Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Lu v. Ym, SR

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    The case involved a dispute over shares issued by a family corporation (LLDC) to some members of the Lu Ym family. David Lu filed a complaint seeking nullification of the share issuance, appointment of a receiver, and dissolution of the corporation. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding non-compliance with rules on non-forum shopping. David Lu seeks to annul that decision. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the case despite alleged defects in the petition, as a motion for reconsideration does not require leave to file, the supplemental petition was admitted by the appellate court, and a certificate of non-forum shopping

    Copyright:

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

    Lu v. Ym, SR

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    67 views2 pages
    The case involved a dispute over shares issued by a family corporation (LLDC) to some members of the Lu Ym family. David Lu filed a complaint seeking nullification of the share issuance, appointment of a receiver, and dissolution of the corporation. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding non-compliance with rules on non-forum shopping. David Lu seeks to annul that decision. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the case despite alleged defects in the petition, as a motion for reconsideration does not require leave to file, the supplemental petition was admitted by the appellate court, and a certificate of non-forum shopping

    Original Title

    Lu v. Ym, Sr..docx

    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 case involved a dispute over shares issued by a family corporation (LLDC) to some members of the Lu Ym family. David Lu filed a complaint seeking nullification of the share issuance, appointment of a receiver, and dissolution of the corporation. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding non-compliance with rules on non-forum shopping. David Lu seeks to annul that decision. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the case despite alleged defects in the petition, as a motion for reconsideration does not require leave to file, the supplemental petition was admitted by the appellate court, and a certificate of non-forum shopping

    Copyright:

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

    Lu v. Ym, SR

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    The case involved a dispute over shares issued by a family corporation (LLDC) to some members of the Lu Ym family. David Lu filed a complaint seeking nullification of the share issuance, appointment of a receiver, and dissolution of the corporation. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case, finding non-compliance with rules on non-forum shopping. David Lu seeks to annul that decision. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the case despite alleged defects in the petition, as a motion for reconsideration does not require leave to file, the supplemental petition was admitted by the appellate court, and a certificate of non-forum shopping

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    FULL TITLE AS IN FULL TEXT: DAVID LU, petitioner, vs. PATERNO LU YM, SR.

    , PATERNO LU
    YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, ET AL. & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.
    G.R. No. 153690
    DATE: August 26, 2008
    PONENTE: NACHURA, J
    TOPIC: Jurisdiction of CA

    FACTS OF THE CASE:


    LLDC is a family corporation founded by Paterno Sr. and his brothers (the fathers of Rosa,
    Silvano and David), primarily to hold real estate for the family. In 1997, LLDC's Board of Directors
    authorized the issuance of its 600,000 unsubscribed and unissued shares at par value of P100.00 per
    share. The Lu Ym father and sons subscribed to and paid most of such shares. David, et al., however,
    claimed that the 600,000 LLDC stocks were issued in favor of the Lu Ym father and sons for less than
    their real values. Hence, the complaint filed on August 14, 2000, by David, et.al against
    the Lu Ym father and sons for Declaration of Nullity of Share Issue, Receivership and
    Dissolution, before the RTC of Cebu City. They further asserted that the Lu Ym father and sons
    gravely abused their powers as members of LLDC's Board of Directors by issuing such shares, to the
    prejudice of David, et al. To protect the interest of the corporation during the pendency of the case,
    petitioners asked that a receiver for the corporation be appointed.

    On August 25, 2000, the Lu Ym father and sons moved to dismiss the complaint for non-compliance
    with the Rules of Court on the required certificate of non-forum shopping, since only one of the four
    plaintiffs signed the same, without any showing that he was authorized to sign on behalf of the other
    parties. They, likewise, contended that the case was dismissible because they did not exert earnest
    efforts toward a compromise. Answering in a Resolution, the court denied the motion solely on the
    ground that the case was exempt from the observance of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law and that
    the signature of only one of the plaintiffs was a substantial compliance with the rules on the certificate
    of non-forum shopping.
    On February 16, 2001, the court, on motion of David, et al., placed LLDC under receivership pendente
    lite. Consequently, the court appointed Atty. Edward U. Du and Mr. Luis A Cañete as receivers.

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
    David Lu (David) prays that this Court annul and set aside the Decision 1 dated December 20,
    2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 64523 dismissing the initial complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court
    (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. CEB-25502, for non-compliance with the rules on non-
    forum shopping. Likewise assailed is the court's Resolution 4 dated May 28, 2002 denying his motion
    for reconsideration.

    STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in disregarding the numerous fatal defects
    and rules of court and IRCA violations of respondents' april 30, 2001 petition, motion and supplement.

    HOLDING:
    NO. Basic is the rule that a motion for the reconsideration of an assailed order may be filed by
    an aggrieved party within the reglementary period. No motion for leave to file such motion is required
    under the Rules or in any other circular of the Supreme Court. As long as the same is filed within fifteen
    (15) days from receipt of the assailed order, there is no reason for the courts not to entertain it. In fact,
    in some exceptional cases as when substantial justice so requires, a motion belatedly filed may still be
    taken cognizance of. As to the supplemental petition filed without leave of court, suffice it to state that
    the CA entertained the same, required David to comment thereon, and decided the case on the basis
    thereof. Such actions of the appellate court adequately show that the supplemental petition was

    1
    admitted. Lastly, as to the lack of certificate of non-forum shopping in the motion for reconsideration
    and supplement to the petition, the court need only reiterate that the certificate is required only in cases
    of initiatory pleadings.

    You might also like