You are on page 1of 2


3 consolidated petitions :
153690-petition for review on certiorari from a decision of the CA dismissing complaint filed
before RTC for non-compliance on non-forum shopping;
157381-petition for review on certiorari from CA decision ordering RTC to desist from
conducting proceedings relating to receivership over LLDC
170899-special civil action for certiorari and prohibition over CA Resolutions denying their
application for WPI; denying their MR; and further referring resolution on the issue of docket
(*note: will focus on G.R. 170899)

LLDC -family corporation founded by Paterno Sr. (one of the parties) and his brothers (fathers
of Rosa, Silvano and David)
LLDC BOD issued 600k unsubscribed and unissued shares for 100 per share which Paterno and
sons mostly paid
David Lu-stocks were issued for less than their values
Hence, complaint by David, Rosa, Silvano and CL Corp against Paterno and sons

1. RTC CEBU- complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Share Issue, Receivership and Dissolution
filed by David, et al.
Paterno, et al: (1) Motion to dismiss (non compliance with required signatures for
certificate of non-forum sopping)  DENIED by RTC; substantial compliance |
(2) Motion to place LLDC under receivership  GRANTED by RTC
2. CA- appeal by Paterno, et al  DISMISSED (verification and certify of non-forum
shopping only signed by two petitioners) |  GRANTED upon MR; dismissed David’s
petition and annulled resolutions placing LLDC under receivership | MR by David 
DENIED | Hence, SC- G.R. NO. 153690 by David, et al.
3. SRC- Manifestation and Motion to lit receivership order over LLDC by Lu, et al. (pending)
4. CA- Special civic action for certiorari and prohibition with urgent application for TRO and WPI
by David, et al.  issued temporary TRO, until final granted TRO | Hence, G.R. NO.
157381 by Lu, et al.
5. RTC CEBU-Motion to Admit Complaint to conform to the interim rules governing intra-
corporate controversies  ADMITTED | RTC  annulled issuance of LLDC’s 600k shares
of stocks; ordered dissolution of LLDC and liquidation of assets
*appeal by Lu, et al before CA + prayer for issuance of TRO  CA issued TRO but
denied WPI |
MR by Lu, et al.  questioned sufficiency of docket fees paid by David, et al | CA 
DENIED | Hence, G.R. NO. 170889 BY Lu, et al.
6. SUPREME COURT (IN G.R. 170889)
 WON RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter for failure of respondents to
pay correct docket fees in filing of original complaint
 RTC has jurisdiction.
 Purpose of filing fees: to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases
 Case originally instituted before RTC is incapable of pecuniary estimation; hence,
the correct docket fees were paid
 Lu, et al estopped from questioning jurisdiction of RTC because of their active
participation in the proceedings, and because the issue of payment of insufficient
docket fees had been belatedly raised before the CA only in their MR
 Even if docket fees were inadequate, mistake is with Clerk of Court, not David
(good faith); deficiency to be considered a lien on the judgment