You are on page 1of 1

Mathay vs Consolidated Bank o Such persons be so numerous to make it

Background of the case: class suit impracticable to bring them all to the court
Petitioners: - Petitioners failed to state the number of said CMI
- They were stockholders in Consolidated Mines Inc (CMI) subscribing stockholders that they represent.
- As stockholders, they made a resolution that would create - Common or general interest in the subject matter of the
the Consolidated Bank & Trust Co and that all stockholders controversy = things, real or personal, the money, lands,
of the CMI would be entitled to subscribe to the capital etc and not the delict or wrong committed
stock of the proposed Bank - Jurisprudence: class suit would not lie against 319
- They alleged that they subscribed to a very substantial defendants INDIVIDUALLY occupying different portions of
amount of shares to the proposed Bank. However, they a big parcel of land, where each defendant had an interest
and other CMI subscribing stockholders who had already only in the particular portion he was occupying
subscribed were excluded. o Common or general interest relates in single
- In short, they aver that they were deprived of their rights specific things and not to distinct ones
to subscribe to the capital stock of Consolidated Bank & - In this case, the portions of the stocks were several, not
Trust, Co. As such, they filed a complaint in the form of a common or general
class suit. o The wrong suffered by each of them constitute a
wrong separate from those suffered by other
The RTC denied the petition because a class suit could not be stockholders and those wrongs would not create
maintained. This is because the petitioners were not that common or general interest
sufficiently numerous and representative and that the No cause of action
complaint failed to state a cause of action. Thus, the instant - There is no cause of action
petition was instituted. - The petitioners failed to allege specific facts to show that
they were qualified under the law to become
Contention of the Petitioners: stockholders. Their entitlement to own stocks does not
- The instant action could be maintained. mean that they are qualified to become stockholders of
- That the propriety of a class suit should be determined by the Bank. There are some qualifications that they should
the common interest in the subject matter of the meet first.
controversy. - They did not even allege the amount of shares of stock to
o That there existed such common interest which which they claimed they were entitled.
consisted not only in the recovery of shares
which the petitioners were unlawfully deprived
but also in divesting the respondents the control
of the Bank
- The test of determining the legal standing of a party to
institute a class suit was not the number but whether or
not the interest of said party was representative of the
persons in whose behalf the class suit was instituted
o There are 4 petitioners and 4 intervenors
o There are also many other stockholders similarly
situated with them

Contention of the Respondents:

Propriety of class suit
- Stressed that as a class suit, the petitioners did not sue in
their individual capacities for the protection of their
individual interests
- The petitioners of record could not be considered
numerous and representative as they were only 4 out of
1500 stockholders owning 8 shares out of 80,000
o Even if we add the intevenors
- The petitioners failed to allege facts showing that the
plaintiff were sufficiently numerous and representative

Supreme Court:
- Necessary elements for the maintenance of class suit:
o That the subject matter of the controversy be
one of common or general interest to many