Phil. Stock Exchange v.

Manila Bank (2008)

Note: Guys, the facts of the case are sketchy
Doctrine: The complaint should contain a concise statement of ultimate facts.
Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon which
rest the existence of the cause of action. The term does not refer to details of
probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material elements.
Facts:
1980: Manila Bank obtained seat No. 97 in Manila Stock Exchange
from Recio as payment for indebtedness
o MSE refused to register the Seat under Manila Bank as only its
by-laws allow only individuals or corporations engaged primarily in
the business of stocks and bonds brokers and dealers in securities to
be a member or to hold a seat in the MSE.
o Manila Bank and MSE agreed that an issuance of an
Acknowledgment Letter (AL) recognizing the legal or naked ownership
of, or proprietary right of Manila Bank over MSE Seat No. 97
o AL was issued in 1996
However, 2 years prior (1994) to the issuance of the AL, MSE merged
with Makati Stock Exchange forming the Phil. Stock Exchange (PSE)
In 1994, PSE issued to Recio a certificate of membership Member No. 29.
Manila Bank sought the PSE to rectify the listing of Recio as a member and
that it is actually Manila Bank which owns proprietary rights over PSE Seat
No. 29
PSE refused repeatedly, hence, Manila Bank filed a Petition for
Mandamus with Claim for damages
PSE filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground that performance of a duty
which required the use of discretion cannot be compelled by
Mandamus
SEC en banc and CA dismissed PSEs MTD. PSE then filed a petition for
Certiorari (mali daw ito sabi ng SC because Certiorari is for questioning
jurisdiction while, MTD cannot also be subject of an appeal as there
was )
WON:
1. Manila Banks petition stated a cause of action against petitioner PSE? - YES
2. The remedy of mandamus was proper? - YES

HELD:

A careful study of the petition of respondent Manila Bank reveals that the factual
allegations therein sufficiently make out a case of fraud, misrepresentation and bad
faith against petitioners.
Among the salient allegations were:
(1)
The previous MSE had already recognized the legal or naked ownership to
MSE Seat No. 97, yet PSE unjustifiably refused to recognize the
corresponding seat in the PSE after the merger
(2)
Manila Banks predecessor-in-interest, Mr. Roberto K. Recio was issued a
Certificate of Membership by the PSE
(3)
Mr. Recio was consistently listed as member of the PSE in the PSEs
Monthly Report.
These allegations would suffice to constitute a cause of action against
petitioners.
General rule: performance of an official act or duty, which necessarily involves
the exercise of discretion or judgment, cannot be compelled by mandamus.
o Except: where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or
palpable excess of authority
PSE does not dispute that MSE Seat No. 97 became PSE Seat No. 29