Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 784 views

    Tumagan v. Kairuz

    Uploaded by

    Roger Montero Jr.
    This case involves a dispute between Mariam Kairuz, a shareholder of Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI), and employees of BIRI over access to and management of corporate property owned by BIRI. While styled as a case for forcible entry by Mariam against the individual employees, the true nature of the controversy is an intra-corporate dispute between BIRI and Mariam regarding her access to and BIRI's management of the property. The Supreme Court held that the issues were intra-corporate in nature and should be resolved before the Regional Trial Court, as a special commercial court, instead of the Metropolitan Trial Court, because the case involved a dispute between a corporation and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tumagan v. Kairuz

    Uploaded by

    Roger Montero Jr.
    784 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Mariam Kairuz, a shareholder of Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI), and employees of BIRI over access to and management of corporate property owned by BIRI. While styled as a case for forcible entry by Mariam against the individual employees, the true nature of the controversy is an intra-corporate dispute between BIRI and Mariam regarding her access to and BIRI's management of the property. The Supreme Court held that the issues were intra-corporate in nature and should be resolved before the Regional Trial Court, as a special commercial court, instead of the Metropolitan Trial Court, because the case involved a dispute between a corporation and

    Original Description:

    Corporation law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Mariam Kairuz, a shareholder of Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI), and employees of BIRI over access to and management of corporate property owned by BIRI. While styled as a case for forcible entry by Mariam against the individual employees, the true nature of the controversy is an intra-corporate dispute between BIRI and Mariam regarding her access to and BIRI's management of the property. The Supreme Court held that the issues were intra-corporate in nature and should be resolved before the Regional Trial Court, as a special commercial court, instead of the Metropolitan Trial Court, because the case involved a dispute between a corporation and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    784 views2 pages

    Tumagan v. Kairuz

    Uploaded by

    Roger Montero Jr.
    This case involves a dispute between Mariam Kairuz, a shareholder of Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI), and employees of BIRI over access to and management of corporate property owned by BIRI. While styled as a case for forcible entry by Mariam against the individual employees, the true nature of the controversy is an intra-corporate dispute between BIRI and Mariam regarding her access to and BIRI's management of the property. The Supreme Court held that the issues were intra-corporate in nature and should be resolved before the Regional Trial Court, as a special commercial court, instead of the Metropolitan Trial Court, because the case involved a dispute between a corporation and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    A CASE PURPORTING TO BE ONE FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY IS AN INTRA-CORPORATE

    DISPUTE WHEN THE TRUE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY IS THE MANAGEMENT OF, AND
    ACCESS TO, THE CORPORATE PROPERTY

    John Cary Tumagan, et. al. v. Mariam K. Kairuz


    G.R. No. 198124, Sept. 12, 2018
    Jardeleza, J.

    FACTS:
    This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the CA decision granting respondent
    Mariam Kairuz’s petition and reversing the RTC decision, which affirmed the dismissal of the complaint
    for ejectment on the ground of failure to implead an indispensable party rendered by the MCTC.

    Mariam filed an ejectment case before the MCTC alleging that petitioners John Cary Tumagan, et. al.,
    forcibly took her property by padlocking it and posting armed men to exclude her from the property. In
    their answer, petitioners averred that Mariam could not bring the present action for forcible entry
    because she was never the sole owner or possessor of the property. Petitioners claimed that the
    property is a good source of potable water and is publicly known as Kairuz Spring. The property was
    sold through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI). John is the
    branch manager, while the other two petitioners are geodetic engineers hired by BIRI to survey the
    property. Petitioners alleged that Mariam is a shareholder of BIRI and had succeeded her husband’s
    seat in the BIRI’s Board of Directors and Management Committee (ManCom) after his death. In
    addition, the case involves management of corporate property, hence, petitioners claim that the MCTC
    has no jurisdiction over the action filed by Mariam because the same is an intra-corporate dispute
    which falls under the jurisdiction of the appropriate RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the issues are intra-corporate in nature which should be best resolved before the RTC
    as a special commercial court?

    HELD:
    Yes, the issue in this case is an intra-corporate controversy.

    In order that the RTC can take cognizance of an intra-corporate dispute, the controversy must pertain
    to any of the following relationships: (a) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the
    public; (b) between the corporation, partnership, or association and its stockholders, partners,
    members, or officers; (c) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the State as far as
    its franchise, permit, or license to operate is concerned; and (d) among the stockholders, partners, or
    associates themselves. However, not every conflict between a corporation and its stockholders
    involves corporate matters. Concurrent factors, such as the status or relationship of the parties, or the
    nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy, must be considered in determining
    whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the controversy.

    Here, the Court considers two elements in determining the existence of an intra-corporate controversy,
    namely: (a) the status or relationship of the parties; and (b) the nature of the question that is the
    subject of their controversy.

    The parties involved in the controversy are respondent Mariam (a shareholder of BIRI and successor
    to her late husband's position on the ManCom), petitioner John (then the branch manager,
    shareholder, and part of the BIRI ManCom), and petitioners Bot and Alam (licensed geodetic
    engineers engaged by BIRI for a contract to survey the property subject of the dispute). The
    controversy also involves BIRI itself, the corporation of which Mariam is a shareholder. The
    controversy is thus one between corporation and one of its shareholders.

    The MCTC found out that both petitioners and respondent were in actual possession of the property:
    petitioners, on behalf of BIRI as the owner of the property, and respondent Mariam, by virtue of the
    accommodation granted to her by BIRI under the MOA allowing her to continue her water reloading
    business on the property even after the transfer of its ownership to BIRI.
    In sum, what appears on record as the true nature of the controversy is that of a shareholder seeking
    relief from the court to contest the management's decision to: (1) post guards to secure the premises
    of the corporate property; (2) padlock the premises; and (3) deny her access to the same due to her
    alleged default on the provisions of the MOA.

    While the case purports to be one for forcible entry filed by Mariam against BIRI's employees and
    contractors in their individual capacities, the true nature of the controversy is an intra-corporate dispute
    between BIRI and its shareholder, Mariam, regarding the management of, and access to, the
    corporate property subject of the MOA.

    Therefore, the MCTC never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case filed by Mariam.

    You might also like