Scribd
Upload
17 views1 page

Perplexity

In the case of Ruben Saw et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., the Supreme Court ruled that stockholders lacked a direct legal interest necessary for intervention in a lawsuit regarding unpaid loans by Freeman, Inc. The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution despite an appeal from the stockholders. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of intervention and the writ of execution.

Uploaded by

mwashiiie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views1 page

Perplexity

In the case of Ruben Saw et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., the Supreme Court ruled that stockholders lacked a direct legal interest necessary for intervention in a lawsuit regarding unpaid loans by Freeman, Inc. The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution despite an appeal from the stockholders. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of intervention and the writ of execution.

Uploaded by

mwashiiie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

mwashiiie27844 **Title:** *Ruben Saw et al. vs.

Co… Share

Send them as a whole just make the facts and ruling short
New Thread ⌘ K

Answer

Home Case Digest: Ruben Saw et al. v. Court of Appeals et al. (G.R. No.
90580)
Discover
Title: Ruben Saw, Dionisio Saw, Lina S. Chua, Lucila S. Ruste, and
Spaces Evelyn Saw v. Court of Appeals and Equitable Banking Corporation

Library Doctrine:
Intervention under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court
**Title:** *Ruben Saw et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al.*
requires a direct, material, and immediate interest in the litigation.
G.R. No. 90580. April 08, 1991 (Case Brief / Digest)
Stockholders’ rights to corporate assets are inchoate (contingent on
corporate dissolution and debt se!lement) and do not satisfy this
requirement.

Facts:

Equitable Banking sued Freeman, Inc. and its President (Saw


Chiao Lian) over unpaid loans.

Petitioners (Freeman stockholders) sought intervention, claiming


unauthorized loans and collusion.

After a failed compromise, Freeman’s properties were auctioned


via court-ordered execution.

Issues:

1. Did the petitioners have a legal interest justifying intervention?

2. Did the trial court retain jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution
Try Pro after the petitioners appealed?
Upgrade for image upload,
Ruling:
smarter AI, and more Pro
Search. 1. Intervention Denied: Stockholders’ interest is indirect and
Learn More contingent, lacking direct legal interest for intervention.

2. Jurisdiction Upheld: Trial court retained authority to issue the writ


of execution despite the appeal.
mwashiiie278…
4 Outcome: The Supreme Court a"rmed the denial of intervention and
upheld Ask follow-up
the writ of execution.
Download
Key Citations:

You might also like