DEE v. HARVEST ALL INVESTMENT

JONATHAN Y. DEE versus et al. HARVEST ALL INVESTMENT LTD et al.

G.R. No. 224834/G.R. No. 224871

March 15, 2017

Facts:

Harvest All Investment Ltd is a minority stock holder of Alliance Select Food International. Jonathan Y. Dee is a majority stock holder of the said company. Jonathan Y. Dee along with other Board Members passed a Board Resolution to postpone the Annual Stockholder's Meeting indefinitely with the company shares total of P1 billion. This prompted Harvest All to file a complaint with a request for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and to nullify the Board Resolution of the Board Members as this Board Resolution would deprive Harvest All of their rights to vote on the Annual Stockholder's Meeting. The complaint also includes Harvest All’s opinion that there may be an intra-corporate controversy by B. RTC clerk of court assessed A with filing fees of P8, 860 which A paid accordingly. B now contests the validity of the complaint as A should have paid P20 million or so based on the SRO of P1 billion as A’s complaint is about intra-corporate controversy.

Issues:

Whether or not Harvest All paid the correct filing fees for the complaint which Jonathan Y. Dee says should be based on the P1 billion SRO.

Held:

Yes. Harvest All paid the correct filing fees. In Cabrera v. Francisco, the Court laid down the parameters in determining whether an action is considered capable of pecuniary estimation or not: In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the Courts of First Instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by Courts of First Instance.

Harvest All, et al.'s Complaint reveals that its main purpose is to have Alliance hold its 2015 ASM on the date set in the corporation's bylaws, or at the time when Alliance's SRO has yet to fully materialize, so that their voting interest with the corporation would somehow be preserved and the complaint does not involve the recovery of sum of money. Therefore, Harvest All paid the correct filing fees.