3. Mobilia Products vs Umezawa

G.R. No. 149357. March 04, 2005 MOBILIA

INC.,  Petitioners,

PRODUCTS,

vs. HAJIME UMEZAWA, Respondent. G.R. No. 149403. March 04, 2005 PEOPLE

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioners,

vs. HON. JUDGE RUMOLDO R. FERNANDEZ and HAJIME UMEZAWA, Responde

Umezawa, then the President and General Manager of MPI, organized another company with his wifeKimiko, and his sister, Mitsuyo Yaguchi, to be known as Astem Philippines Corporation, withoutknowledge of the Board of Directors of MPI. The said company would be engaged in the same businessas Mobilia. Umezawa stole products from MPI amounting to P3,219,875.00.MPI and public prosecutor filed criminal complaints against Umezawa. The trial court asserted that thecontroversy involving the criminal cases was between Umezawa and the other stockholders of MPI. It also held that the SEC, not the trial court, had jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies.CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the dispute between Umezawa and the other stockholders and officers over the implementation of the MPI’s standard procedure is intra-corporate in nature; hence,within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC. The petitioner MPI filed the instant petition for review oncertiorari .ISSUE:WON CA is correct. HELD:Patently, then, based on the material allegations of the Informations, the courta quo had exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes charged. CA erred in holding that the dispute between it and an d the th e resp re spon onde dent ntis is intra-corpor intra-corporate ate in nature; nature; hence, within within the the exclusive exclusive jurisdicti jurisdiction on of the SEC. As gleaned gleaned from from thematerial thematerial allegations allegati ons of the Informations, Informati ons, the RTC had ha d exclusive exclusiv e jurisdiction jurisdi ction over the th e crime cri mescharged. scharged. According According to Section Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129 Regional Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exercise exclusive exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body,except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whichshall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.Case law has it that in order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint orInformation must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out thereinand the prescribed period provided for by law are within the jurisdiction of the court, and where thesaid Information or complaint is filed. It is settled that the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases isdetermined by the allegations of the complaint or Information and not by the findings based on theevidence of the court after trial. Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by the law in forceat the time of the filing of the Information or complaint. Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it isretained up to the end of the litigation.