COMETA and STATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

REYNALDO T. COMETA and STATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.GEORGE MACLIING
G.R. No. 124062. January 21, 1999
Facts:
1.      Petitioner SITI extended loans in various amounts to GIDC (Guevent Industrial Development Corp), which the latter failed to pay on the dates they became due.
2.      A rehabilitation plan was agreed upon for GIDC under which it mortgaged several parcels of land to petitioner SITI.
3.      Hence, SITI foreclosed the mortgages andacquired the properties as highest bidder.
4.      Alleging irregularities in the foreclosure, GIDC filed a case but was eventually settled through a compromise agreement.
5.      A dispute later arose concerning the interpretation of the compromise agreement, as respondent HBI offered to purchase from GIDC the lot and the latter agreed but petitioner SITI (the mortgagee) refused to give its consent to the sale and release its lien on the property.
6.      For this reason, GIDC asked the trial court for a clarification of its decision.
7.      Subsequently, the trial court which then reached the SC - directed petitioner SITI to accept the offer of respondent HBI to purchase the property.
8.      Meanwhile, respondent HBI applied to the HLURB for a permit to develop the property in question and it was granted.
9.      On account of which respondent HBI built a condominium.
10.  When respondent HBI applied for a license to sell the condominium units it was required by the HLURB to submit an Affidavit of Undertaking which in effect stated that the mortgagee (SITI) of the property to be developed agrees to release the mortgage on the said property as soon as the full purchase price of the same is paid by the buyer.
11.  Respondent HBI submitted the required affidavit purportedly executed by petitioner Cometa as president of SITI (mortgagee).
12.  Petitioner Cometa denied, however, that he ever executed the affidavit.
13.  The NBI found Cometas signature on the Affidavit to be a forgery on the basis of which a complaint for falsification of public document was filed against HBI president Guevara.
14.  Following the dismissal of the criminal case against him, private respondents Reynaldo S. Guevaraand HBI filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against petitioners Cometa and SITI.
15.  After the pretrial of the case, they filed a joint motion to dismiss with alternative motion to drop respondent HBI as a party plaintiff.

Issue:
            Whether or not private respondent HBI should have been dropped as a party plaintiff

Ruling:

            It is true that a criminal case can only be filed against the officers of a corporation and not against the corporation itself. It does not follow from this, however, that the corporation cannot be a real-party-in-interest for the purpose of bringing a civil action for malicious prosecution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 Facts: Alma T. Aggabao filed  with the RTC, an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage. Upon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They argued that concubinage, under Art. 334 of the RPC is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is equivalent to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, well within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and not of the RTC The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage...
Read more

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, JULIAN L. TEVES VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG AND HILARIA CADAYDAY G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 TINGA, J.: Facts: Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño and Emilio Teves. He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves, Jose Catalino Donio Teves, Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the effect of the eventual ...
Read more