cebu country club vs elizagaque 2008

8/13/2019 Cebu Country Club vs Elizagaque 2008

1/5

G.R. No. 160273 January 18, 2008

CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., SABINO R. A!AT, RUBEN . AL"ENRAS, JULIUS #. NERI,OUGLAS L. LUY", CESAR T. LIBI, RA"ONTITO*E. GARCIA an$ JOSE B. SALA,petitioners,vs.RICARO %. ELI#AGA&UE,respondent.

E C I S I O N

SANO'AL(GUTIERRE#, J.)

For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure, as amended, assailin the !ecision1dated "anuar# $1, %&&$ and Resolution dated 'cto(er %,%&&$ of the Court of )ppeals in C)+.R. C -o. 715&.

/he facts are0

Ce(u Countr# Clu(, nc. 2CCC3, petitioner, is a domestic corporation operatin as a nonprofit and nonstoc private mem(ership clu(, havin its principal place of (usiness in anilad, Ce(u Cit#. Petitionersherein are mem(ers of its oard of !irectors.

6ometime in 197, 6an 8iuel Corporation, a special compan# proprietar# mem(er of CCC, desinatedrespondent Ricardo F. li:aa;ue, its 6enior ice President and 'perations 8anaer for the isa#as and8indanao, as a special nonproprietar# mem(er. /he desination was thereafter approved (# the CCC


2/5

Counterclaims are here(# !6866! for lac of merit.

6' 'R!R!.%

'n appeal (# petitioners, the Court of )ppeals, in its !ecision dated "anuar# $1, %&&$, affirmed the trialcourt


3/5

a Proprietar# 8em(er, upon a nonrefunda(le admission fee of P1,&&&.&&, provided that admissionfees will onl# (e collected once from an# person.

'n 8arch 1, 197, 6ection $2c3 was amended to read as follows0

2c3 )fter the epiration of the aforesaid thirt# 2$&3 da#s, the oard ma#, (# unan*+ou -o/ o a$*r/or r//n a a r/4uar or /*a +//*n4, approve the inclusion of the candidate in thelii(lefor8em(ership =ist.

)s shown (# the records, the oard adopted a secret (allotin nown as the (lac (all s#stem of votinwherein each mem(er will drop a (all in the (allot (o. ) white (all represents conformit# to the admissionof an applicant, while a (lac (all means disapproval. Pursuant to 6ection $2c3, as amended, cited a(ove, aunanimous vote of the directors is re;uired. Ahen respondent


4/5

t is thus clear that respondent was left ropin in the dar wonderin wh# his application was disapproved.Be was not even informed that a unanimous vote of the oard mem(ers was re;uired. Ahen he sent aletter for reconsideration and an in;uir# whether there was an o(@ection to his application, petitionersapparentl# inored him. Certainl#, respondent did not deserve this ind of treatment. Bavin (eendesinated (# 6an 8iuel Corporation as a special nonproprietar# mem(er of CCC, he should have (eentreated (# petitioners with courtes# and civilit#. )t the ver# least, the# should have informed him wh# hisapplication was disapproved.

/he eercise of a riht, thouh leal (# itself, must nonetheless (e in accordance with the proper norm.Ahen the riht is eercised ar(itraril#, un@ustl# or ecessivel# and results in damae to another, a leal

wron is committed for which the wrondoer must (e held responsi(le.t (ears reiteratin that the trialcourt and the Court of )ppeals held that petitioners< disapproval of respondent


5/5

Puno, C.J., Cair!erson, Corona, Azcuna, "eonardo#de Castro, JJ.,concur.

cebu country club vs elizagaque 2008

Documents