G.R. NO. 148026 - STRONGWORLD CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, LEO CLETO A. GAMOLO, AND REYNOLD P. MOLO,VS. HON. N.C. PERELLO IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 276 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, FIRST PEOPLE'S BANK, BANK OF COMMERCE, ORLANDO O. FRANCISCO, AND EDITHA LIZARDA.D E

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered as follows: Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff Strongworld, jointly and severally, the amount of P5,085,615.22 constituting the value of plaintiff corporation's checks, and P3,000,000.00, constituting lost profits, interest and other expenses which resulted by reason of the illegal acts of defendants. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, a) P3,000,000.00 by way of moral damages divided as follows: i) plaintiff Gamolo P1,500,000.00, ii) plaintiff Molo P750,000.00, and iii) plaintiff Strongworld P750,000.00; b) P100,000.00 exemplary damages; and c) P200,000.00 attorney's fees. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. [8] On 2 December 1997, private respondent Bank of Commerce filed an Answer with Cross-Claim, [9] praying for the dismissal of the Complaint. Subsequent thereto, private respondent Lizarda filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim, [10] dated 12 December 1997. On 11 December 1997, private respondent First People's Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss [11] on the grounds that petitioners Gamolo and Molo had no legal capacity to sue, and that the Complaint stated no cause of action. On 9 January 1998, petitioners filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. [12] On 9 January 1998, the court a quo rendered an Order [13] dismissing the Complaint. We quote the pertinent portion hereunder: From the allegations of the COMPLAINT, it appears that money sought to be recovered belongs to the Corporation and who allegedly was damaged due to the unauthorized expenditure of this sum. Therefore, Plaintiff Leo Cleto A. Gamolo and Reynaldo P. Molo, although, admittedly are officers of the corporation appear to have instituted this action for and in behalf of the corporation, yet their authority to sue or defend the corporation has not been shown in this COMPLAINT. No Board Resolution for this purpose has been attached or recited in it. Thus this complaint is not prosecuted by the proper property in interest. [14] On 30 January 1998, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration [15] which was opposed by private respondent First People's Bank. [16] On 30 March 1998, the trial court granted petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, and consequently, ordered the case reinstated. [17] According to the court a quo , the board resolution authorizing petitioner Gamolo to prosecute the case in behalf of petitioner Strongworld was defective for not having been authenticated by the proper officer. [18] However, notwithstanding the defect in the resolution, the court a quo held that the intention of petitioner Strongworld to authorize Gamolo to prosecute the case against private respondents is clear. [19] On 30 April 1998, private respondent First People's Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration [20] of the 30 March 1998 Order, praying for the dismissal of the Complaint. On 25 May 1998, petitioners belatedly filed an Opposition [21] the