

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A summary of Facts, Issue and Ruling of the case of CCCI vs Elizague
Typology: Assignments
1 / 2
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Cebu Country Club, Inc. (CCCI) et al., v. Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, January 18, 2008 FACTS:
(c) After the expiration of the aforesaid thirty (30) days, the Board may, by unanimous vote of all directors present at a regular or special meeting, approve the inclusion of the candidate in the "Eligible-for- Membership List".
In rejecting the respondent’s application for proprietary membership, the court find that petitioners violated the rules governing human relations, the basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings, and for the stability of social order. The trial court and the Court of Appeals aptly held that petitioners committed fraud and evident bad faith in disapproving the respondent’s applications. This is contrary to morals, good custom, or public policy. Hence, petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the same Code. It bears stressing that the amendment to Section 3(c) of CCCI’s Amended By-Laws requiring the unanimous vote of the directors present at a special or regular meeting was not printed on the application form respondent filled and submitted to CCCI. What was printed thereon was the original provision of Section 3(c) which was silent on the required number of votes needed for admission of an applicant as a proprietary member. Petitioners explained that the amendment was not printed on the application form due to economic reasons. The Court find this excuse flimsy and unconvincing. Such an amendment, aside from being extremely significant, was introduced way back in 1978 or almost twenty (20) years before the respondent filed his application. The petition is DENIED. The challenged Decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71506 are AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that (a) the award of moral damages is reduced from P2,000,000.00 to P50,000.00; (b) the award of exemplary damages is reduced from P1,000,000.00 to P25,000.00; and (c) the award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses is reduced from P500,000.00and P50,000.00 to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively.