G.R. No.

181416 November 11, 2013

MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM

CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
ROBERT H. CULLEN, Respondent.

Respondent Cullen purchased from MLHI condominium Unit

of the Medical Plaza Makati.
On September 19, 2002 MPMCC, demanded from respondent
payment for alleged unpaid association dues and
assessments . Cullen disputed this demand claiming that
he had been religiously paying his dues shown by the
fact that he was previously elected president and
director of petitioner. Consequently, Cullen was
prevented from exercising his right to vote and be
voted for during the 2002 election of petitioner’s
Board of Directors. Aggrieved, Cullen filed a complaint
for damages.,

MPMCC move for the dismissal of the complaint raising

several grounds that include, lack of jurisdiction of
the RTC as the case involves an intra-corporate
controversy. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss.

Contrary to the RTC conclusion, the CA held that the

controversy is an ordinary civil action for damages
which falls within the jurisdiction of regular courts.

Held :

Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over

the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations in the complaint which
comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action.
The nature of an action, as well as which court or body
has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the
plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and
the character of the relief sought are the ones to be
consulted.

Admittedly, petitioner is a condominium corporation

duly organized and existing under Philippine laws,
charged with the management of the Medical Plaza
Makati. Respondent, on the other hand, is the
registered owner of Unit No. 1201 and is thus a
stockholder/member of the condominium corporation.
Clearly, there is an intra-corporate relationship
between the corporation and a stockholder/member.

Though denominated as an action for damages, an

examination of the allegations made by respondent in
his complaint shows that the case principally dwells on
the propriety of the assessment made by petitioner
against respondent as well as the validity of
petitioner’s act in preventing respondent from
participating in the election of the corporation’s
Board of Directors. Respondent contested the alleged
unpaid dues and assessments demanded by petitioner.

The decision of CA was reversed. The case was REMANDED

to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City for re-raffle purposes among the designated
special commercial courts.