereof
differentRTCs,i.e.,theRTCofSanJose,CamarinesSurandthe (Branch21),andnottoaSpecialCommercialCourt.Asitturned
RTCofNagaCity,whereastheinstantcaseonlyinvolvesone out, the regular branch subsequently denied the private
RTC,i.e.,the RTC of Muntinlupa City, albeit involving two complainant'smotiontotransferthecasetothedesignatedspecial
different branches of the same court,i.e.,Branches 256 and 276. courtofthesameRTC,onthegroundoflackofjurisdiction.The
Hence,owingtothevarianceinthefacts attending,itwasthen CA reversed the regular branch and, consequently, ordered the
transfer of the case to the designated special court at that time wasnotmadebystatutebutonlybyaninternalSupremeCourt
(Branch 9). The Court, affirming the CA, declared that theRTC ruleunderitsauthoritytopromulgaterulesgoverningmattersof
hadacquiredjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.Inview,however, procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the
ofthedesignationofanothercourtastheSpecialCommercialCourt administrationofallcourtsandthepersonnelthereof. 53Certainly,
intheinterim(Branch11ofthesameCebuCityRTC),theCourt aninternalrulepromulgatedbytheCourtcannotgobeyondthe
accordinglyorderedthetransferofthecaseandthetransmittalof commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the
therecordstosaidSpecialCommercialCourtinstead. 51Similarly, designationofSpecialCommercialCourtsis,tostress,merelyan
the transfer of the present intracorporate dispute from incidentrelatedtothecourt'sexerciseofjurisdiction,which,asfirst
Branch276toBranch256ofthesameRTCofMuntinlupa discussed, is distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the
City, subject to the parameters abovediscussed is proper subjectmatter.TheRTC'sgeneraljurisdictionoverordinarycivil
casesisthereforenotabdicated byaninternalrulestreamlining
andwillfurtherthepurposesstatedinA.M.No.030303SC
court procedure.
ofattainingaspeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
Infine,Branch276'sdismissalofCivilCaseNo.11077issetaside
Forfurtherguidance,theCourtfindsitapttopointoutthatthe
andthetransferofsaidcasetoBranch256,thedesignatedSpecial
same principlesapply to the inverse situation of ordinary
CommercialCourtofthesameRTCofMuntinlupaCity,underthe
civilcasesfiledbeforetheproperRTCsbutwronglyraffled parameters aboveexplained, is hereby ordered.
toitsbranchesdesignatedasSpecialCommercialCourts.In
such a scenario, theordinary civil case should then be WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED. The Orders dated
referred to the Executive Judge for redocketing as an April17,2012andJuly9,2012oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
ordinarycivilcase;thereafter,theExecutiveJudgeshould Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 in Civil Case No. 11077 are
then order the raffling of the case toall branchesof the herebyREVERSEDandSET ASIDE.Civil Case No. 11077
same RTC, subject to limitations under existing internal isREFERREDtotheExecutiveJudgeoftheRTCofMuntinlupa
rules,andthepaymentofthecorrectdocketfeesincaseof City for redocketing as a commercial case. Thereafter, the
any difference.Unlike the limited assignment/raffling of a Executive Judge shallASSIGNsaid case to Branch 256, the sole
commercial case only to branches designated as Special designated Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa
CommercialCourtsinthescenariosstatedabove,thererafflingof City, which isORDEREDto resolve the case with reasonable
anordinarycivilcaseinthisinstancetoallcourtsispermissible dispatch. In this regard, the Clerk of Court of said RTC
duetothefactthataparticularbranchwhichhasbeendesignated shallDETERMINEtheappropriateamountofdocketfeesand,in
as a Special Commercial Court does not shed the RTC's general sodoing,ORDERthepaymentofanydifferenceor,ontheother
jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of hand, refund any excess.
statutorylaw,i.e.,BatasPambansaBilang(BP)129.52Torestate,
thedesignationofSpecialCommercialCourtswasmerelyintended Furthermore, the Court herebyRESOLVESthat henceforth, the
asaproceduraltooltoexpeditetheresolutionofcommercialcases followingguidelinesshallbeobserved:
inlinewiththecourt'sexerciseofjurisdiction.Thisdesignation
1.If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly excess, refunded.
raffled toitsregular branch, the proper courses of actionare as
follows: 4.Finally,toavertanyfutureconfusion,theCourtrequiresthatall
1.1If the RTC has only one branch designated as a Special initiatorypleadingsstatetheaction'snaturebothinitscaptionand
CommercialCourt,thenthecaseshallbereferredtotheExecutive body. Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, uponmotion or by
Judge for redocketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, orderofthecourtmotuproprio,bedismissedwithoutprejudiceto
assigned to the sole special branch; its refiling after due rectification. This last procedural rule is
prospective in application.
1.2If the RTC has multiple branches designated as Special
CommercialCourts,thenthecaseshallbereferredtotheExecutive 5. All existing rules inconsistent with the foregoing are deemed
Judgeforredocketingasacommercialcase,andthereafter,raffled superseded.@
off among those special branches; and
SOORDERED.
1.3If the RTC has no internal branch designated as a Special
CommercialCourt,thenthecaseshallbereferredtothenearest
RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within
thejudicialregion.Uponreferral,theRTCtowhichthecasewas
referredto shouldredocket thecaseasacommercialcase,and
then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch designated as a
Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special
branch;or(b)ifthesaidRTChasmultiplebranchesdesignatedas
SpecialCommercialCourts,raffleoffthecaseamongthosespecial
branches.
2.IfanordinarycivilcasefiledbeforetheproperRTCiswrongly
raffled to its branch designated as a Special Commercial Court,
then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re
docketingasanordinarycivilcase.Thereafter,itshallberaffledoff
to all courts of the same RTC (including its designated special
branches which, by statute, are equally capable of exercising
general jurisdiction same as regular branches), as provided for
under existing rules.