Tiêu đề Pros. Garcia 2025 Prelims.pdf ✅

to sabotage Tullett by orchestrating the mass resignation of its brokering staff to join Tradition Philippines. The complaint detailed meetings held to convince Tullett's brokers to resign and join Tradition, asserting that the actions of the petitioners and their co-respondents constituted disloyalty and conspiracy under Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code, which made them criminally liable under Section 144 of the Code. ● In response, Schulze contended that the Corporation Code does not expressly provide that the provisions of the RPC shall be made suppletorily. Schulze also claimed that the resignations of Tullett's employees were done out of their own free will and is part of their right as employees to have “free choice of employment”. Tullett said that the resignation of Tullett employees was an orchestrated plan and not simply because they want to find better employment and argued that Section 144 applies to all other violations of the Corporation Code without exception. ● Petitioners stressed that Tradition Philippines was set up for legitimate business purposes and Tullett employees who signed with Tradition did so out of their own free will and without any force, intimidation, pressure or inducement on the Petitioners’ part. lent claimed that (a) there could be no violation of Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation as these sections refer to corporate acts or corporate opportunity; (b) Section 144 of the same Code cannot be applied to Sections 31 and 34 which already contains the penalties or remedies for their violation; and (c) conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied to the Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code. Prosecutor Delos Trinos found that since Villalon and Chuidian did not commit any acts in violation of Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code, the charge of conspiracy against Schulze and lent had no basis. RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS: Tullett filed a petition for review with the DOJ Secretary to assail the resolution of the City Prosecutor. ● However, the Secretary of Justice issued resolutions on April 23 and May 15, 2009, finding probable cause to hold the petitioners criminally liable. ● The petitioners contested these findings, leading to a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Secretary's resolutions on August 12, 2009. The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether Section 144 of the Corporation Code can be applied to Sections 31 and 34 of the same statute, which will make the petitioners criminally liable. (NO) RULING: The Supreme Court found that there was no clear legislative intent to criminalize violations of Sections 31 and 34. The Court emphasized that the Corporation Code