de ol es on the corporation, the rongdoing or harm ha ing been,

or being caused to the corporation and not to the particular

stockholder bringing the suit.
Same; Same; The stockholder s right to file a deri ati e s it is
not based on an e press pro ision of The Corporation Code, b t is
impliedl recogni ed hen the la makes corporate directors or
G.R. N . 170783. J ne 18, 2012.* officers liable for damages s ffered b the corporation and its
LEGASPI TOWERS 300, INC., LILIA MARQUINEZ stockholders. The stockholder s right to file a deri ati e suit is
PALANCA, ROSANNA D. IMAI, GLORIA DOMINGO and not based on an e press pro ision of The Corporation Code, but
RAY VINCENT, pe i ione , . AMELIA P. MUER, is impliedl recogni ed hen the la makes corporate directors or
SAMUEL M. TANCHOCO, ROMEO TANKIANG, RUDEL officers liable for damages suffered b the corporation and its
PANGANIBAN, DOLORES AGBAYANI, ARLENEDAL A. stockholders for iolation of their fiduciar duties, hich is not
YASUMA, GODOFREDO M. CAGUIOA and EDGARDO the issue in this case.
M. SALANDANAN, e ponden .
PETITION fo e ie on ce io a i of he deci ion and
J dges; J dgments; A j dge has an inherent right, hile his
e ol ion of he Co of Appeal .
j dgment is still nder his control, to correct errors, mistakes, or
The fac a e a ed in he opinion of he Co .
inj stices. The courts ha e the inherent po er to amend and
P a ,G ,G &L fo pe i ione .
control their processes and orders so as to make them
Ma I. V a a La O c fo e ponden e cep
conformable to
R del Panganiban.
R H. Pa a ba & A c a fo e ponden R.
Panganiban.

455
* THIRD DI ISION.

454
. 673, E 18, 2012 455
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e

454 C A A D
PERALTA, ** J.:
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e Thi i a pe i ion fo e ie on c a of he Co of
Appeal Deci ion1 da ed J l 22, 2005 in CA-G.R. CV No.
la and justice. A judge has an inherent right, hile his judgment 87684, and i Re ol ion2 da ed No embe 24, 2005,
is still under his control, to correct errors, mistakes, or injustices. den ing pe i ione mo ion fo econ ide a ion.
The Co of Appeal held ha J dge An onio I. De
Corporation La ; Deri ati e S its; Since it is the corporation Ca o of he Regional T ial Co (RTC) of Manila, B anch
that is the real part -in-interest in a deri ati e s it, then the 3, did no commi g a e ab e of di c e ion in i ing he
reliefs pra ed for m st be for the benefit or interest of the O de da ed J l 21, 2004 and Sep embe 24, 2004 in
corporation. Since it is the corporation that is the real part -in- Ci il Ca e No. 04-109655, den ing pe i ione M
interest in a deri ati e suit, then the reliefs pra ed for must be A S c A C a .
for the benefit or interest of the corporation. When the reliefs The fac , a a ed b he Co of Appeal , a e a
pra ed for do not pertain to the corporation, then it is an follo :
improper deri ati e suit. The requisites for a deri ati e suit are P an o he b -la of Lega pi To e 300, Inc.,
as follo s: a) the part bringing suit should be a shareholder as of pe i ione Lilia Ma ine Palanca, Ro anna D. Imai,
the time of the act or transaction complained of, the number of his Glo ia Domingo and Ra Vincen , he inc mben Boa d of
shares not being material; b) he has tried to e haust intra- Di ec o , e he ann al mee ing of he membe of he
corporate remedies, i.e., has made a demand on the board of condomini m co po a ion and he elec ion of he ne Boa d
directors for the appropriate relief but the latter has failed or of Di ec o fo he ea 2004-2005 on Ap il 2, 2004 a
refused to heed his plea; and c) the cause of action actuall 5:00 p.m. a he lobb of Lega pi To e 300, Inc.
 O of a o al n mbe of 5,723 membe ho e e C a a a c E -Pa T a
en i led o o e, 1,358 e e ppo ed o o e h o gh hei R a O E c S -T (72)
e pec i e p o ie and hei oe e e c i ical in H .I a a ed in he aid pleading ha he ca e a
de e mining he e i ence of a o m, hich a a lea affled o B anch 24, b P e iding J dge An onio E genio,
2,863 (50% pl 1). The Commi ee on Elec ion of Lega pi J . inhibi ed him elf f om handling he ca e; and hen he
To e 300, Inc., ho e e , fo nd mo of he p o oe , ca e a a igned o B anch 46, P e iding J dge A emio
a i face al e, i eg la , h , e ionable; and fo lack S. Tipon al o inhibi ed him elf f om he ca e.
of ime o a hen ica e he ame, pe i ione adjo ned he On Ap il 21, 2004, E ec i e J dge En ico A. Lan ana
mee ing fo lack of o m. of he RTC of Manila ac ed on he Mo ion fo he I ance
of an E Pa Tempo a Re aining O de , and i ed
an O de di po ing, h :
** A C ,P S O N . 1228 J 6, 2012.
457
1 P A J R D G -S ,
A J C M. ,J . A S -L ,
, Rollo, . 36-49. . 673, E 18, 2012 457
2 Id., . 52-54. Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
456
WHEREFORE, pursuant to administrati e Circular No. 20-95
of the Supreme Court, a se ent -t o (72) hour Temporar
456 E EC E A A ED Restraining Order is hereb issued, enjoining defendants from
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e taking o er management, or to maintain a stat s q o, in order to
pre ent further irreparable damages and prejudice to the
Ho e e , he g o p of e ponden challenged he corporation, as da -to-da acti ities ill be disrupted and ill be
adjo nmen of he mee ing. De pi e pe i ione in i ence paral ed due to the legal contro ers . 3
ha no o m a ob ained d ing he ann al mee ing
On he ame da e, Ap il 21, 2004, e ponden filed hei
held on Ap il 2, 2004, e ponden p hed h o gh i h he
An e 4 o he A C a , alleging ha he
ched led elec ion and e e elec ed a he ne Boa d of
elec ion on Ap il 2, 2004 a la f ll cond c ed.
Di ec o and office of Lega pi To e 300, Inc.
Re ponden ci ed he Repo 5 of SEC Co n el Nicano P.
S b e en l , he bmi ed a Gene al Info ma ion Shee
Pa icio, ho a o de ed b he SEC o a end he ann al
o he Sec i ie and E change Commi ion (SEC) i h he
mee ing of Lega pi To e 300, Inc. on Ap il 2, 2004. A .
follo ing ne e of office : Amelia P. M e , P e iden ;
Pa icio a ed in hi Repo ha a 5:40 p.m. of Ap il 2,
Sam el M. Tanchoco, In e nal Vice P e iden ; Romeo V.
2004, a ep e en a i e of he Boa d of he condomini m
Tankiang, E e nal Vice-P e iden ; R del H. Panganiban,
co po a ion a ed ha he ched led elec ion co ld no
Sec e a ; Dolo e B. Agba ani, A i an Sec e a ;
p oceed beca e he Elec ion Commi ee a no able o
A lenedal A. Ya ma, T ea e ; Godof edo M. Cag ioa,
alida e he a hen ici of he p o ie p io o he elec ion
A i an T ea e ; and Edga do M. Salandanan, In e nal
d e o limi ed ime a ailable a he bmi ion a made
A di o .
onl he da befo e. A . Pa icio no ed ha he Boa d
On Ap il 13, 2004, pe i ione filed a C a
i elf fi ed he deadline fo bmi ion of p o ie a 5:00
D ca a N E c P a
p.m. of Ap il 1, 2004. One holde of p o ood p and
a c T a R a O a W
e ioned he mo i e of he Boa d in po poning he
P a I c a Da a again e ponden
elec ion . The Boa d objec ed o hi and mo ed fo a
i h he RTC of Manila. Befo e e ponden co ld file an
decla a ion of adjo nmen . The e a an objec ion o he
An e o he o iginal Complain , pe i ione filed an
adjo nmen , hich a igno ed b he Boa d. When he
A C a , hich a admi ed b he RTC in an
Boa d adjo ned he mee ing de pi e he objec ion of he
O de da ed Ap il 14, 2004.
ni o ne , he ni o ne ho objec ed o he
On Ap il 20, 2004, befo e e ponden co ld bmi an
adjo nmen ga he ed hem el e a he ame place of he
An e o he Amended Complain , pe i ione again filed
mee ing and p oceeded i h he mee ing. The a endance
an U E -Pa M A S c A
 a checked f om among he membe ho a ed a he ripe for pre-trial and the parties are directed to file their pre-trial
mee ing. P o ie e e co n ed and eco ded, and he e a briefs b Ma 3, 2004.
a decla a ion of a o m o of a o al of 5,721 o e , A lai iff ec d ame ded c m lai i admi ed b
2,938 e e p e en ei he in pe on o p o . The eaf e , he C , defe da a e gi e Ma 3, 2004 file a
ballo e e p epa ed, c mme he e . In the meantime, the banks and other
persons & entities are ad ised to recogni e the Board headed b
its president,
3R , . 85. 459
4 Id., . 96.
5 Id., . 133.
. 673, 18, 2012 459
45 Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e

458 E EC E A A ED Amelia Muer. All transactions made b the Board and its officers
for the corporation are considered legal for all intents and
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e purposes.

p o ie e e co n e checked i h he n mbe of o e On Ma 3, 2004, e ponden filed a Commen on he

en i led o each ni o ne , and hen o e e e ca . A Mo ion o Amend Complain , p a ing ha he name of
abo 9:30 p.m., can a ing a ed, and b 11:30 p.m., he Lega pi To e 300, Inc., a pa -plain iff in he Second
ne l -elec ed membe of he Boa d of Di ec o fo he Amended Complain , be dele ed a he aid incl ion b
ea 2004-2005 e e named. pe i ione a made i ho he a ho i of he c en
Re ponden con ended ha f om he p oceeding of he Boa d of Di ec o , hich had been ecogni ed b he ial
elec ion epo ed b SEC ep e en a i e, A . Pa icio, i co in i O de da ed Ap il 26, 2004.
a clea ha he elec ion held on Ap il 2, 2004 a D ing he p e- ial confe ence held on J l 21, 2004,
legi ima e and la f l; h , he p a ed fo he di mi al he ial co e ol ed a io inciden in he ca e and
of he complain fo lack ca e of ac ion again hem. o he i e ai ed b he con ending pa ie . One of he
Thi ca e a ched led o be e- affled o eg la inciden ac ed pon b he ial co a pe i ione
co on Ap il 22, 2004, and a a igned o J dge mo ion o amend complain o implead Lega pi To e 300,
An onio I. De Ca o of he RTC of Manila, B anch 3 ( ial Inc. a plain iff, hich mo ion a denied i h he
co ). i ance of o O de bo h da ed J l 21, 2004. The fi
On Ap il 26, 2004, he ial co cond c ed a hea ing on O de 7 held ha he aid mo ion co ld no be admi ed fo
he inj nc ion o gh b pe i ione , and i ed an O de being imp ope , h :
cla if ing ha he TRO i ed b E ec i e J dge En ico
A. Lan ana , enjoining e ponden f om aking o e
On plaintiffs motion to admit amended complaint (to include
managemen , a no applicable a he c en Boa d of
Legaspi To ers 300, Inc. as plaintiff), the Court rules to den the
Di ec o ( e ponden ) had ac all a med managemen
motion for being improper. (A separate Order of e en date is
of he co po a ion. The ial co a ed ha he a
issued.) As pra ed for, mo ants are gi en 10 da s from toda to
men ioned in he aid TRO hall mean ha he c en
file a motion for reconsideration thereof, hile defendants are
boa d of di ec o hall con in e o manage he affai of
gi en 10 da s from receipt thereof to repl .
he condomini m co po a ion, b he co hall moni o
all income ea ned and e pen e inc ed b he The econd epa a e O de , al o da ed J l 21, 2004,
co po a ion. The ial co a ed: ead :
Precisel this complaint seeks to annul the election of the
Board due to alleged questionable pro otes hich could not
ha e produced a quorum. As such, there is nothing to enjoin and 6 R C O A 26, 2004, Rollo, . 162. (E
so injunction shall fail. As an ans er has been filed, the case is .)
7 CA Rollo, . 36.
 8 Rollo, . 91. . 673, E 18, 2012 461
9 Id., . 89.
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
460
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
460 E EC E A A ED
RESOLVING THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT-APPELLEE DID
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e NOT COMMIT ANY WHIMSICAL, ARBITRARY AND
OPPRESSIVE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WHEN
This resol es plaintiffs motion to amend complaint to include THE LATTER REVERSED HIS EARLIER RULING ALREADY
Legaspi To ers 300, Inc. as part -plaintiff and defendants ADMITTING THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF
comment thereto. Finding no merit therein and for the reasons PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS.
stated in the comment, the motion is hereb DENIED. II
THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE HONORABLE
Pe i ione filed a Mo ion fo Recon ide a ion of he COURT OF APPEALS TO RESOLVE THAT PETITIONERS-
O de da ed J l 21, 2004. In he O de 10 da ed APPELLANTS HAVE NO RIGHT AS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sep embe 24, 2004, he ial co denied he mo ion fo TO BRING AN ACTION IN BEHALF OF LEGASPI TOWERS
econ ide a ion fo lack of me i . 300, INC.
Pe i ione filed a pe i ion fo c a i h he Co III
of Appeal alleging ha he ial co g a el ab ed i THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE HONORABLE
di c e ion amo n ing o lack o e ce of j i dic ion in COURT OF APPEALS TO RESOLVE THAT THE ELECTIONS
i ing he O de da ed J l 21, 2004 and Sep embe 24, CONDUCTED IN LEGASPI TOWERS 300, INC. FOR THE
2004, and p a ing ha j dgmen be ende ed ann lling he PERIOD OF 2005 TO 2006 HAVE RENDERED THE ISSUE IN
aid O de and di ec ing RTC J dge De Ca o o admi CIVIL CASE NO. 04-10655 MOOT AND ACADEMIC.11
hei Second Amended Complain .
In a Deci ion da ed J l 22, 2005, he Co of Appeal Pe i ione con end ha he Co of Appeal e ed in
di mi ed he pe i ion fo lack of me i . I held ha RTC no finding ha RTC J dge An onio I. De Ca o
J dge De Ca o did no commi g a e ab e of di c e ion commi ed g a e ab e of di c e ion amo n ing o lack o
in den ing pe i ione M T A S c A e ce of j i dic ion in den ing he admi ion of he
C a . Second Amended Complain in he O de da ed J l 21,
The Co of Appeal a ed ha pe i ione complain 2004 and Sep embe 24, 2004, de pi e he fac ha he had
o gh o n llif he elec ion of he Boa d of Di ec o held al ead o de ed i admi ion in a p e io O de da ed
on Ap il 2, 2004, and o p o ec and enfo ce hei indi id al Ap il 26, 2004.
igh o o e. The appella e co held ha a he igh o Pe i ione con en ion i nme i o io .
o e i a pe onal igh of a ockholde of a co po a ion, I i clea ha in he O de da ed J l 21, 2004, he
ch igh can onl be enfo ced h o gh a di ec ac ion; ial co did no admi he Second Amended Complain
hence, Lega pi To e 300, Inc. canno be impleaded a he ein pe i ione made he condomini m co po a ion,
plain iff in hi ca e. Lega pi To e 300, Inc., he pa -plain iff. In he O de
Pe i ione mo ion fo econ ide a ion a denied b da ed Sep em-
he Co of Appeal in a Re ol ion da ed No embe 24,
2005.
Pe i ione filed hi pe i ion ai ing he follo ing 11 Rollo, . 19.
i e :
462

10 R , . 375. 462 E EC E A A ED
461 Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
be 24, 2004, den ing pe i ione mo ion fo i con i en i h hei po i ion ha he elec ion cond c ed
econ ide a ion of he O de da ed J l 21, 2004, he RTC b e ponden a in alid; hence, pe i ione , nde hei
e plained i ac ion, h : b -la , co ld econ i e hem el e a he Boa d of
Di ec o of Lega pi To e 300, Inc. in a hold-o e
The ord admitted in the 3rd paragraph of the Order capaci fo he cceeding e m. B o doing, pe i ione
dated April 26, 2004 should read recei ed for hich defendants had he igh a he igh f l Boa d of Di ec o o b ing he
ere told to comment thereon as an ans er has been filed. It as ac ion in ep e en a ion of Lega pi To e 300, Inc. Th ,
an o ersight of the clerical error in said Order. he Second Amended Complain a in ended b he
The Order of Jul 21, 2004 states amended complaint in the pe i ione a a di ec i b he co po a ion joined in b
3rd paragraph thereof and so it does not refer to the second he pe i ione o p o ec and enfo ce hei common igh .
amended complaint. The amended complaint as admitted b the Pe i ione con end ha Lega pi To e 300, Inc. i a
court of origin Br. 24 in its Order of April 14, 2004 as there as eal pa -in- in e e a i and o be affec ed he mo
no responsi e pleading et. b he con o e , beca e i in ol e he de e mina ion of
Nonetheless, admission of the second amended complaint is he he o no he co po a ion b -la a p ope l
improper. Wh should Legaspi To ers 300, Inc. be included ca ied o in he mee ing held on Ap il 2, 2004, hen
as part -plaintiff hen defendants are members thereof too like de pi e he adjo nmen of he mee ing fo lack of o m,
plaintiffs. Both parties are deemed to be acting in their personal he elec ion e e ill cond c ed. Al ho gh pe i ione
capacities as the both claim to be the la ful board of directors. admi ha he ac ion in ol e hei igh o o e, he
The motion for reconsideration for the admission of the second a g e ha i al o in ol e he igh of he condomini m
amended complaint is hereb DENIED. 12 co po a ion o be managed and n b he d l -elec ed
Boa d of Di ec o , and o eek ed e again ho e ho
The co ha e he inhe en po e o amend and
ongf ll occ p po i ion of he co po a ion and ho
con ol hei p oce e and o de o a o make hem
13 ma mi manage he co po a ion.
confo mable o la and j ice. A j dge ha an inhe en
Pe i ione a g men i nme i o io .
igh , hile hi j dgmen i ill nde hi con ol, o
The Co no e ha in he Amended Complain ,
co ec e o , mi ake , o inj ice .14
pe i ione a plain iff a ed ha he a e he inc mben
Ne , pe i ione a e ha he Co of Appeal eem
econ i ed Boa d of Di ec o of Lega pi To e 300,
o be nde he imp e ion ha he ac ion in i ed b
Inc., and ha defendan , he ein e ponden , a e he
hem i one b o gh fo h olel b a of a de i a i e i .
ne l -elec ed membe of he Boa d of Di ec o ; hile in
The cla ified ha he incl ion of Lega pi To e 300,
he Second Amended Complain , he plain iff i Lega pi
Inc. a a pa -plain iff in he Second Amended Complain
To e 300, Inc., ep e en ed b pe i ione a he
a , fi and fo emo , in ended a a di ec ac ion b he
allegedl inc mben econ i ed Boa d of Di ec o of
co po a ion ac ing h o gh hem (pe i ione ) a he
Lega pi To e 300, Inc.
econ i ed Boa d
The Second Amended Complain ae ho he
plain iff a e, h :

12 Id., . 93. 464

13 Sta. Maria v. Ubay, A.M. N . 595-CFI, D 11, 1978, 87 SCRA
179, 187.
464 E EC E A A ED
14 Id.
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
463

1. Tha he lai iff a e: LEGASPI TOWERS 300, INC., -

. 673, E 18, 2012 463 a d l e e e ed b he i c mbe

ec i ed B a d f Di ec f Lega i T e 300,
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
I c., a : ELIADORA FE BOTE VERA , a P ;
BRUNO C. HAMAN , a D ; LILY MARQUINEZ
of Di ec o of Lega pi To e 300, Inc. Pe i ione allege PALANCA , a S a ; ROSANNA DAVID IMAI , a
ha hei ac of incl ding he co po a ion a pa -plain iff T a ; a b B a D , a :
 ELIZABETH GUERRERO , GLORIA DOMINGO ,a RAY the right of inspection, his suit ould be i di id al
VINCENT.1 beca e he gi d e him e all a d
he he ckh lde he c a i . Where
The Co ag ee i h he Co of Appeal ha he the gi d e ag f ckh lde , as here
Second Amended Complain i mean o be a de i a i e preferred stockholders rights are iolated, a cla
i filed b pe i ione in behalf of he co po a ion. The e e e a i e i ill be e f he ec i
Co of Appeal a ed in i Deci ion ha pe i ione f all ckh lde bel gi g he ame g . But
j ified he incl ion of Lega pi To e 300, Inc. a here the ac c m lai ed f c i e a g
plain iff in Ci il Ca e No. 0410655 b in oking he doc ine he c a i i elf, he ca e f ac i bel g
of de i a i e i , a pe i ione pecificall a g ed, h : he c a i and not to the indi idual stockholder or
member. Although in most e er case of rong to the
[T]he sudden takeo er b pri ate respondents of the corporation, each stockholder is necessaril affected because
management of Legaspi To ers 300, Inc. has onl pro en the the alue of his interest therein ould be impaired, this fact
rightfulness of petitioners mo e to include Legaspi To ers 300, of itself is not sufficient to gi e him an indi idual cause of
Inc. as part -plaintiff. This is because e er resolution passed b action since the corporation is a person distinct and
pri ate respondents sitting as a board result[s] in iolation of separate from him, and can and should itself sue the
Legaspi To ers 300, Inc. s right to be managed and represented rongdoer. Other ise, not onl ould the theor of
b herein petitioners. separate entit be iolated, but there ould be multiplicit
In short, the amendment of the complaint [to include] Legaspi of suits as ell as a iolation of the priorit rights of
To ers 300, Inc. as done in order to protect the interest and creditors. Furthermore, there is the difficult of
enforce the right of the Legaspi [To ers 300,] Inc. to be determining the amount of damages that should be paid to
administered and managed [b petitioners] as the dul each indi idual stockholder.
constituted Board of Directors. Thi i diffe e f m a d Ho e er, in cases of mi ma ageme he e he
ma i fac be c ide ed a a DERIVATIVE SUIT gf l ac a e c mmi ed b he di ec
i i ed b a i di id al ckh lde agai h e ee hem el e , a stockholder or member ma find
c lli g he c a i b i bei g i i ed i he that he has no redress because the former are ested b la
ame f a d f he be efi f he c a i h e ith the right to decide hether or not the corporation
igh / a e bei g i la ed. 1 should sue, and the ill ne er be illing to sue
themsel es. The corporation

15 R , . 65. (E .)
17 G.R. N . 181455-56 & 182008, D 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 645.
16 CA D , Rollo, . 42-43. (E CA.)
466
465

466 C A A D
. 673, E 18, 2012 465
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
ould thus be helpless to seek remed . Beca e f he
I a de i a i e i p ope in hi ca e? f e e cc e ce f ch a i a i , he c mm
C a, J . . Tan17 diffe en ia e a de i a i e i and an la g ad all ec g i ed he igh f a ckh lde
indi id al/cla i a follo : e behalf f a c a i i ha e e all
became k a a de i a i e i . It has been
A deri ati e suit must be differentiated from indi idual and pro en to be an effecti e remed of the minorit against the
representati e or class suits, thus: abuses of management. Th , a i di id al ckh lde
Suits b stockholders or members of a corporation based i e mi ed i i e a de i a i e i on behalf of
on rongful or fraudulent acts of directors or other persons he corpora ion he ei he h ld ck i de
ma be classified into indi idual suits, class suits, and ec i dica e c a e igh , he e e
deri ati e suits. Where a stockholder or member is denied
 fficial f he c a i ef e e a e he p hed h o gh i h he elec ion e en if pe i ione had
e be ed h ld he c l f he adjo ned he mee ing allegedl d e o lack of o m.
c a i .I ch ac i , he i g ckh lde i Pe i ione a e he inj ed pa , ho e igh o o e and
ega ded a he nominal par , i h he c a i o be o ed pon e e di ec l affec ed b he elec ion of
a he par -in- in eres . 1 he ne e of boa d of di ec o . The pa -in-in e e a e
he pe i ione a ockholde , ho ield ch igh o
Since i i he co po a ion ha i he eal pa -in- o e. The ca e of ac ion de ol e on pe i ione , no he
in e e in a de i a i e i , hen he elief p a ed fo condomini m co po a ion, hich did no ha e he igh o
m be fo he benefi o in e e of he co po a ion.1 o e. Hence, he complain fo n llifica ion of he elec ion i
When he elief p a ed fo do no pe ain o he a direc ac ion b pe i ione , ho e e he membe of
co po a ion, hen i i an imp ope de i a i e i .20 he Boa d of Di ec o of he co po a ion b he elec ion,
The e i i e fo a de i a i e i a e a follo : again e ponden , ho a e he ne l -elec ed Boa d of
a) a b b a a a Di ec o . Unde he ci c m ance , he de i a i e i
a a a a , b a b filed b pe i ione in behalf of he condomini m
a a; co po a ion in he Second Amended Complain i imp ope .
b) a a a- a , .e., a a a The ockholde igh o file a de i a i e i i no
a b a a a b ba ed on an e p e p o i ion of T C a C ,
a a a a; a b i impliedl ecogni ed hen he la make co po a e
) a a a a a , di ec o o office liable fo damage ffe ed b he
a a b , b a co po a ion and i ockholde fo iola ion of hei
a a a a b fid cia d ie ,22 hich i no he i e in hi ca e.
.21

22 Bitong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. N . 123553, J 13, 1998, 292

18 Id., . 690-691. (E .) SCRA 503, 532.

19 C L. , Philippine Corporate Law, 1998, . 375. 46

20 Id.
21 San Miguel Corporation v. Kahn, G.R. N . 85339, A 11, 1989,
176 SCRA 447, 462-463. ( .) 468 E EC E A A ED
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
467

F he , pe i ione change of a g men befo e hi

. 673, E 18, 2012 467 Co , a e ing ha he Second Amended Complain i a
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e di ec ac ion filed b he co po a ion, ep e en ed b he
pe i ione a he inc mben Boa d of Di ec o , i an
In hi ca e, pe i ione , a membe of he Boa d of af e ho gh , and lack me i , con ide ing ha he ne l -
Di ec o of he condomini m co po a ion b he elec ed Boa d of Di ec o had a med hei f nc ion o
elec ion in e ion, filed a complain again he ne l - manage co po a e affai .23
elec ed membe of he Boa d of Di ec o fo he ea In fine, he Co of Appeal co ec l pheld he O de
2004-2005, e ioning he alidi of he elec ion held on of he ial co da ed J l 21, 2004 and Sep embe 24,
Ap il 2, 2004, a i a allegedl ma ed b lack of o m, 2004 den ing pe i ione M A S c
and p a ing fo he n llifica ion of he aid elec ion. A C a .
A a ed b he Co of Appeal , pe i ione complain La , pe i ione con end ha he Co of Appeal
eek o n llif he aid elec ion, and o p o ec and enfo ce e ed in e ol ing ha he ecen elec ion cond c ed b
hei indi id al igh o o e. Pe i ione eek he Lega pi To e , 300, Inc. ha e ende ed he i e ai ed
n llifica ion of he elec ion of he Boa d of Di ec o fo he a he pecial ci il ac ion fo c a befo e he appella e
ea 2004-2005, compo ed of he ein e ponden , ho co moo and academic.
 The Co of Appeal , in i Re ol ion da ed No embe No e . A ockholde ma e on behalf of he
24, 2005, a ed: co po a ion o a ail a comp omi e ag eemen en e ed in o
b he co po a ion; A de i a i e ac ion i a i b a
[T]he election of the corporation s ne set of directors for ockholde o enfo ce a co po a e ca e of ac ion an
the ears 2005-2006 has, finall , rendered the petition at bench indi id al ockholde ma file a de i a i e i on behalf
moot and academic. As correctl argued b pri ate respondents, of he co po a ion o p o ec o indica e co po a e igh
the nulli- hene e he official of he co po a ion ef e o e, o
a e he one o be ed, o hold

23 C C : S . 36. Corpora e po er and capaci . E

C :
24 Rollo, . 54.
T ;
*** D A M A J J C
M , S O N . 1241 J 14, 2012.
S . 23. The board of direc or or r ee .
**** D A M A J P
C , C
J. , J ., S O N . 1229 J 6, 2012.
,
470
, , ,
(1)
.
470 E EC E A A ED
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e
469

con ol of he co po a ion. (S a c A a c D
. 673, 18, 2012 469 C a . Ra c S c L , 607 SCRA 413
Lega i To e 300, Inc. .M e [2009])
An indi id al ockholde i pe mi ed o in i e a
fication of the orders assailed b petitioners ould, therefore, be de i a i e i on behalf of he co po a ion he ein he
of little or no practical and legal purpose. 24 hold ock in o de o p o ec o indica e co po a e igh ,
hene e official of he co po a ion ef e o e o a e
The a emen of he Co of Appeal i co ec . he one o be ed o hold he con ol of he co po a ion
Pe i ione e ion he alidi of he elec ion of he in ch ac ion , he ing ockholde i ega ded a he
Boa d of Di ec o fo he ear 2004-2005, hich elec ion nominal pa , i h he co po a ion a he pa in
he eek o n llif in Ci il Ca e No. 04-109655. Ho e e , in e e . (Ma S c R b I a
he alid elec ion of a ne e of Boa d of Di ec o fo he C a . L , 650 SCRA 461 [2011])
ear 2005-2006 o ld, indeed, ende hi pe i ion moo
and academic. o0o
WHEREFORE, he pe i ion i DENIED. The Deci ion of
he Co of Appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 87684, da ed J l
22, 2005, and i Re ol ion da ed No embe 24, 2005 a e
AFFIRMED.
Co again pe i ione .
SO ORDERED.
C g 2021 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.
B a ,*** Aba , V a a a, J .**** and P a -
B ab , JJ., conc .

P , a a .