THIRD DIVISION

Agenda for ________, 2022

Item No.
Inting, J.

Recommended Action: MR – DF, NSA, NFP, EJI. JRO to report compli-

ance within 10 days from notice

G.R. No. 231845 Henry Koa, Hubert Anthony Koa, Karl Michael Koa, et al.,
vs. Rivero Manabat, Danilo Chua Co Kiong, Welson Yap, Alfonso Chu, et al.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
SYNOPSIS

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated August 30,
20162 (First Assailed Resolution) and May 22, 20173 (Second Assailed
Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- G.R. SP No. 105234,
entitled “Henry Koa, Hubert Anthony Koa, Karl Michael Koa and Debbie
Karen Koa Lin, for themselves and in behalf of Empire Plaza Condominium
Corp. vs. Rivero Manabat, Danilo Chua Co Kiong, Welson Yap, Alfonso Chu,
Dennis Chua, Jerry Tiu, William Chan, Jennifer Galinato, Jackson Saw and
Gilbert Go,” dismissing the appeal filed by Rivero Manabat, Danilo Chua Co
Kiong, Welson Yap, Alfonso Chu, Dennis Chua, Jerry Tiu, William Chan,
Jennifer Galinato, Jackson Saw and Gilbert Go (collectively, respondents) for
being an erroneous mode of appeal.

Antecedent Facts and Proceedings

On June 8, 2015, Branch 46 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila

rendered a Decision4 in Civil Case No. 14132154 for Organization of the
Corporation and Appointment of Management Committee with Prayer for
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction in favor of Henry Koa, Hubert
Anthony Koa, Karl Michael Koa and Debbie Karen Koa Lin (collectively,
petitioners). The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered Judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are therefore
considered to have been validly elected in the 2014 BOT
election. Further[,] defendants are directed to cease and desist
from running the affairs of the corporation.5

On June 30, 2015, respondents filed a Notice of Appeal from the RTC
Decision.

1 Rollo, pp. 11-20.

2 Id. at 28-31-A; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of the Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
3 Id. at 32-35; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of the Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
4 Id. at 120-128.
5 Id. at 127-128.
G.R. No. 231845 2

On July 20, 2015, the Notice of Appeal was given due course by the RTC,
then followed by the transmittal of the entire records of the case to the CA.
Consequently, the CA took initial action of the case and directed the completion of
documents in the records. While the case was still in the completion stage, the parties
filed several pleadings seeking ancillary reliefs.

Undeniably, after a perusal of the records of the case, it appears that

Civil Case No. 14132154, which questioned the propriety of the appointment
of a management committee, among others, is an intra-corporate case.

On October 22, 2015, the CA (5th Division) issued a Resolution6

requiring respondents to file an Omnibus Comment addressing all the
pleadings filed by petitioners within ten days from notice, to wit:

1. URGENT
MOTION TO STOP DEFENDANT-
APPELLANTS FROM CALLING A SPECIAL GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP MEETING OF THE EMPIRE PLAZA
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION dated September 14, 2015;

2. REITERATION OF OMNIBUS MOTION FILED

BEFORE THE RTC OF MANILA, BRANCH 46, ON JUNE 22,
2015;

3. REITERATION OF “URGENT MOTION TO STOP

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ETC.” dated September 30,
2015;

4. URGENT MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PLAINTIFFS-

APPELLEES TO PAY ALL PUBLIC UTILITY BILLS AND
OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF EMPIRE PLAZA
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION dated October 1, 2015; and

5. APPLICATION
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION dated October 2, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, the CA (Special 5 th Division) issued another

Resolution7 which reads:

1. OMNIBUS COMMENT/OPPOSITION dated November

11, 2015 filed by defendants-appellants;

2. VERIFIED PETITION TO CITE RESPONDENTS IN

INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT dated October 21, 2015
filed by appellees;
6 Rollo, pp. 232-233; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now member of this
Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now retired member of this
Court) and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.
7 Id., pp. 178-180; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now member of this
Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now retired member of this
Court) and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.
G.R. No. 231845 3

3. SPECIAL APPEARANCE WITH MOTION TO

CONSIGN dated October 29, 2015 filed by Philippine National
Bank (PNB);

4. VERIFIED PETITION TO CITE RESPONDENTS IN

INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT dated November 6, 205
filed by appellees;

5. MOTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE

dated November 2, 2015 filed by Jerry Tiu;

6. VERIFIED PETITION TO CITE ATTY. JACKSON P.

LEE IN INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT dated November
11, 2015 filed by appellees; and

7. URGENT MOTION TO RESOLVE ALL PENDING

INCIDENTS dated December 8, 2015 filed by appellees.

The Court resolves at this time, to:

1. DIRECT appellees to file their REPLY to the November

11, 2015 OMNIBUS COMMENT/OPPOSITION of appellants
within five (5) days from notice;

2. DIRECT appellants to file an OMNIBUS COMMENT to

the: a) October 21, 2015 Petition for Indirect Contempt; b)
November 6, 2015 Petition for Indirect Contempt; and c)
November 11, 2015 Petition for Indirect Contempt, within ten
(10) days from notice;

3. DIRECT both appellants and appellees to file their

respective COMMENT to the October 29, 2015 MOTION TO
CONSIGN (filed by PNB) within ten (10) days from notice.8

Needless to say, the CA (Special 5th Division) ruled that the above
incidents were litigious in nature and should only be resolved after the court
had been fully informed and guided as to the nature of the issues through the
pleadings directed to be filed with it; 9 that the parties were also reminded to
refrain from lodging unnecessary pleadings that would only serve to prolong
and muddle the proceedings before it.10

Ruling of the CA

On August 30, 2016, the CA rendered the first assailed Resolution 11

dismissing the appeal for being an erroneous mode of appeal. Thus-
8 Id. at 178-179.
9 Id. at 179.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 28-31-A; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of the Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
G.R. No. 231845 4

“In filing the instant appeal by way of notice of appeal

under Rule 41, defendants-appellants clearly pursued a wrong
remedy. This procedural lapse cannot be simply set aside by the
Court, for to do so would be contrary to the purpose in the
promulgation of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, that is “to prevent
cluttering the dockets of the courts with appeals and/or petitions
for certiorari.”

The dismissal of the main action necessarily carries with

it the dismissal of ancillary reliefs or remedies sought by the
parties herein. Consequently, all interlocutory matters pending
before the Court must be denied for being moot and academic.
With the dismissal of the main action, the ancillary motions have
no leg to stand on.”12

On September 16, 2016, petitioners filed a Partial Motion for

Reconsideration to the first assailed Resolution and argued that the CA should
have acted on the unresolved motions and the petition for indirect contempt
against respondents because these were filed even before the CA rendered the
resolution dismissing the appeal.

On October 10, 2016, respondents also filed their Partial Motion for
Reconsideration and maintained that since the records of the case were already
elevated to the CA, then it should have acted on the unresolved Omnibus
Motion dated June 22, 2015 filed before the lower court but which was
elevated to it when the appeal was granted by the latter.

On May 22, 2017, the CA issued the second assailed Resolution 13

denying the parties' respective motions for lack of merit, saying:

“In Our Resolution sought to be reconsidered, We

concluded that:

The dismissal of the main action necessarily carries with it

the dismissal of the ancillary reliefs or remedies sought by
the parties herein. Consequently, all interlocutory matters
pending before the Court must be denied for being moot and
academic. With the dismissal of the main action, the ancillary
motions have no leg to stand on.

In their respective motions, both parties never questioned

the propriety of the dismissal of the case, hence, they are deemed
to have impliedly admitted the erroneous availment of the wrong
mode of appeal of defendant-appellants. Thus, absent jurisdiction
over the case, it would be improper for this Court to take
cognizance over the case and act upon interlocutory matters of

12 Id. at 31-31-A.
13 Id. at 32-35; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of the Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
G.R. No. 231845 5

the case as well.”14

Hence, the instant petition.

Issue

THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT HAVING
DECIDED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WHEN
THIS CASE WAS STILL PENDING WITH SAID COURT
THE ANCILLARY RELIEFS AND OTHER LEGAL
REMEDIES SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS.15

The Court's Ruling in the Resolution dated February 3, 2021

The Court denied the petition. It ruled that respondents availed them-
selves of the wrong mode of appeal by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 41
of the Rules of Court instead of a petition for review under Rule 43. Thus, the
CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all interlocutory
matters pending before the CA must be denied for being moot and academic. 16

It is therefore wrong for petitioners to maintain that the ancillary reliefs

and other remedies prayed for should have been acted upon by the CA because
there were filed when the latter still had jurisdiction over the case or before it
rendered the Resolution dated August 30, 2016.17

The Motion for Reconsideration18

The petitioners maintain that the Court in previous cases set aside tech-
nicalities, even if the parties availed of a wrong mode of appeal, to prevent
manifest injustice.19 They argue that even granting that an appeal was wrongly
availed of by the respondents as they should have filed a Petition for Review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, considering that the CA took awhile to
resolve the appeal and all the pending incidents before it, it should have set
aside the fact that respondents availed of the wrong mode of appeal and acted
upon all the motions which could have put order to the operations of Empire
Plaza Condominium instead of leaving the affairs of the corporation in limbo
up to this day.20

Petitioners insist that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion for

not acting, for a considerable length of time, on all motions and legal remedies
which they filed during the time the appeal was pending before it; that the af-
14 Id. at 34.
15 Supra note 1 at 16.
16 Lu v. Lu Ym, Sr. (Resolution), 612 Phil. 390, 408 (2009).
17 Id. at 16.
18 Rollo, pp. 396-406.
19 Id. at 399.
20 Id. at 403.
G.R. No. 231845 6

fairs of Empire Plaza Condominium are left hanging because of the unre-
solved motions that the CA did not act upon.21

The Court's Ruling

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality. To reiterate,

as aptly ruled by the CA in its assailed Resolutions, respondents availed them-
selves of the wrong mode of appeal by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 41
of the Rules of Court instead of a petition of review under Rule 43. Conse-
quently, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, and therefore, all
matters pending before the CA must be denied for being moot and academic.
The Court echoed the CA when it ruled that the parties' failure to question the
propriety of the dismissal of the case was an implied admission of respon-
dents' erroneous availment of the wrong mode of appeal.22

The Court upheld the CA when it ruled that the parties' failure to ques-
tion the propriety of the dismissal of the case was an implied admission of re-
spondents' erroneous availment of the wrong mode of appeal.23

21 Id.
22 Id. at 34.
23 Id.