[G.R. No. 170844. March 13, 2006]

MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER v. ANTONIO MERELOS, MANUEL PARRAS, JOSE M. DE VERA, RONALDO SALONGA, RANDOLPH DACANAY, RENE SAGUISAG, MANUEL NIETO, JR., ENRIQUE LOCSIN, MANUEL ANDAL, LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., ALMA KRISTINA ALLOBA, SIKINI LABASTILLA

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 13, 2006

G.R. No. 170844 (Ma. Erlinda I. Bildner v. Antonio Merelos, Manuel Parras, Jose M. De Vera, Ronaldo Salonga, Randolph Dacanay, Rene Saguisag, Manuel Nieto, Jr., Enrique Locsin, Manuel Andal, Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Alma Kristina Alloba, Sikini Labastilla)

This treats of the Petition for Contempt dated November 23, 2005 filed by Ma. Erlinda I. Bildner, praying that respondents Antonio Merelos, Manuel Parras, Jose M. de Vera, Ronaldo Salonga, Randolph Dacanay, Rene Saguisag, Manuel Nieto, Jr., Enrique Locsin, Manuel Andal, and Attys. Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Alma Kristina Alloba, and Sikini Labastilla be declared in contempt of court for allegedly misleading the Court into issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) in G.R. Nos. 141796 and 141804[1] and the Sandiganbayan into issuing a TRO in SB Civil Case No. 0198. Petitioner further prays that respondents Nieto, Locsin, Andal, and Attys. Lokin, Jr., Alloba, and Labastilla be restrained from acting and representing themselves to be directors and/or officers of Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat), and that she, together with Victor V. Africa, Honorio A. Poblador III, Katrina Ponce-Enrile, Rafael A. Poblador, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino, Guy S. de Leon, and Victoria C. delos Reyes, be declared the legitimate directors and officers of POTC.

Bildner avers that on June 8, 1998, the Sandiganbayan, in Civil Case No. 0009, approved a Compromise Agreement between her father, Atty. Potenciano T. Ilusorio (llusorio), and the Philippine Government concerning the ownership of certain POTC shares, whereby llusorio recognized the Government's ownership of 4,727 POTC shares and the Government, in turn, recognized Ilusorio's ownership of 673 POTC shares.

Allegedly, on August 28, 1998, the group headed by Nieto conducted a meeting and elected a set of directors and officers of Philcomsat, a company fully-owned by POTC. Consequently, the absent stockholders filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) assailing the lack of notice, quorum and qualifying shares of the directors and officers then elected. The SEC issued a TRO and later, a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining those elected during the August 28, 1998 meeting from acting and representing themselves to be directors and officers of Philcomsat.

In accordance with the Compromise Agreement, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution on December 20, 1999 declaring "all POTC shares in the name of Mid-Pasig and IRC as null and void" and directing the issuance of 673 shares in the name of llusorio and 4,727 shares in the name of the Government. The order was carried out by POTC Corporate Secretary Atty. delos Reyes.

In the meantime, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Nieto group questioned before this Court the December 20, 1999 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in G.R. Nos. 141796 and 141804. According to Bildner, the PCGG and the Nieto group intentionally and maliciously omitted to state in their petitions the fact that Atty. delos Reyes had already complied with the Sandiganbayan Resolution. This omission allegedly misled the Court into issuing a TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from executing its Resolution.

On June 15, 2005, the Court rendered a Decision affirming the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan and dismissing the petitions in G.R. Nos. 141796 and 141804 for lack of merit. The separate motions for reconsideration were denied with finality on September 7, 2005.

On September 22, 2005, a new set of directors and officers were allegedly elected, with petitioner as the Chairman of the Board of both POTC and Philcomsat. Subsequently, a TRO was issued by the Sandiganbayan upon a Complaint filed by Locsin and Atty. Labastilla in SB Civil Case No. 0198. The latter allegedly omitted mention of the fact that the Decision of this Court in G.R. Nos. 141796 and 141804 had already attained finality.

It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action and hence, the jurisdiction of the court, are the allegations of the pleading and the character of the relief sought.[2]

In this case, the petition, styled as a Petition for Contempt, contains conjunctive prayers to restrain respondents from acting and representing themselves as the directors and officers of POTC and Philcomsat, and to declare petitioner, together with certain other people, as the legitimately-elected directors and officers of POTC. Even as she claims that respondents' alleged misrepresentation in their pleadings filed with this Court and the Sandiganbayan warrant a citation for contempt, petitioner would also have the Court adjudicate the rights of the rival factions in POTC and Philcomsat by restraining one group from acting as directors and officers and, at the same time, declaring another group as the legitimate directors and officers of POTC.

This is a hybridized petition combining averments in injunction, declaratory relief, and contempt proceedings and allegations of an intra-corporate dispute proper for initial determination by another tribunal. We must say that petitioner cannot delegate to the Court the task of determining under which Rule her petition should fall.[3]

As an original petition for injunction, the case must fail as injunction by itself and independent of a primary remedy, is not among the cases and proceedings originally cognizable by this Court. Section 1, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) specifies what cases may be filed originally in the Supreme Court. It states:

Sec. 1. Original cases cognizable.—Only petitions for certiorari prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme Court.

While we may have previously relaxed the application of this Rule, such is only proper if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of the Court's jurisdiction.[4] The circumstances of this case do not persuade us to suspend the operation of the Rules.

Neither are we inclined to accept jurisdiction by treating the prayer for injunction as a proper ancillary remedy either to the petition for declaratory relief or to the petition for contempt. The special civil action of declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.[5] The instant petition, directly filed with this Court invoking its original jurisdiction, should therefore fail.

As regards the petition for contempt, it should be noted that the contempt allegedly committed by respondents was against the Supreme Court and the Sandiganbayan. In People v. De Luna, et al.,[6] where the acts of contempt committed by the appellees consisted in taking their oaths as lawyers despite having failed the Bar examinations, the Court held that it can forego its concurrent jurisdiction over the contemptuous acts of the appellees and prefer that action be taken by the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Parenthetically, there is no other case pending before the Court involving the same parties and issues to which we can consider the prayer for injunction in this case as an ancillary remedy.[7]

For these reasons, the prayer for injunction both as an original and ancillary remedy should be denied. The prayer for declaration of petitioner, together with Victor V. Africa, Honorio A. Poblador III, Katrina Ponce-Enrile, Rafael A. Poblador, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino, Guy S. de Leon, and Victoria C. delos Reyes, as the legitimate directors and officers of POTC should also be denied for lack of jurisdiction. As regards the petition for contempt, considering that this Court and the Sandiganbayan both have a right to try and punish the guilty parties, the Court elects not to exercise its jurisdiction over the acts of contempt in question and instead, refer the case to the Sandiganbayan for investigation and appropriate action.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED insofar as it prays that the Court: (1) restrain respondents Manuel Nieto, Jr., Enrique Locsin, Manuel Andal, Attys. Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Alma Kristina Alloba, and Sikini Labastilla, including their representatives, assigns and all persons acting for and on their behalf, from acting and representing themselves as directors and/or officers of POTC and Philcomsat; and (2) declare that petitioner Erlinda I. Bildner, Victor V. Africa, Honorio A. Poblador III, Katrina Ponce-Enrile, Rafael A. Poblador, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino, Guy S. de Leon, and Victoria C. delos Reyes are the true and legitimate directors and officers of POTC.

The Petition for Contempt is hereby REFERRED to the Sandiganbayan for investigation and appropriate action.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

[1] G.R. No. 141796 is entitled Republic of the. Philippines represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan and Potenciano T llusorio substituted by Ma. Erlinda llusorio Bildner. G.R. No. 141804 is entitled Independent Realty Corporation and Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation v. Sandiganbayan and Potenciano T. llusorio substituted by Ma Erlinda llusorio Bildner. The two cases were consolidated. The Decision of the Court attained finality on September 22, 2005.

[2] Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. Nos. 138298 and 138982, November 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 485.

[3] Chua v. Santos, G.R. No. 132467, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 365.

[4] Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, supra.

[5] Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay, G.R. No. 137538, September 3, 2001, 364 SCRA 281.

[7] The Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division reported that the case cannot be consolidated with G.R. No. 166984 entitled Nieto Manuel, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, there being no common issues and parties in the two cases. Report dated February 21, 2006.