Facts:
On October 5, 2004, Aguirre filed in his
individual capacity a complaint for intra
corporate dispute, injunction, inspection of
corporate books and records, and damages
against respondent Nathaniel D. Bocobo,
Priscila Bocobo and Antonio Bacobo.
The dispute springs from the GIS that Nathaniel
and Priscila submitted to the SEC on September
6, 2002 and the appointment of Antonio by
Nathaniel as the corporations attorney-in-fact,
with the power of administration over the
Facts:
PCC is a non-stock educational institution,
while the petitioners were janitors, janitresses
and supervisor in the Maintenance Department
of PCC under the supervision and control of
Atty. Florante A. Seril, PCC Senior Vice
President for Administration.
However, the petitioners were made to
understand
upon
application
with
the
respondent school that they were under
MBMSI, a corporation engage in providing
janitorial services to clients, were Atty. Seril is
Facts:
Sometime in 2008, The President of PCC, Mr.
Gregory
Bautista,
discovered
that
the
Certificate of Incorporation of MBMSI had been
revoked as of July 2, 2003.
The school then revoked and terminated their
relationship with MBMSI, resulting to the
dismissal of the employees of MBMSI.
In September 2009, the dismissed employees
filed their complaints for illegal dismissal,
reinstatement and demands for other benefits
against MBMSI, Atty. Seril, PCC and Bautista.
Facts:
The Labor arbiter favored the petitioners
contending that it is the PCC who was actually
the one which exercised control over the means
and methods of the work of the petitioners, thru
Atty. Seril, who was acting, throughout the time
in his capacity as Senior VP of PCC, not as the
President or GM of MBMSI.
In February 11, 2011 the NLRC affirmed the
decision of LA after finding out that MBMSI is just
a labor only contractor. However, on April 28,
2011, it modified their previous decision ruling
Facts:
Aggrieved by the NLRC decision the petitioners
appealed in the CA. However, the appellate
court denied the petition and affirm the NLRC
decisions in toto.
Issue:
Whether their claims against the respondents
were amicably settled by virtue of the releases,
waivers and quitclaims which they had
executed in favor of MBMSI.
Sub- Issue
1. Whether the petitioners
waivers and quitclaims.
executed
the
said
releases,
Ruling:
The executed releases, waivers and
quitclaims
are
valid
and
binding
notwithstanding the revocation of a
Certificate
of
Incorporation.
The
revocation does not result in the
termination of its liabilities.
What is provided in Sec. 122 of the Corp.
Law is that the conveyance to the
trustees must be made within the three-
Ruling:
Furthermore, Sec. 145 of the same law
provides that no liabilities, remedy or
right in favor of or against any
corporation, its stockholders, members,
directors, trustees, or officers, shall be
removed or impaired either by the
subsequent
dissolution
of
said
corporation.
Cases:
B. Liquidation
1. Barrameda vs Rural Bank of
Canaman
Ruling:
The
liquidation
court
shall
have
jurisdiction to adjudicate all claims against
the bank whether they be against assets
of the insolvent bank, for Specific
Performance,
Breach
of
Contract,
Damages or whatever.
Ratio Decidendi:
1. Exception to the Doctrine on the
Adherence of Jurisdiction.
The rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not
absolute and has exceptions. One exception
is that when the change in jurisdiction is
curative in character. (Garcia vs Martinez)
RA 7650 is curative in nature since its main
purpose is to prevent multiplicity of actions,
establish due process and orderliness in the
liquidation of the bank. ( Ong vs CA)
Ratio Decidendi:
2. Consolidation of the Civil Case and
Liquidation Case.
Liquidation proceeding is a single proceeding
which consists of a number of cases properly
classified as claims.
Lucias Complaint involving annulment of
deed of mortgage and damages falls within
the purview of a disputed claim in
contemplation of section 30 of RA 7653.
Ratio Decidendi:
2. Consolidation of the Civil Case and
Liquidation Case.
Regular courts do not have jurisdiction over
actions filed by claimants against an insolvent
bank unless there is a clear showing that the
action taken by BSP in the closure of the
financial institutions was in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
(Miranda vs. PDIC)
Cases:
A. Rehabilitation
Heirs of Santiago Divinagarcia vs Ruiz