G.R. Nos.

202678 October 12, 2018

ERNESTINA A. PAGDANGANAN, RODERICK APACIBLE PAGDANGANAN, MARIA
ROSARIO LOTA represented by her Attorney-inFact, ERNESTINA A.
PAGDANGANAN, and SANDA APACIBLE PAGDANGANAN, as the heirs and
substitutes of deceased ISAURO J. PAGDANGANAN, ALFONSO ORTIGAS
OLONDRIZ, and CITIBANK N.A. HONGKONG, Petitioners v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS and MA. SUSANA A.S. MADRIGAL, MA. ROSA A.S. MADRIGAL,
MATHILDA S. OLONDRIZ, VICENTE A.S. MADRIGAL. ROSEMARIE OPIS-
MALASIG, MARIA TERESA S. UBANO, EDUARDO E. DELA CRUZ and GUILLER B.
ASIDO , Respondents

Constitutional Law; Speedy disposition of cases: The Constitution specifies specific time periods
when court may resolve cases. The Court of Appeals is given a 12-month period to resolve any
case that has already been submitted for decision. Any case pending 12 months after submission
for decision may be considered as delay. The parties may file the necessary action, such as
petition for mandamus, to protect their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS: Solid Guaranty, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the insurance business. In
November 23, 2007, Solid Guaranty, through its minority stockholder, Pagdanganan, filed a
complaint before RTC Manila due to the alleged conflicting claims between respondents
Madrigals and Citibank over the shares of stock previously held by the late Antonio P. Madrigal.
On November 26, 2007, while the case was pending, Special Stockholders’ Meeting was
called to elect new members of Board of Directors. Petitioners Solid Guaranty and Pagdanganan
seeks to amend the complaint and to nullify the stockholders’ meeting and election of the
directors and officers. An Urgent Motion for Permission to Take Custody of Stock Transfer
Book and Other Corporate Records of Solid Guaranty was filed by Corporate Secretary Urbano
before the RTC. Six months later, another motion was filed by Urbano.
On June 2008, RTC granted Urbano’s second motion, considering that the shares of stock to
be transferred were not subject of the interpleader suit. Urbano then called for the holding of a
Special Stockholders’ Meeting. On the contrary, petitioners Solid Guaranty and Pagdanganan
filed a motion with RTC to prevent the holding of the meeting. The RTC authorized the holding
of the meeting so the Special Annual Stockholders’ Meeting was held and new members of the
Board of Directors were elected. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus, with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court of
Appeals alleging that RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in allowing the holding of June
30, 2008 meeting despite the pendency of interpleader suit. Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Petition was likewise filed by petitioners.
On August 2008, comments to the petition were filed by both parties. In October 2008, CA
received Motion to Admit Second Supplemental Petition filed by petitioners and granted the
same. CA directed the submission of comments on the petition. All the parties submitted their
respective memoranda by the 27th of October 2008. Moreover, a Motion for Leave to File Third
Supplemental Petition was filed on December on the same year.
On October 22, 2009, CA acknowledged that the case could have already been submitted for
a decision but was deferred because of the subsequent filing of the Second and Third
Supplemental Petitions. However, filing of comments on the Third Supplemental Petition were
directed. Thus, a Comment dated November 12, 2009 was filed.
On October 6, 2010, CA issued a resolution expunging from the record the Second and
Third Supplemental Petitions. The case is submitted for decision. On October 9, 2010,
petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the October 6, 2010 Resolution.
 On March 24, 2011, petitioner Pagdanganan passed away; thus, counsel moved for the
substitution of parties.
On January 2012, petitioners filed a Motion for Mediation with the Court of Appeals. On
March 1, 2012, they likewise filed a Motion for Reconsideration. While the Motions were
pending with the Court of Appeals, or on August 2, 2012, petitioners filed Petition for
Mandamus against respondents. They alleged that CA committed inordinate delay in resolving
their Petition filed on July 11, 2008. They claimed that the Court of Appeals, “continued inaction
on the case is clearly a neglect of its judicial duties.” CA denied the Motion for Mediation as it
was unilaterally made. Motion for Reconsideration of its October 6, 2010 Resolution was
likewise denied.
On February 8, 2013, CA dismissed the petition for the questioned orders of the RTC were
not rendered in grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed inordinate delay in resolving the
petition.

HELD: NEGATIVE. The Court of Appeals did not delay in resolving the petition. All persons
have the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases which is expressly enshrined under
Section 15 of the Constitution. In the case at bar, it was only December 14, 2012 that the Court
of Appeals declared with finality that the petition was submitted for decision. CA finally
resolved the Petition on February 8, 2008 or less than 2 months from its final pronouncement
submitting the case for decision. The Court of Appeals has resolved the petition in a timely
manner within the period provided by law, thus, petitioners’ invocation of the right to speedy
disposition of cases is misplaced.
It was, thus, inaccurate for petitioners to accuse the Court of Appeals of delay in resolving
their petition filed in 2008 without taking into account the numerous pleadings they had filed
while the petition was pending. The case is dismissed.