Concorde Condominium, Inc. vs. Baculio

Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Commercial Courts remain courts of general jurisdiction and may hear and decide ordinary civil actions, including petitions for injunction, despite their designation to specifically handle intra-corporate disputes transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799.

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of land and a condominium building between Concorde Condominium, Inc. (the condominium corporation representing unit owners) and New PPI Corporation (represented by Augusto H. Baculio), which claimed ownership of the property. The conflict escalated when Baculio allegedly misrepresented ownership to government agencies, sought the revocation of building and occupancy permits, and requested demolition of the building. This prompted the petitioner to file an action for injunction with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which was raffled to a branch designated as a Special Commercial Court. The dismissal of the case by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction raised the fundamental issue of whether SCCs possess general jurisdiction or only special limited jurisdiction over intra-corporate matters.

• Petitioner Concorde Condominium, Inc. (CCI) is the condominium corporation representing unit owners of the Concorde Condominium Building located at Benavidez corner Salcedo Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati City, which stands on Lot 1 with an adjacent parking lot (Lot 2).
• The building was developed by Pulp and Paper Distributors, Inc. (allegedly now New PPI Corporation), and petitioner claims ownership of the common areas and the lots pursuant to the Master Deed and Amended By-laws, as well as a final and executory Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) decision recognizing the unit owners' vested rights.
• Respondent Augusto H. Baculio, claiming to represent New PPI Corporation, allegedly misrepresented to the public and government agencies that he owned the subject lots and the building itself, and requested the Makati Fire Station to inspect the building for possible demolition.
• Baculio sent letters to the Makati City Engineering Department and the Bureau of Fire Protection seeking the revocation of building and occupancy permits and requesting the cutting off of electricity to the building.
• Respondent Asian Security and Investigation Agency deployed security guards within the building perimeter at the behest of Baculio, causing fear and anxiety among unit owners.
• Respondent Engr. Nelson B. Morales (Building Official) revoked the building and occupancy permits, while respondents Supt. Ricardo C. Perdigon and F/C Supt. Santiago E. Laguna (Bureau of Fire Protection officials) refused to issue necessary permits for the installation of a fire sprinkler system despite ordering compliance with fire safety standards.
• On April 16, 2012, petitioner filed a Petition for Injunction with Damages to enjoin respondents from misrepresenting ownership, deploying security guards, and interfering with the building permits, and to compel the issuance of fire safety permits.
• The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 12-309 and raffled to Branch 149 of the Makati RTC, which was designated as a Special Commercial Court under A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC.
• The trial court initially issued a TRO and ordered inspections of the building's structural integrity and fire safety status, but subsequently dismissed the case upon finding no intra-corporate relationship existed between the parties.

• The petition for injunction is an ordinary civil action within the general jurisdiction of the RTC under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
• Republic Act No. 8799 transferred jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes from the SEC to "Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court," meaning RTCs as courts of general jurisdiction, not merely specific branches thereof.
• The designation of Branch 149 as a Special Commercial Court did not divest it of its power as a court of general jurisdiction to hear ordinary civil cases; the designation is merely procedural and administrative.
• OCA Circular No. 82-2003 provides that Special Commercial Courts shall continue to participate in the raffle of other cases, confirming they retain general jurisdiction.
• The case was raffled as an ordinary civil case (not as a commercial case), and the presumption of regularity attaches to the Clerk of Court's official acts in docketing and raffling the case.
• The trial judge should have referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-raffle if he believed it was wrongly assigned, rather than dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

• Private Respondents (Baculio and New PPI Corporation): The case is not an intra-corporate controversy because no intra-corporate relationship exists between the parties; the petition lacks proper verification; petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the subject lots are registered in the name of New PPI Corporation; and the building poses safety risks to the public.
• Public Respondents (Building Official and Bureau of Fire Protection, represented by the OSG): Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, specifically the appeal to the DPWH Secretary under Section 307 of the National Building Code (PD 1096), rendering the petition premature; the DPWH Secretary is an indispensable party not impleaded in the case; occupancy permits cannot be issued without a valid building permit; and the case involves substantive defects that would cause it to fail even if remanded.
• Asian Security & Investigation Agency: The allegations against it are moot as it had already terminated its security contract with New PPI Corporation and pulled out its guards from the premises.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the petition for injunction based on its designation as a Special Commercial Court.
  • Whether the case was properly raffled to Branch 149 as an ordinary civil case rather than a commercial case.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Special Commercial Courts retain general jurisdiction over ordinary civil actions despite their designation to hear intra-corporate disputes.
  • Whether the dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy cognizable only by Special Commercial Courts or an ordinary civil action for injunction.

• Procedural:
  • The dismissal was erroneous. The Court held that the case was properly raffled to Branch 149 as an ordinary civil case, and the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed applies to the Clerk of Court's docketing and raffling of the case.
  • The trial court should have referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-raffle to other branches if it believed the assignment was improper, rather than dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
• Substantive:
  • Special Commercial Courts remain Regional Trial Courts of general jurisdiction under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The designation under Republic Act No. 8799 and A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC is merely a procedural tool to streamline the resolution of commercial cases and does not diminish the court's statutory general jurisdiction.
  • Applying the "relationship test" and "nature of the controversy test," the Court found no intra-corporate relationship existed between petitioner (a condominium corporation) and respondents (a claimed developer/owner and government officials), nor did the dispute pertain to the enforcement of rights under the Corporation Code. The case is an ordinary civil action for injunction, not an intra-corporate controversy.
  • The word "or" in Section 5.2 of RA 8799 ("Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court") is interpretative and expository, meaning the two phrases are equivalent—RTCs are the courts of general jurisdiction to which jurisdiction was transferred.
  • The case was reinstated in the docket of Branch 149 with orders to resolve it with reasonable dispatch.

• General vs. Special Jurisdiction — Special Commercial Courts, despite their designation to hear intra-corporate disputes under RA 8799, remain Regional Trial Courts of general jurisdiction under BP 129. Their designation is merely an incident of the exercise of jurisdiction and does not divest them of the power to hear ordinary civil actions such as petitions for injunction. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by law, while the assignment of cases to specific branches is merely a matter of procedure.
• Relationship Test and Nature of Controversy Test — To determine if a dispute is intra-corporate, the court examines: (1) whether the parties stand in an intra-corporate relationship (corporation-stockholder, stockholder-stockholder, or corporation-state regarding franchise); and (2) whether the controversy pertains to the enforcement of correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and internal corporate regulatory rules. Both tests must be satisfied for a case to be deemed intra-corporate.
• Jurisdiction over Subject Matter — Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claims asserted. Once vested by the allegations, jurisdiction remains vested regardless of the defenses raised.

• "Section 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 directs merely the Supreme Court's designation of RTC branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. Nothing in the language of the law suggests the diminution of jurisdiction of those RTCs to be designated as SCCs."
• "The RTC exercising jurisdiction over an intra-corporate dispute can be likened to an RTC exercising its probate jurisdiction or sitting as a special agrarian court. The designation of the SCCs as such has not in any way limited their jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of all nature, whether civil, criminal or special proceedings."
• "The word 'or' in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally used by the legislature to particularize the fact that the phrase 'the Courts of general jurisdiction' is equivalent to the phrase 'the appropriate Regional Trial Court.'"
• "The designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure... Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute."
• "The matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction."

• GD Express Worldwide N.V. v. Court of Appeals, 605 Phil. 406 (2009) — Established that Special Commercial Courts are still courts of general jurisdiction and that assignment of intra-corporate disputes to SCCs is only for streamlining workload.
• Manuel Luis C. Gonzales and Francis Martin D. Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., G.R. No. 202664, November 10, 2015 — Explained that jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases was transferred to RTCs as courts of general jurisdiction, not to specific branches only, and established guidelines for re-raffling wrongly assigned cases.
• Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation v. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416, November 11, 2013 — Source of the relationship test and nature of controversy test for determining intra-corporate disputes.
• BPI v. Hong, 682 Phil. 66 (2012) — Defined an action for injunction as an ordinary civil action with independent existence, distinct from the ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction.
• Pudlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013 — Reiterated that jurisdiction is determined by allegations in the complaint comprising the cause of action.
• Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that the Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction.
• Lozada v. Bracewell — Cited for the distinction between jurisdiction (conferred by law) and exercise of jurisdiction (governed by rules of procedure).
• San Miguel Corp. v. Municipal Council — Cited for the interpretative principle that the word "or" may be used as the equivalent of "that is to say."

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), Section 19 — Grants Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court.
• Republic Act No. 8799 (The Securities Regulation Code), Section 5.2 — Transfers the Securities and Exchange Commission's jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes to "Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court."
• Presidential Decree No. 902-A, Section 5 — Enumerates the cases over which the SEC (now transferred to RTCs) exercises original and exclusive jurisdiction, including intra-corporate controversies and election disputes.
• Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code), Section 307 — Cited by respondents regarding the appeal to the DPWH Secretary as a prerequisite before filing a case involving building permits.
• A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC — The Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation and the rules governing Special Commercial Courts.
• OCA Circular No. 82-2003 — Provides that Special Commercial Courts shall continue to participate in the raffle of other cases.