Practice question
A complaint calls itself derivative but asserts only the plaintiff's personal contract claim and requests payment solely to that plaintiff. It also omits the corporation's name as the party whose cause is enforced. What is the proper analysis?
- The title automatically transforms the claim.
- The court must examine the actual cause and relief; a label does not establish a derivative suit or its requirements.
- Every personal contract becomes corporate once shares are bought.
- Omission of the corporate cause is always irrelevant.
- Only the plaintiff can decide the legal nature conclusively.
Legal references
- Tan v. Suntay, GR260170, May19 2025, main resolution, Rule8 Section1 IRPIC: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260170_2025.html
- Metropolitan Bank v. Salazar Realty, GR218738, March9 2022, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_218738_2022.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.