Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    EUSTACIO ATWEL, Et Al. vs. Concepcion Progressive Association

    Uploaded by

    Henri Vasquez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case and could not confer jurisdiction on the special commercial court that originally heard the case. Specifically: 1) The elements required for a case to be considered an intra-corporate controversy under the jurisdiction of special commercial courts were not present. 2) The issue in the case concerned ownership of disputed property, which is a civil matter under the jurisdiction of regular courts. 3) Estoppel can confer jurisdiction only if the lower court actually had jurisdiction. If it had no jurisdiction, the parties are not barred from assailing jurisdiction on appeal. No exceptional circumstances existed in this case to warrant divergence from this rule.

    Copyright:

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

    EUSTACIO ATWEL, Et Al. vs. Concepcion Progressive Association

    Uploaded by

    Henri Vasquez
    54 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case and could not confer jurisdiction on the special commercial court that originally heard the case. Specifically: 1) The elements required for a case to be considered an intra-corporate controversy under the jurisdiction of special commercial courts were not present. 2) The issue in the case concerned ownership of disputed property, which is a civil matter under the jurisdiction of regular courts. 3) Estoppel can confer jurisdiction only if the lower court actually had jurisdiction. If it had no jurisdiction, the parties are not barred from assailing jurisdiction on appeal. No exceptional circumstances existed in this case to warrant divergence from this rule.

    Original Description:

    www

    Original Title

    www

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case and could not confer jurisdiction on the special commercial court that originally heard the case. Specifically: 1) The elements required for a case to be considered an intra-corporate controversy under the jurisdiction of special commercial courts were not present. 2) The issue in the case concerned ownership of disputed property, which is a civil matter under the jurisdiction of regular courts. 3) Estoppel can confer jurisdiction only if the lower court actually had jurisdiction. If it had no jurisdiction, the parties are not barred from assailing jurisdiction on appeal. No exceptional circumstances existed in this case to warrant divergence from this rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    EUSTACIO ATWEL, Et Al. vs. Concepcion Progressive Association

    Uploaded by

    Henri Vasquez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case and could not confer jurisdiction on the special commercial court that originally heard the case. Specifically: 1) The elements required for a case to be considered an intra-corporate controversy under the jurisdiction of special commercial courts were not present. 2) The issue in the case concerned ownership of disputed property, which is a civil matter under the jurisdiction of regular courts. 3) Estoppel can confer jurisdiction only if the lower court actually had jurisdiction. If it had no jurisdiction, the parties are not barred from assailing jurisdiction on appeal. No exceptional circumstances existed in this case to warrant divergence from this rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    EUSTACIO ATWEL, et al. vs.

    Upon the enactment of RA 8799 in 2000, the jurisdiction of the SEC over
    CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION intra-corporate controversies and other cases enumerated in Section 5 of PD
    J. Corona | April 14, 2008 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. Under this
    authority, Branch 8 of the Tacloban City RTC, acting as a special commercial
    In 1948, Emiliano Melgazo founded CPA in Hilongos, Leyte. In 1968, court, deemed the mandatory injunction case filed by CPAI an intra-corporate
    Melgazo bought a parcel of land in behalf of CPA. The property was later dispute falling under subparagraph (2) of the aforecited provision as it
    converted into a wet market. It also housed a cockpit and other amusements. involved the officers and members thereof.
    The income it generated was paid to CPA. Emiliano’s son, Manuel,
    succeeded him as CPA president. Atwel and Pilpil were elected CPA VP and To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy to be
    treasurer respectively. heard and decided by the RTC, two elements must concur: (1) The status or
    relationship of the parties and (2) The nature of the question that is subject of
    In 1997, some of CPA’s officers and members formed their own group and their controversy.
    registered themselves as officers and members of the respondent CPA, Inc.
    Atwel et al were not listed as officers or members of CPAI. Later, CPAI In the case at bar, these elements are not present. The records reveal that
    objected to Atwel et al’s collection of rentals from the market vendors. petitioners were never officers nor members of CPAI. CPAI itself admitted
    this in its pleadings. In fact, petitioners were the only remaining members of
    In 2000, CPAI filed a case in SEC for injunction. With the passage of RA CPA which, obviously, was not the CPAI that was registered in the SEC.
    8799 (Securities Regulation Code), the case was transferred to Branch 24 of
    Southern Leyte RTC and later to Branch 8 of Tacloban RTC. Both were Moreover, the issue in this case does not concern the regulation of CPAI (or
    special commercial courts. even CPA). The determination as to who is the true owner of the disputed
    property entitled to the income generated therefrom is civil in nature and
    On June 9, 2004, the RTC ruled that the deed of sale covering the property should be threshed out in a regular court. Cases of this nature are cognizable
    was in the name of CPA, not Emiliano. In the dispositive, however, the RTC by the RTC under BP 129. Therefore, the conflict among the parties here
    considered CPA to be one and the same as CPAI. was outside the jurisdiction of the special commercial court.

    Atwel et al appealed to the CA. On Mar. 17, 2005, although the CA found But did the doctrine of estoppel bar petitioners from questioning the
    that the special commercial court should have not tried the case since there jurisdiction of the special commercial court? No. In Lozon v. NLRC, this Court
    was no intra-corporate dispute among CPAI members or officers, it came up with a clear rule on when jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when
    nonetheless held that Atwel et al were already barred from questioning the it does not: The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction
    court’s jurisdiction based on the doctrine of estoppel citing Tijam. seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or
    not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the
    ISSUE / RATIO theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from
    assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of law, and
    WON estoppel can apply in this case – NO may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel.

    A court’s jurisdiction is conferred exclusively by the Constitution or by law, We likewise held in Metromedia that Tijam provided an exceptional
    not by the parties’ agreement or by estoppel. circumstance. To void the trial court's decision in Tijam for lack of jurisdiction
    was not only unfair but patently revolting considering that the question on
    Originally, Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) 902-A conferred on the SEC jurisdiction was raised only after 15 years of tedious litigation.
    original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following:
    The rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that
    (2) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate, partnership, or association has none over the cause of action or subject matter of the case.[24]
    relations, between and among stockholders, members, or associates; or Unfortunately for CPAI, no exceptional circumstance appears in this case to
    association of which they are stockholders, members, or associates, warrant divergence from the rule. Jurisdiction by estoppel is not available
    respectively; here.

    You might also like