CASE
DOCTRINES IN CORPORATION LAW (part II)
Prepared
by Glenn Rey D. Anino
Ang
mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K. saBansang Pilipinas,
Inc. vs. Iglesia ng Dios Kay Cristo Jesus, 372 SCRA 171 , December 12, 2001
Corporation Law; Actions;
Prescription; The failure of a party to raise prescription before the
Securities and Exchange Commission can only be construed as a waiver of that
defense.—Likewise,
the issue of prescription, which petitioner raised for the first time on appeal
to the Court of Appeals, is untenable. Its failure to raise prescription before
the SEC can only be construed as a waiver of that defense. At any rate, the SEC
has the authority to de-register at all times and under all circumstances
corporate names which in its estimation are likely to spawn confusion. It is
the duty of the SEC to prevent confusion in the use of corporate names not only
for the protection of the corporations involved but more so for the protection
of the public.
Same; Corporate
Names; Parties organizing a corporation must choose a name at their peril.—Parties organizing a
corporation must choose a name at their peril; and the use of a name similar to
one adopted by another corporation, whether a business or a nonprofit
organization, if misleading or likely to injure in the exercise of its
corporate functions, regardless of intent, may be prevented by the corporation
having a prior right, by a suit for injunction against the new corporation to
prevent the use of the name.
Same; Same; Words
and Phrases; The additional words in a corporation’s name—“Ang Mga Kaanib” and
“Sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc.”—which are merely descriptive of and also referring
to the members, or kaanib, of a preexisting corporation who are likewise
residing in the Philippines, can hardly serve as an effective differentiating
medium necessary to avoid confusion or difficulty in distinguishing the former
from the latter.—The
additional words “Ang Mga Kaanib” and “Sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc.” in
petitioner’s name are, as correctly observed by the SEC, merely descriptive of
and also referring to the members, or kaanib, of respondent who are likewise
residing in the Philippines. These words can hardly serve as an effective
differentiating medium necessary to avoid confusion or difficulty in
distinguishing petitioner from respondent. This is especially so, since both
petitioner and respondent corporations are using the same acronym—H.S.K.; not
to mention the fact that both are espousing religious beliefs and operating in
the same place. Parenthetically, it is well to mention that the acronym H.S.K.
used by petitioner stands for “Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan.”
Same; Same; Same;
The only difference between the corporate names of petitioner and respondent
are the words “Saligan” and “Suhay,” which words are synonymous—both mean
ground, foundation or support.—Significantly,
the only difference between the corporate names of petitioner and respondent
are the words SALIGAN and SUHAY. These words are synonymous—both mean ground, foundation
or support. Hence, this case is on all fours with Universal Mills Corporation
v. Universal Textile Mills, Inc., where the Court ruled that the corporate
names Universal Mills Corporation and Universal Textile Mills, Inc., are
undisputably so similar that even under the test of “reasonable care and
observation” confusion may arise.
Same; Same;
Freedom of Religion; Ordering a religious society or corporation to change its
corporate name is not a violation of its constitutionally guaranteed right to
religious freedom.—We
need not belabor the fourth issue raised by petitioner. Certainly, ordering
petitioner to change its corporate name is not a violation of its
constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom. In so doing, the SEC
merely compelled petitioner to abide by one of the SEC guidelines in the
approval of partnership and corporate names, namely its undertaking to manifest
its willingness to change its corporate name in the event another person, firm,
or entity has acquired a prior right to the use of the said firm name or one
deceptively or confusingly similar to it.
Hyatt
Elevators and Escalators Corporation vs. Goldstar Elevators, Phils., Inc., 473
SCRA 705 , October 24, 2005
Corporation Law;
Domicile; The residence or domicile of a juridical person is fixed by “the law
creating or recognizing” it.—It
now becomes apparent that the residence or domicile of a juridical person is
fixed by “the law creating or recognizing” it. Under Section 14(3) of the
Corporation Code, the place where the principal office of the corporation is to
be located is one of the required contents of the articles of incorporation,
which shall be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Civil Procedure;
Actions; Venue; It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal
actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses
subject to regulation by the Rules of Court.—Indeed, it is a legal truism that the rules on the
venue of personal actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and
their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the principle that choosing the
venue of an action is not left to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is
regulated by the Rules of Court. Allowing petitioner’s arguments may lead precisely
to what this Court was trying to avoid in Young Auto Supply Company v. CA: the
creation of confusion and untold inconveniences to party litigants.
Philips
Export B.V. vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 457 , February 21, 1992
Corporation Law;
Trademarks; A corporation’s right to use its corporate and trade name is a
property right, a right in rem which it may assert and protect against the
world in the same manner as it may protect its tangible property, real or
personal against trespass or conversion.—As early as Western Equipment and Supply Co. v.
Reyes, 51 Phil. 115 (1927), the Court declared that a corporation’s right to
use its corporate and trade name is a property right, a right in rem, which it
may assert and protect against the world in the same manner as it may protect
its tangible property, real or personal, against trespass or conversion. It is
regarded, to a certain extent, as a property right and one which cannot be
impaired or defeated by subsequent appropriation by another corporation in the
same field.
Same; Same; Same;
The general rule as to corporations is that each corporation must have a name
by which it is to sue and be sued and do all legal acts.—A name is peculiarly important
as necessary to the very existence of a corporation (American Steel Foundries
vs. Robertson, 269 US 372, 70 L ed 317, 46 S Ct 160; Lauman vs. Lebanon Valley
R. Co., 30 Pa 42; First National Bank vs. Huntington Distilling Co. 40 W Va
530, 23 SE 792). Its name is one of its attributes, an element of its existence,
and essential to its identity (6 Fletcher [Perm Ed], pp. 3-4). The general rule
as to corporations is that each corporation must have a name by which it is to
sue and be sued and do all legal acts. The name of a corporation in this
respect designates the corporation in the same manner as the name of an
individual designates the person (Cincinnati Cooperage Co. vs. Bate, 96 Ky 356,
26 SW 538; Newport Mechanics Mfg. Co. vs. Starbird, 10 NH 123); and the right
to use its corporate name is as much a part of the corporate franchise as any
other privilege granted.
Same; Same; Same;
A corporation can no more use a corporate name in violation of the rights of
others than an individual can use his name legally acquired so as to mislead
the public and injure another.—A
corporation acquires its name by choice and need not select a name identical
with or similar to one already appropriated by a senior corporation while an
individual’s name is thrust upon him (See Standard Oil Co. of New Mexico, Inc.
v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 56 F 2d 973, 977). A corporation can no more
use a corporate name in violation of the rights of others than an individual
can use his name legally acquired so as to mislead the public and injure
another.
Same; Same; Same;
The right to the exclusive use of a corporate name with freedom from
infringement by similarity is determined by priority of adoption.—The right to the exclusive use
of a corporate name with freedom from infringement by similarity is determined
by priority of adoption (1 Thompson, p. 80 citing Munn v. Americana Co., 82 N.,
Eq. 63, 88 Atl. 30; San Francisco Oyster House v. Mihich, 75 Wash. 274; 134
Pac. 921). In this regard, there is no doubt with respect to Petitioners’ prior
adoption of the name “PHILIPS” as part of its corporate name. Petitioners
Philips Electrical and Philips Industrial were incorporated on 29 August 1956
and 25 May 1956, respectively, while Respondent Standard Philips was issued a
Certificate of Registration on 19 April 1982, twenty-six (26) years later
(Rollo, p. 16). Petitioner PEBV has also used the trademark “PHILIPS” on
electrical lamps of all types and their accessories since 30 September 1922, as
evidenced by Certificate of Registration No. 1651.
Same; Same; Same;
In determining the existence of confusing similarity in corporate name, the
test is whether the similarity is such as to mislead a person using ordinary
care and discrimination.—The
second requisite no less exists in this case. In determining the existence of
confusing similarity in corporate names, the test is whether the similarity is
such as to mislead a person using ordinary care and discrimination. In so
doing, the Court must look to the record as well as the names themselves (Ohio
Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Ohio Life Ins. Co., 210 NE 2d 298). While the corporate
names of Petitioners and Private Respondent are not identical, a reading of
Petitioner’s corporate names, to wit: PHILIPS EXPORT B.V., PHILIPS ELECTRICAL
LAMPS, INC. and PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., inevitably leads one to
conclude that “PHILIPS” is, indeed, the dominant word in that all the companies
affiliated or associated with the principal corporation, PEBV, are known in the
Philippines and abroad as the PHILIPS Group of Companies.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; It is settled that proof of actual confusion need not be shown; It
suffices that confusion is probably or likely to occur.—Respondents maintain, however,
that Petitioners did not present an iota of proof of actual confusion or
deception of the public much less a single purchaser of their product who has
been deceived or confused or showed any likelihood of confusion. It is settled,
however, that proof of actual confusion need not be shown. It suffices that
confusion is probably or likely to occur.
Same; Same; Same;
A corporation has an exclusive right to the use of its name which may be
protected by injunction upon a principle similar to that upon which persons are
protected in the use of trademarks and tradenames.—What is lost sight of, however,
is that PHILIPS is a trademark or trade name which was registered as far back
as 1922. Petitioners, therefore, have the exclusive right to its use which must
be free from any infringement by similarity. A corporation has an exclusive
right to the use of its name, which may be protected by injunction upon a
principle similar to that upon which persons are protected in the use of
trademarks and tradenames (18 C.J.S 574). Such principle proceeds upon the
theory that it is a fraud on the corporation which has acquired a right to that
name and perhaps carried on its business thereunder, that another should
attempt to use the same name, or the same name with a slight variation in such
a way as to induce persons to deal with it in the belief that they are dealing
with the corporation which has given a reputation to the name.
Sawadjaan
vs. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 516 , June 08, 2005
Corporation Law;
De Facto Corporation; By its failure to submit its by-laws on time, the AIIBP
may be considered a de facto corporation whose right to exercise corporate
powers may not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to which such
corporations may be a party.—The
AIIBP was created by Rep. Act No. 6848. It has a main office where it conducts
business, has shareholders, corporate officers, a board of directors, assets,
and personnel. It is, in fact, here represented by the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel, “the principal law office of government-owned corporations,
one of which is respondent bank.” At the very least, by its failure to submit
its by-laws on time, the AIIBP may be considered a de facto corporation whose
right to exercise corporate powers may not be inquired into collaterally in any
private suit to which such corporations may be a party.
Same; Same; A
corporation which has failed to file its by-laws within the prescribed period
does not ipso facto lose its powers as such.—A corporation which has failed to file its by-laws
within the prescribed period does not ipso facto lose its powers as such. The
SEC Rules on Suspension/Revocation of the Certificate of Registration of
Corporations, details the procedures and remedies that may be availed of before
an order of revocation can be issued. There is no showing that such a procedure
has been initiated in this case. [Sawadjaan vs. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA
516(2005)]
Pioneer
Insurance & Surety Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 668 , July
28, 1989
Insurance; Real
party in interest; The real party in interest with regard to the portion of the
indemnity paid is the insurer and not insured; Petitioner was not the real
party in interest in the complaint and therefore has no cause of action against
the respondents.—Interpreting
the aforesaid provision, we ruled in the case of Phil. Air Lines, Inc. v. Heald
Lumber Co. (10 Phil. 1031 [1957]) which we subsequently applied in Manila
Mahogany Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (154 SCRA 650 [1987]):
“Note that if a property is insured and the owner receives the indemnity from
the insurer, it is provided in said article that the insurer is deemed
subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer and if the amount
paid by the insurer does not fully cover the loss, then the aggrieved party is
the one entitled to recover the deficiency. Evidently, under this legal
provision, the real party in interest with regard to the portion of the
indemnity paid is the insurer and not the insured.” (Italics supplied) It is
clear from the records that Pioneer sued in its own name and not as an attorney-in-fact
of the reinsurer. Accordingly, the appellate court did not commit a reversible
error in dismissing the petitioner’s complaint as against the respondents for
the reason that the petitioner was not the real party in interest in the
complaint and, therefore, has no cause of action against the respondents.
Corporation Law;
Partnership; Persons who attempt but fail to form a corporation and who carry
on business under the corporate name occupy the position of partners inter
se.—“While it
has been held that as between themselves the rights of the stockholders in a
defectively incorporated association should be governed by the supposed charter
and the laws of the state relating thereto and not by the rules governing
partners (Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 54 A. 121, 96 Md. 446, 94 Am. S.R.
584), it is ordinarily held that persons who attempt, but fail, to form a
corporation and who carry on business under the corporate name occupy the
position of partners inter se (Lynch v. Perryman, 119 P. 229, 29 Okl. 615, Ann.
Cas. 1913A 1065). Thus, where persons associate themselves together under
articles to purchase property to carry on a business, and their organization is
so defective as to come short of creating a corporation within the statute,
they become in legal effect partners inter se, and their rights as members of
the company to the property acquired by the company will be recognized.”
Same; Same; Same;
Such a relation does not necessarily exist however for ordinarily persons
cannot be made to assume the relation of partners as between themselves when
their purpose is that no partnership shall exist.—However, such a relation does
not necessarily exist, for ordinarily persons cannot be made to assume the
relation of partners, as between themselves, when their purpose is that no
partnership shall exist (London Assur. Corp. v. Drennen, Minn., 6 S.Ct. 442,
116 U. S. 461, 472, 29 L.Ed. 688), and it should be implied only when necessary
to do justice between the parties; thus, one who takes no part except to
subscribe for stock in a proposed corporation which is never legally formed
does not become a partner with other subscribers who engage in business under
the name of the pretended corporation, so as to be liable as such in an action
for settlement of the alleged partnership and contribution (Ward v. Brigham,
127 Mass. 24). A partnership relation between certain stockholders and other
stockholders, who were also directors, will not be implied in the absence of an
agreement, so as to make the former liable to contribute for payment of debts
illegally contracted by the latter.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Petitioner never had the intention to form a corporation with the
respondents despite his representations to them.—It is therefore clear that the
petitioner never had the intention to form a corporation with the respondents
despite his representations to them. This gives credence to the cross-claims of
the respondents to the effect that they were induced and lured by the
petitioner to make contributions to a proposed corporation which was never
formed because the petitioner reneged on their agreement.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Same; No de facto partnership was created among the parties which would
entitle the petitioner to a reimbursement of the supposed losses of the
proposed corporation.—Applying
therefore the principles of law earlier cited to the facts of the case,
necessarily, no de facto partnership was created among the parties which would
entitle the petitioner to a reimbursement of the supposed losses of the
proposed corporation. The record shows that the petitioner was acting on his
own and not in behalf of his other would-be incorporators in transacting the
sale of the airplanes and spare parts. [Pioneer Insurance & Surety
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 668(1989)]
Merrill
Lynch Futures, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 824 , July 24, 1992
Same;
Corporations; Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. a foreign corporation is engaged in
business in the Philippines.—The
Court is satisfied that the facts on record adequately establish that ML
FUTURES, operating in the United States, had indeed done business with the Lara
Spouses in the Philippines over several years, had done so at all times through
Merrill Lynch Philippines, Inc. (MLPI), a corporation organized in this
country, and had executed all these transactions without ML FUTURES being
licensed to so transact business here, and without MLPI being authorized to
operate as a commodity futures trading advisor. These are the factual findings
of both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. These, too, are the
conclusions of the Securities & Exchange Commission which denied MLPI’s
application to operate as a commodity futures trading advisor, a denial
subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prescinding from the proposition
that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive this
Court has been cited to no circumstance of substance to warrant reversal of
said Appellate Court’s findings or conclusions in this case.
Same; Same;
Estoppel; A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may sue in
Philippine courts although not authorized to do business here against a
Philippine citizen who had contracted with and been benefited by said
corporation.—There
would seem to be no question that the Laras received benefits generated by
their business relations with ML FUTURES. Those business relations, according
to the Laras themselves, spanned a period of seven (7) years; and they
evidently found those relations to be of such profitability as warranted their
maintaining them for that no insignificant period of time; otherwise, it is
reasonably certain that they would have terminated their dealings with ML
FUTURES much, much earlier. In fact, even as regards their last transaction, in
which the Laras allegedly suffered a loss in the sum of US$160,749.69, the
Laras nonetheless still received some monetary advantage, for ML FUTURES
credited them with the amount of US$75,913.42 then due to them, thus reducing
their debt to US$84,836.27. Given these facts, and assuming that the Lara
Spouses were aware from the outset that ML FUTURES had no license to do
business in this country and MLPI, no authority to act as broker for it, it
would appear quite inequitable for the Laras to evade payment of an otherwise
legitimate indebtedness due and owing to ML FUTURES upon the plea that it
should not have done business in this country in the first place, or that its
agent in this country, MLPI, had no license either to operate as a “commodity
and/ or financial futures broker.”
International
Express Travel & Tour Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 674 ,
October 19, 2000
Corporation Law;
National Sports Associations; Statutes; R.A. 3135 and P.D. No. 604 recognized
the juridical existence of national sports associations.—As correctly observed by the
appellate court, both R.A. 3135 and P.D. No. 604 recognized the juridical
existence of national sports associations. This may be gleaned from the powers
and functions granted to these associations.
Same; Same; The
powers and functions granted to national sports associations clearly indicate
that these entities may acquire a juridical personality.—The above powers and functions
granted to national sports associations clearly indicate that these entities
may acquire a juridical personality. The power to purchase, sell, lease and
encumber property are acts which may only be done by persons, whether natural
or artificial, with juridical capacity. However, while we agree with the
appellate court that national sports associations may be accorded corporate
status, such does not automatically take place by the mere passage of these
laws.
Same; Same;
Philippine Football Association; It is a basic postulate that before a
corporation may acquire juridical personality, the State must give its consent
either in the form of a special law or a general enabling act; The Court cannot
agree with the view of the Court of Appeals that the Philippine Football
Association came into existence upon the passage of RA. 3135 or P.D. 604.—It is a basic postulate that
before a corporation may acquire juridical personality, the State must give its
consent either in the form of a special law or a general enabling act. We
cannot agree with the view of the appellate court and the private respondent
that the Philippine Football Federation came into existence upon the passage of
these laws. Nowhere can it be found in R.A. 3135 or P.D. 604 any provision
creating the Philippine Football Federation. These laws merely recognized the
existence of national sports associations and provided the manner by which
these entities may acquire juridical personality.
Same; Same; Same;
The statutory provisions require that before an entity may be considered as a
national sports association, such entity must be recognized by the accrediting
organization, the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation under R.A. 3135, and
the Department of Youth and Sports Development under P.D. 604.—Clearly the above cited
provisions require that before an entity may be considered as a national sports
association, such entity must be recognized by the accrediting organization,
the Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation under R.A. 3135, and the Department
of Youth and Sports Development under P.D. 604. This fact of recognition,
however, Henri Kahn failed to substantiate. In attempting to prove the
juridical existence of the Federation, Henri Kahn attached to his motion for
reconsideration before the trial court a copy of the constitution and by-laws
of the Philippine Football Federation. Unfortunately, the same does not prove
that said Federation has indeed been recognized and accredited by either the
Philippine Amateur Athletic Federation or the Department of Youth and Sports
Development. Accordingly, we rule that the Philippine Football Federation is
not a national sports association within the purview of the aforementioned laws
and does not have a corporate existence of its own.
Same; It is a
settled principle in corporation law that any person acting or purporting to
act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such
privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered
into or for such other acts performed as such agent.—This being said, it follows
that private respondent Henry Kahn should be held liable for the unpaid
obligations of the unincorporated Philippine Football Federation. It is a
settled principle in corporation law that any person acting or purporting to
act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such
privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered
into or for other acts performed as such agent. As president of the Federation,
Henri Kahn is presumed to have known about the corporate existence or
non-existence of the Federation. We cannot subscribe to the position taken by
the appellate court that even assuming that the Federation was defectively
incorporated, the petitioner cannot deny the corporate existence of the
Federation because it had contracted and dealt with the Federation in such a
manner as to recognize and in effect admit its existence.
Same; Doctrine of
Corporation by Estoppel; The doctrine of corporation by estoppel applies to a
third party only when he tries to escape liability on a contract from which he
has benefited on the irrelevant ground of defective incorporation.—The doctrine of corporation by
estoppel is mistakenly applied by the respondent court to the petitioner. The
application of the doctrine applies to a third party only when he tries to
escape liability on a contract from which he has benefited on the irrelevant
ground of defective incorporation. In the case at bar, the petitioner is not
trying to escape liability from the contract but rather is the one claiming
from the contract. [International Express Travel & Tour Services, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 674(2000)]
Lozano
vs. De los Santos, 274 SCRA 452 , June 19, 1997
Securities and
Exchange Commission; Jurisdiction; The jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission is determined by a concurrence of two elements: (1) the
status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that
is the subject of their controversy.—The
grant of jurisdiction to the SEC must be viewed in the light of its nature and
function under the law. This jurisdiction is determined by a concurrence of two
elements: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of
the question that is the subject of their controversy.
Same; Same; The
principal function of the Securities and Exchange Commission is the supervision
and control of corporations, partnerships and associations with the end in view
that investments in these entities may be encouraged and protected, and their
activities pursued for the promotion of economic development.—The first element requires that
the controversy must arise out of intracorporate or partnership relations
between and among stockholders, members, or associates; between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are
stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the State in so far as it concerns
their individual franchises. The second element requires that the dispute among
the parties be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation,
partnership or association or deal with the internal affairs of the
corporation, partnership or association. After all, the principal function of
the SEC is the supervision and control of corporations, partnerships and
associations with the end in view that investments in these entities may be
encouraged and protected, and their activities pursued for the promotion of
economic development.
Same; Same; There
is no intracorporate nor partnership relation between two jeepney drivers’ and
operators’ associations whose plan to consolidate into a single common
association is still a proposal—consolidation becomes effective not upon mere
agreement of the members but only upon issuance of the certificate of
consolidation by the SEC.—There
is no intracorporate nor partnership relation between petitioner and private
respondent. The controversy between them arose out of their plan to consolidate
their respective jeepney drivers’ and operators’ associations into a single
common association. This unified association was, however, still a proposal. It
had not been approved by the SEC, neither had its officers and members
submitted their articles of consolidation in accordance with Sections 78 and 79
of the Corporation Code. Consolidation becomes effective not upon mere
agreement of the members but only upon issuance of the certificate of
consolidation by the SEC. When the SEC, upon processing and examining the
articles of consolidation, is satisfied that the consolidation of the
corporations is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Corporation Code
and existing laws, it issues a certificate of consolidation which makes the
reorganization official. The new consolidated corporation comes into existence and
the constituent corporations dissolve and cease to exist.
Same; Same; The
SEC has no jurisdiction over a dispute between members of separate and distinct
associations.—The
KAMAJ-DA and SAMAJODA to which petitioner and private respondent belong are
duly registered with the SEC, but these associations are two separate entities.
The dispute between petitioner and private respondent is not within the KAMAJDA
nor the SAMAJODA. It is between members of separate and distinct associations.
Petitioner and private respondent have no intracorporate relation much less do
they have an intracorporate dispute. The SEC therefore has no jurisdiction over
the complaint.
Same; Same; Corporation
Law; Doctrine of Corporation by Estoppel; The doctrine of corporation by
estoppel cannot override jurisdictional requirements—jurisdiction is fixed by
law and cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any
act or omission of the parties, and neither can it be conferred by the
acquiescence of the court.—The
doctrine of corporation by estoppel advanced by private respondent cannot
override jurisdictional requirements. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and is not
subject to the agreement of the parties. It cannot be acquired through or
waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties, neither
can it be conferred by the acquiescence of the court.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Equity; Corporation by estoppel is founded on principles of equity and is
designed to prevent injustice and unfairness, and where there is no third
person involved and the conflict arises only among those assuming the form of a
corporation, who know that it has not been registered, there is no corporation
by estoppel.—Corporation
by estoppel is founded on principles of equity and is designed to prevent
injustice and unfairness. It applies when persons assume to form a corporation
and exercise corporate functions and enter into business relations with third
persons. Where there is no third person involved and the conflict arises only
among those assuming the form of a corporation, who therefore know that it has
not been registered, there is no corporation by estoppel.
Seventh
Day Adventist Conference Church of Southern Philippines, Inc. vs. Northeastern
Mindanao Mission of Seventh Day Adventist, Inc., 496 SCRA 215 , July 21, 2006
Donations;
Ownership; Donation is undeniably one of the modes of acquiring ownership of
real property.—Donation
is undeniably one of the modes of acquiring ownership of real property.
Likewise, ownership of a property may be transferred by tradition as a
consequence of a sale.
Same; The
donation could not have been made in favor of an entity yet inexistent at the
time it was made.—Donation
is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or
right in favor of another person who accepts it. The donation could not have
been made in favor of an entity yet inexistent at the time it was made. Nor
could it have been accepted as there was yet no one to accept it. The deed of
donation was not in favor of any informal group of SDA members but a supposed
SPUM-SDA Bayugan (the local church) which, at the time, had neither juridical
personality nor capacity to accept such gift.
Same; Ownership;
The execution of a public instrument x x x transfers the ownership from the
vendor to the vendee who may thereafter exercise the rights of an owner over
the same.—According
to Art. 1477 of the Civil Code, the ownership of the thing sold shall be
transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. On
this, the noted author Arturo Tolentino had this to say: The execution of [a]
public instrument x x x transfers the ownership from the vendor to the vendee who
may thereafter exercise the rights of an owner over the same. Here, transfer of
ownership from the spouses Cosio to SDA-NEMM was made upon constructive
delivery of the property on February 28, 1980 when the sale was made through a
public instrument. TCT No. 4468 was thereafter issued and it remains in the
name of SDA-NEMM. [Seventh Day Adventist Conference Church of Southern
Philippines, Inc. vs. Northeastern Mindanao Mission of Seventh Day Adventist,
Inc., 496 SCRA 215(2006)]
Filipinas
Port Services, Inc. vs. Go, 518 SCRA 453 , March 16, 2007
Corporation Law;
Section 23 of the Corporation Code explicitly provides that unless otherwise
provided therein, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under the
Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of the
corporation shall be con trolled and held by a board of
directors.—The
governing body of a corporation is its board of directors. Section 23 of the
Corporation Code explicitly provides that unless otherwise provided therein, the
corporate powers of all corporations formed under the Code shall be exercised,
all business conducted and all property of the corporation shall be controlled
and held by a board of directors. Thus, with the exception only of some powers
expressly granted by law to stockholders (or members, in case of non-stock
corporations), the board of directors (or trustees, in case of non-stock
corporations) has the sole authority to determine policies, enter into
contracts, and conduct the ordinary business of the corporation within the
scope of its charter, i.e., its articles of incorporation, by-laws and relevant
provisions of law. Verily, the authority of the board of directors is
restricted to the management of the regular business affairs of the
corporation, unless more extensive power is expressly conferred.
Same; The raison
d’être behind the conferment of corporate powers on the board of directors is
not lost on the Court—indeed, the concentration in the board of the powers of
control of corporate business and of appointment of corporate officers and
managers is necessary for efficiency in any large organization.—The raison d’être behind the
conferment of corporate powers on the board of directors is not lost on the
Court. Indeed, the concentration in the board of the powers of control of
corporate business and of appointment of corporate officers and managers is
necessary for efficiency in any large organization. Stockholders are too
numerous, scattered and unfamiliar with the business of a corporation to conduct
its business directly. And so the plan of corporate organization is for the
stockholders to choose the directors who shall control and supervise the
conduct of corporate business.
Same;
Notwithstanding the silence of Filport’s bylaws on the matter, we cannot rule
that the creation of the executive committee by the board of directors is
illegal or unlawful.—Notwithstanding
the silence of Filport’s bylaws on the matter, we cannot rule that the creation
of the executive committee by the board of directors is illegal or unlawful.
One reason is the absence of a showing as to the true nature and functions of
said executive committee considering that the “executive committee,” referred
to in Section 35 of the Corporation Code which is as powerful as the board of
directors and in effect acting for the board itself, should be distinguished
from other committees which are within the competency of the board to create at
anytime and whose actions require ratification and confirmation by the board.
Another reason is that, ratiocinated by both the two (2) courts below, the
Board of Directors has the power to create positions not provided for in
Filport’s bylaws since the board is the cor-poration’s governing body, clearly
upholding the power of its board to exercise its prerogatives in managing the
business affairs of the corporation.
Same; If the
cause of the losses is merely error in judgment, not amounting to bad faith or
negligence, directors and/or officers are not liable.—If the cause of the losses is
merely error in business judgment, not amounting to bad faith or negligence,
directors and/or officers are not liable. For them to be held accountable, the
mismanagement and the resulting losses on account thereof are not the only
matters to be proven; it is likewise necessary to show that the direc-tors
and/or officers acted in bad faith and with malice in doing the assailed acts.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will partaking of
the nature of fraud. We have searched the records and nowhere do we find a
“dishonest purpose” or “some moral obliquity,” or “conscious doing of a wrong”
on the part of the respondents that “partakes of the nature of fraud.”
Same;
Management Prerogatives; The determination of the necessity for additional
offices and/or positions in a corporation is a management prerogative which
courts are not wont to review in the absence of any proof that such prerogative
was exercised in bad faith or with malice.—The determination of the necessity
for additional offices and/or positions in a corporation is a management
prerogative which courts are not wont to review in the absence of any proof
that such prerogative was exercised in bad faith or with malice.
Same;
Under the Corporation Code, where a corporation is an injured party, its power
to sue is lodged with its board of directors or trustees.—Under the Corporation
Code, where a corporation is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with
its board of directors or trustees. But an individual stockholder may be
permitted to institute a derivative suit in behalf of the corporation in order
to protect or vindicate corporate rights whenever the officials of the
corporation refuse to sue, or when a demand upon them to file the necessary
action would be futile because they are the ones to be sued, or because they
hold control of the corporation. In such actions, the corporation is the real
party-in-interest while the suing stockholder, in behalf of the corporation, is
only a nominal party.
Same; Derivative
Suits; Since the ones to be sued are the directors/officers of the corporation
itself, a stockholder, like petitioner Cruz, may validly institute a
“derivative suit” to vindicate the alleged corporate injury, in which case Cruz
is only a nominal party while Filport is the real party-in-interest.—The action below is principally
for damages resulting from alleged mismanagement of the affairs of Filport by
its directors/officers, it being alleged that the acts of mismanagement are
detrimental to the interests of Filport. Thus, the injury complained of
primarily pertains to the corporation so that the suit for relief should be by
the corporation. However, since the ones to be sued are the directors/officers
of the corporation itself, a stockholder, like petitioner Cruz, may validly
institute a “derivative suit” to vindicate the alleged corporate injury, in
which case Cruz is only a nominal party while Filport is the real
party-in-interest. For sure, in the prayer portion of petitioners’ petition
before the SEC, the reliefs prayed were asked to be made in favor of Filport.
San
Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631
, September 29, 1998
Corporation Law;
Sales; The property of the corporation is not the property of its stockholders
or members and may not be sold by the stockholders or members without express
authorization from the corporation’s board of directors.—A corporation is a juridical
person separate and distinct from its stockholders or members. Accordingly, the
property of the corporation is not the property of its stockholders or members
and may not be sold by the stockholders or members without express
authorization from the corporation’s board of directors.
Same; Same;
Agency; The general principles of agency govern the relation between the
corporation and its officers or agents, subject to the articles of
incorporation, bylaws, or relevant provisions of law.—Indubitably, a corporation may
act only through its board of directors or, when authorized either by its
bylaws or by its board resolution, through its officers or agents in the normal
course of business. The general principles of agency govern the relation
between the corporation and its officers or agents, subject to the articles of
incorporation, bylaws, or relevant provisions of law. Thus, this Court has held
that “ ‘a corporate officer or agent may represent and bind the corporation in
transactions with third persons to the extent that the authority to do so has
been conferred upon him, and this includes powers which have been intentionally
conferred, and also such powers as, in the usual course of the particular
business, are incidental to, or may be implied from, the powers intentionally
conferred, powers added by custom and usage, as usually pertaining to the
particular officer or agent, and such apparent powers as the corporation has
caused persons dealing with the officer or agent to believe that it has
conferred.’ ”
Same; Same; Same;
Corporate Treasurers; Unless duly authorized, a treasurer, whose powers are
limited, cannot bind the corporation in a sale of its assets.—The Court has also recognized
the rule that “persons dealing with an assumed agent, whether the assumed
agency be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would
hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also
the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the
burden of proof is upon them to establish it (Harry Keeler v. Rodriguez, 4
Phil. 19).” Unless duly authorized, a treasurer, whose powers are limited,
cannot bind the corporation in a sale of its assets.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Selling is obviously foreign to a corporate treasurer’s function, which
generally has been described as “to receive and keep the funds of the
corporation, and to disburse them in accordance with the authority given him by
the board or the properly authorized officers.”—That Nenita Gruenberg is the
treasurer of Motorich does not free petitioner from the responsibility of
ascertaining the extent of her authority to represent the corporation.
Petitioner cannot assume that she, by virtue of her position, was authorized to
sell the property of the corporation. Selling is obviously foreign to a
corporate treasurer’s function, which generally has been described as “to
receive and keep the funds of the corporation, and to disburse them in
accordance with the authority given him by the board or the properly authorized
officers.”
Same; Same; Same;
When the corporate officers exceed their authority, their actions “cannot bind
the corporation, unless it has ratified such acts or is estopped from
disclaiming them.”—As
a general rule, the acts of corporate officers within the scope of their
authority are binding on the corporation. But when these officers exceed their
authority, their actions “cannot bind the corporation, unless it has ratified
such acts or is estopped from disclaiming them.”
Same; Same; Same;
Contracts; Requisites of a Valid and Perfected Contract.—Article 1318 of the Civil Code
lists the requisites of a valid and perfected contract: “(1) consent of the
contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the
contract; (3) cause of the obligation which is established.” As found by the
trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there is no evidence that
Gruenberg was authorized to enter into the contract of sale, or that the said
contract was ratified by Motorich. This factual finding of the two courts is
binding on this Court. As the consent of the seller was not obtained, no
contract to bind the obligor was perfected. Therefore, there can be no valid
contract of sale between petitioner and Motorich.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Where a corporation never gave a written authorization to its treasurer
to sell a parcel of land it owns, any agreement to sell entered into by the
latter with a third party is void.—Because
Motorich had never given a written authorization to Respondent Gruenberg to
sell its parcel of land, we hold that the February 14, 1989 Agreement entered
into by the latter with petitioner is void under Article 1874 of the Civil
Code. Being inexistent and void from the beginning, said contract cannot be
ratified.
Same; Appeals;
Pleadings and Practice; It is well-settled that points of law, theories and
arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and
ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal—allowing a party to change horses in
midstream, as it were, is to run roughshod over the basic principles of fair
play, justice and due process.—Petitioner
itself concedes having raised the issue belatedly, not having done so during
the trial, but only when it filed its surrejoinder before the Court of Appeals.
Thus, this Court cannot entertain said issue at this late stage of the
proceedings. It is well-settled that points of law, theories and arguments not
brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will
not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. Allowing petitioner to change horses in midstream, as it were,
is to run roughshod over the basic principles of fair play, justice and due
process.
Same; Piercing
the Veil of Corporate Fiction Doctrine; On equitable considerations, the
corporate veil can be disregarded when it is utilized as a shield to commit
fraud, illegality or inequity; defeat public convenience; confuse legitimate
issues; or serve as a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or an
instrumentality, agency or adjunct of another corporation.—True, one of the advantages of
a corporate form of business organization is the limitation of an investor’s
liability to the amount of the investment. This feature flows from the legal
theory that a corporate entity is separate and distinct from its stockholders.
However, the statutorily granted privilege of a corporate veil may be used only
for legitimate purposes. On equitable considerations, the veil can be
disregarded when it is utilized as a shield to commit fraud, illegality or
inequity; defeat public convenience; confuse legitimate issues; or serve as a
mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or an instrumentality, agency or
adjunct of another corporation.
Same; Same;
Evidence; The question of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is essentially
a matter of proof.—We
stress that the corporate fiction should be set aside when it becomes a shield
against liability for fraud, illegality or inequity committed on third persons.
The question of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is essentially, then, a
matter of proof. In the present case, however, the Court finds no reason to
pierce the corporate veil of Respondent Motorich. Petitioner utterly failed to
establish that said corporation was formed, or that it is operated, for the
purpose of shielding any alleged fraudulent or illegal activities of its officers
or stockholders; or that the said veil was used to conceal fraud, illegality or
inequity at the expense of third persons like petitioner.
Same; Same; Close
Corporations; Words and Phrases; “Close Corporation,” Defined.—Petitioner claims that Motorich
is a close corporation. We rule that it is not. Section 96 of the Corporation
Code defines a close corporation as follows: “SEC. 96. Definition and
Applicability of Title.—A close corporation, within the meaning of this Code,
is one whose articles of incorporation provide that: (1) All of the
corporation’s issued stock of all classes, exclusive of treasury shares, shall
be held of record by not more than a specified number of persons, not exceeding
twenty (20); (2) All of the issued stock of all classes shall be subject to one
or more specified restrictions on transfer permitted by this Title; and (3) The
corporation shall not list in any stock exchange or make any public offering of
any of its stock of any class. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a corporation
shall be deemed not a close corporation when at least two-thirds (2/3) of its
voting stock or voting rights is owned or controlled by another corporation
which is not a close corporation within the meaning of this Code. x x x.”
Same; Same; Same;
A corporation does not become a close corporation just because a man and his
wife owns 99.866% of its subscribed capital stock; So, too, a narrow
distribution of ownership does not, by itself, make a close corporation.—The articles of incorporation
of Motorich Sales Corporation does not contain any provision stating that (1)
the number of stockholders shall not exceed 20, or (2) a preemption of shares
is restricted in favor of any stockholder or of the corporation, or (3) listing
its stocks in any stock exchange or making a public offering of such stocks is
prohibited. From its articles, it is clear that Respondent Motorich is not a
close corporation. Motorich does not become one either, just because Spouses
Reynaldo and Nenita Gruenberg owned 99.866% of its subscribed capital stock.
The “[m]ere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all
or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient
ground for disregarding the separate corporate personalities.” So, too, a narrow
distribution of ownership does not, by itself, make a close corporation.
Same; Same; Same;
In exceptional cases, “an action by a director, who singly is the controlling
stockholder, may be considered as a binding corporate act and a board action as
nothing more than a mere formality.”—The
Court is not unaware that there are exceptional cases where “an action by a
director, who singly is the controlling stockholder, may be considered as a
binding corporate act and a board action as nothing more than a mere
formality.” The present case, however, is not one of them. As stated by
petitioner, Spouses Reynaldo and Nenita Gruenberg own “almost 99.866%” of
Respondent Motorich. Since Nenita is not the sole controlling stockholder of
Motorich, the aforementioned exception does not apply.
Same; Same; Same;
Marriage; Husband and Wife; Conjugal Partnership; Co-Ownership; There is no
co-ownership between the spouses in the properties of the conjugal partnership
of gains.—Granting
arguendo that the corporate veil of Motorich is to be disregarded, the subject
parcel of land would then be treated as conjugal property of Spouses Gruenberg,
because the same was acquired during their marriage. There being no indication
that said spouses, who appear to have been married before the effectivity of
the Family Code, have agreed to a different property regime, their property
relations would be governed by conjugal partnership of gains. As a consequence,
Nenita Gruenberg could not have effected a sale of the subject lot because “[t]here
is no co-ownership between the spouses in the properties of the conjugal
partnership of gains. Hence, neither spouse can alienate in favor of another
his or her interest in the partnership or in any property belonging to it;
neither spouse can ask for a partition of the properties before the partnership
has been legally dissolved.”
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Same; Absolute Community of Property; Under the regime of absolute
community of property, “alienation of community property must have the written
consent of the other spouse or the authority of the court without which the
disposition or encumbrance is void.”—Assuming
further, for the sake of argument, that the spouses’ property regime is the
absolute community of property, the sale would still be invalid. Under this
regime, “alienation of community property must have the written consent of the
other spouse or the authority of the court without which the disposition or
encumbrance is void.” Both requirements are manifestly absent in the instant
case.
Montelibano vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36 , May
18, 1962
Corporations;
Exercise of charter powers; Test to be applied.—"It is a question, therefore, in
each case, of the logical relation of the act to the corporate purpose
expressed in the charter. If that act is one which is lawful in itself, and not
otherwise prohibited, is done for the purpose of serving corporate ends, and is
reasonably tributary to the promotion of those ends, in a substantial, and not
in a remote and fanciful, sense, it may fairly be considered within charter
powers. The test to be applied is whether the act in question is in direct and
immediate furtherance of the corporation's business, fairly incident to the
express powers and reasonably necessary to their exercise. If so, the
corporation has the power to do it; otherwise, not." (Fletcher Cyc. Corp.,
Vol. 6, Rev. Ed. 1950, pp. 266-268)
Same; Same;
Question on probable losses or decrease in profits not reviewable by courts.—Whether or not a valid and
binding resolution passed by the board of directors, will cause losses or
decrease the profits of the corporation, may not be reviewed by the courts.
[Montelibano vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36(1962)]
Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 232 ,
October 27, 1997
Corporation Law;
Securities and Exchange Commission; Stock Exchanges; The SEC is the entity with
the primary say as to whether or not securities, including shares of stock of a
corporation, may be traded or not in the stock exchange.—We affirm that the SEC is the
entity with the primary say as to whether or not securities, including shares
of stock of a corporation, may be traded or not in the stock exchange. This is
in line with the SEC’s mission to ensure proper compliance with the laws, such
as the Revised Securities Act and to regulate the sale and disposition of
securities in the country. As the appellate court explains: “Paramount policy
also supports the authority of the public respondent to review petitioner’s denial
of the listing. Being a stock exchange, the petitioner performs a function that
is vital to the national economy, as the business is affected with public
interest. As a matter of fact, it has often been said that the economy moves on
the basis of the rise and fall of stocks being traded. By its economic power,
the petitioner certainly can dictate which and how many users are allowed to
sell securities thru the facilities of a stock exchange, if allowed to
interpret its own rules liberally as it may please. Petitioner can either allow
or deny the entry to the market of securities. To repeat, the monopoly, unless
accompanied by control, becomes subject to abuse; hence, considering public
interest, then it should be subject to government regulation.”
Same; Same; Same;
Philippine Stock Exchange; The PSE’s management prerogatives are not under the
absolute control of the SEC, for the PSE is, after all, a corporation
authorized by its corporate franchise to engage in its proposed and duly
approved business.—This
is not to say, however, that the PSE’s management prerogatives are under the
absolute control of the SEC. The PSE is, after all, a corporation authorized by
its corporate franchise to engage in its proposed and duly approved business.
One of the PSE’s main concerns, as such, is still the generation of profit for
its stock holders.
Moreover, the PSE has all the rights pertaining to corporations, including the
right to sue and be sued, to hold property in its own name, to enter (or not to
enter) into contracts with third persons, and to perform all other legal acts
within its allocated express or implied powers.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Questions of policy and of management are left to the honest decision of
the officers and directors of a corporation, and the courts are without
authority to substitute their judgment for that of the board of directors—the
board is the business manager of the corporation, and so long as it acts in
good faith, its orders are not reviewable by the courts.—A corporation is but an
association of individuals, allowed to transact under an assumed corporate
name, and with a distinct legal personality. In organizing itself as a
collective body, it waives no constitutional immunities and perquisites
appropriate to such a body. As to its corporate and management decisions,
therefore, the state will generally not interfere with the same. Questions of
policy and of management are left to the honest decision of the officers and
directors of a corporation, and the courts are without authority to substitute
their judgment for the judgment of the board of directors. The board is the
business manager of the corporation, and so long as it acts in good faith, its
orders are not reviewable by the courts.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Notwithstanding the regulatory power of the SEC over the PSE, and the
resultant authority to reverse the PSE’s decision in matters of application for
listing in the market, the SEC may exercise such power only if the PSE’s
judgment is attended by bad faith.—Thus,
notwithstanding the regulatory power of the SEC over the PSE, and the resultant
authority to reverse the PSE’s decision in matters of application for listing
in the market, the SEC may exercise such power only if the PSE’s judgment is
attended by bad faith. In Board of Liquidators vs. Kalaw, it was held that bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It
means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest of ill will,
partaking of the nature of fraud.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; As the primary market for securities, the PSE had established its name
and goodwill, and it has the right to protect such goodwill by maintaining a
reasonable standard of propriety in the entities who choose to transact through
its facilities; The concept of government absolutism is a thing of the past,
and should remain so.—Also,
as the primary market for securities, the PSE has established its name and
goodwill, and it has the right to protect such goodwill by maintaining a
reasonable standard of propriety in the entities who choose to transact through
its facilities. It was reasonable for the PSE, therefore, to exercise its
judgment in the manner it deems appropriate for its business identity, as long
as no rights are trampled upon, and public welfare is safeguarded. In this
connection, it is proper to observe that the concept of government absolutism
is a thing of the past, and should remain so.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; The SEC had acted arbitrarily in arrogating unto itself the discretion of
approving the application for listing of Puerto Azul Land, Inc., since this is
a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the PSE, a corporate entity,
whose business judgments are respected in the absence of bad faith.—In any case, for the purpose of
determining whether PSE acted correctly in refusing the application of PALI,
the true ownership of the properties of PALI need not be determined as an
absolute fact. What is material is that the uncertainty of the properties’
ownership and alienability exists, and this puts to question the qualification
of PALI’s public offering. In sum, the Court finds that the SEC had acted
arbitrarily in arrogating unto itself the discretion of approving the application
for listing in the PSE of the private respondent PALI, since this is a matter
addressed to the sound discretion of the PSE, a corporate entity, whose
business judgments are respected in the absence of bad faith.
Same; Same; Same;
The question as to what policy is, or should be relied upon in approving the
registration and sale of securities in the PSE is not for the Supreme Court to
determine, but is left to the sound discretion of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.—The
question as to what policy is, or should be relied upon in approving the
registration and sale of securities in the PSE is not for the Court to
determine, but is left to the sound discretion of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In mandating the SEC to administer the Revised Securities Act, and
in performing its other functions under pertinent laws, the Revised Securities
Act, under Section 3 thereof, gives the SEC the power to promulgate such rules
and regulations as it may consider appropriate in the public interest for the
enforcement of the said laws. The second paragraph of Section 4 of the said
law, on the other hand, provides that no security, unless exempt by law, shall
be issued, endorsed, sold, transferred or in any other manner conveyed to the
public, unless registered in accordance with the rules and regulations that
shall be promulgated in the public interest and for the protection of investors
by the Commission. Presidential Decree No. 902-A, on the other hand, provides
that the SEC, as regulatory agency, has supervision and control over all
corporations and over the securities market as a whole, and as such, is given
ample authority in determining appropriate policies.
Same; Same; Same;
The absolute reliance on the full disclosure method in the registration of securities
is untenable.—A
reading of the foregoing grounds reveals the intention of the lawmakers to make
the registration and issuance of securities dependent, to a certain extent, on
the merits of the securities themselves, and of the issuer, to be determined by
the Securities and Exchange Commission. This measure was meant to protect the
interests of the investing public against fraudulent and worthless securities,
and the SEC is mandated by law to safeguard these interests, following the
policies and rules therefore provided. The absolute reliance on the full
disclosure method in the registration of securities is, therefore, untenable.
As it is, the Court finds that the private respondent PALI, on at least two
points (Nos. 1 and 5) has failed to support the propriety of the issue of its
shares with unfailing clarity, thereby lending support to the conclusion that
the PSE acted correctly in refusing the listing of PALI in its stock exchange.
This does not discount the effectivity of whatever method the SEC, in the
exercise of its vested authority, chooses in setting the standard for public
offerings of corporations wishing to do so. However, the SEC must recognize and
implement the mandate of the law, particularly the Revised Securities Act, the
provisions of which cannot be amended or supplanted by mere administrative
issuance. [Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA
232(1997)]
Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas, 278 SCRA 216 ,
August 21, 1997
Corporation Law;
Two ways by which members of the board can be granted compensation apart from
reasonable per diems.—There
is no argument that directors or trustees, as the case may be, are not entitled
to salary or other compensation when they perform nothing more than the usual and
ordinary duties of their office. This rule is founded upon a presumption that
directors/trustees render service gratuitously, and that the return upon their
shares adequately furnishes the motives for service, without compensation.
Under the foregoing section, there are only two (2) ways by which members of
the board can be granted compensation apart from reasonable per diems: (1) when
there is a provision in the by-laws fixing their compensation; and (2) when the
stockholders representing a majority of the outstanding capital stock at a
regular or special stockholders’ meeting agree to give it to them.
Same; Members of
the board may receive compensation, in addition to reasonable per diems, when
they render services to the corporation in a capacity other than as
directors/trustees.—This
proscription, however, against granting compensation to directors/trustees of a
corporation is not a sweeping rule. Worthy of note is the clear phraseology of
Section 30 which states: “x x x [T]he directors shall not receive any
compensation, as such directors, x x x.” The phrase as such directors is not
without significance for it delimits the scope of the prohibition to
compensation given to them for services performed purely in their capacity as
directors or trustees. The unambiguous implication is that members of the board
may receive compensation, in addition to reasonable per diems, when they render
services to the corporation in a capacity other than as directors/trustees. In
the case at bench, Resolution No. 48, s. 1986 granted monthly compensation to
private respondents not in their capacity as members of the board, but rather
as officers of the corporation, more particularly as Chairman, Vice-Chairman,
Treasurer and Secretary of Western Institute of Technology.
Same; Remedial
Law; Action; Meaning of Derivative Suit; For a derivative suit to prosper, it
is required that the minority shareholder who is suing for and on behalf of the
corporation must allege in his complaint before the proper forum that he is
suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the corporation and all
other shareholders similarly situated who wish to join.—A derivative suit is an action
brought by minority shareholders in the name of the corporation to redress
wrongs committed against it, for which the directors refuse to sue. It is a
remedy designed by equity and has been the principal defense of the minority
shareholders against abuses by the majority. Here, however, the case is not a
derivative suit but is merely an appeal on the civil aspect of Criminal Cases
Nos. 37097 and 37098 filed with the RTC of Iloilo for estafa and falsification
of public document. Among the basic requirements for a derivative suit to
prosper is that the minority shareholder who is suing for and on behalf of the
corporation must allege in his complaint before the proper forum that he is
suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the corporation and all
other shareholders similarly situated who wish to join. This is necessary to
vest jurisdiction upon the tribunal in line with the rule that it is the
allegations in the complaint that vests jurisdiction upon the court or
quasi-judicial body concerned over the subject matter and nature of the action.
This was not complied with by the petitioners either in their complaint before
the court a quo nor in the instant petition which, in part, merely states that
“this is a petition for review on certiorari on pure questions of law to set
aside a portion of the RTC decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 37097 and 37098” since
the trial court’s judgment of acquittal failed to impose any civil liability
against the private respondents. By no amount of equity considerations, if at
all deserved, can a mere appeal on the civil aspect of a criminal case be
treated as a derivative suit. [Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas,
278 SCRA 216(1997)]
Board of Liquidators vs, Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987 , August 14, 1967
Corporations;
Three methods of winding up corporate affairs.—Accepted in this jurisdiction
are three methods by which a corporation may wind up its affairs: (1) under
Section 3, Rule 104, of the Rules of Court (which superseded Section 66 of the
Corporation Law), whereby, upon voluntary dissolution of a corporation, the
court may direct "such disposi tion
of its assets as justice requires, and may appoint a receiver to collect such
assets and pay the debts of the corporation"; (2) under Section 77 of the
Corporation Law, whereby a corporation whose corporate existence is terminated,
"shall nevertheless be continued as a body corporate for three years after
the time when it would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecuting
and defending suits by or against it and of enabling it gradually to settle and
close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to divide its
capital stock, but not for the purpose of continuing the business for which it
was established"; and (3) under Section 78 of the Corporation Law, by
virtue of which the corporation, within the three-year period just mentioned, "is
authorized and empowered to convey all of its property to trustees for the
benefit of members, stockholders, creditors, and others interested,"
Board of
Liquidators; Trustee for government.—By
Executive Order No. 372, the government, the sole stockholder, abolished the
National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) and placed its assets in the hands of the
Board of Liquidators. The Board thus became the trustee on behalf of the
government. It was an express trust. The legal interest became vested in the
trustee, the Board of Liquidators. The beneficial interest remained with the
sole stockholder, the government. The Board took the place of the dissolved
government corporations after the expiration of the statutory three-year period
for the liquidation of their affairs.
Same; No term for
life of Board.—No
time limit has been tacked to the existence of the Board of Liquidators and its
function of closing the affairs of various government corporations. Its term of
life is not fixed.
Same; Right of
Board of Liquidators to proceed as partyplaintiff; Case at bar.—At no time had the government
withdrawn the property. or the authority to continue the present suit, from the
Board of Liquidators. Hence, the Board can prosecute this case to its final
conclusion. The provisions of Section 78 of the Corporation Law, the third
method of winding up corporate affairs, find application. The Board has
personality to proceed as party-plaintiff in this case.
Settlement of
decedent's estate; Actions; Actions that survive; Executors and administrators.—The actions that survive
against a decedent's executors or administrators are: (1) actions to recover
real and personal property from the estate; (2) actions to enforce a lien
thereon; and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or
property. A suit to recover damages, based on the alleged tortious acts of the
manager of a government corporation, survives. It is not a mere money claim
that is extinguished upon the death of a party. [Board of Liquidators vs,
Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987(1967)]
Corporations;
Implied authority of corporate officer to enter into contracts.—A corporate officer, entrusted
with the general management and control of its business, has implied authority
to make any contract or do any other act which is necessary or appropriate to
the conduct of the ordinary business of the corporation. As such officer, he
may, without any special authority from the Board of Directors, perform all
acts of an ordinary nature, which by usage or necessity are incident to his
office, and may bind the corporation by contracts in matters arising in the
usual course of business.
Same; Where
similar acts of manager were approved by directors.—Where similar acts have been
approved by the directors as a matter of general practice, custom, and policy,
the general manager may bind the company without formal authorization of the
board of directors. In varying language, existence of such authority is
established by proof of the course of business, the usages and practices of the
company and by the knowledge which the board of directors has, or must be
presumed to have, of acts and doings of its subordinates in and about the
affairs of the corporation. Where the practice of the corporation has been to
allow its general manager to negotiate and execute contracts in its copra
trading activities for and in Nacoco's behalf without prior board approval, and
the board itself, by its acts and through acquiescence, practically laid aside
the by-law requirement of prior approval, the contracts of the general manager,
under the given circumstances, are valid corporate acts.
Same;
Ratification by corporation of unauthorized contract of its officers.—Ratification by a corporation
of an unauthorized act or contract by its officers or others relates back to
the time of the act or contract ratified and is equivalent to original
authority. The corporation and the other party to the transaction are in
precisely the same position as if the act or contract had been authorized at
the time. The adoption or ratif ication of a contract by a corporation is
nothing more nor less than the making of an original contract. The theory of
corporate ratification is predicated on the right of a corporation to contract,
and any ratification or adoption is equivalent to a grant of prior authority.
Contracts; Bad
faith.—Bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it
means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud.
Damages; Damnum
absque injuria.—The
present case is one of damnum absque injuria. Conjunction of damage and wrong
is here absent. There cannot be an actionable wrong if either one or the other
is wanting. [Board of Liquidators vs, Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987(1967)]
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 209 SCRA 55 , May 18,
1992
Corporation Law;
Damages; The Board Members and Officers of a corporation who purport to act for
and in behalf of the corporation, keep within the lawful scope of their
authority in so acting and act in good faith, do not become liable whether
civilly or otherwise for the consequences of their acts.—The Board members and officers
of a corporation who purport to act for and in behalf of the corporation, keep
within the lawful scope of their authority in so acting, and act in good faith,
do not become liable, whether civilly or otherwise, for the consequences of
their acts. Those acts, when they are such a nature and are done under such
circumstances, are properly attributed to the corporation alone and no personal
liability is incurred by such officers and Board members. [Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 209 SCRA 55(1992)
People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
297 SCRA 170 , October 07, 1998
Corporation Law;
In the absence of authority from the board of directors, no person, not even
its officers, can validly bind a corporation.—The general rule is that, in
the absence of authority from the board of directors, no person, not even its
officers, can validly bind a corporation. A corporation is a juridical person,
separate and distinct from its stockholders and members, “having x x x powers,
attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence.”
Being a juridical entity, a corporation may act through its board of directors,
which exercises almost all corporate powers, lays down all corporate business
policies and is responsible for the efficiency of management, as provided in
Section 23 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines.
Same; The
authority of certain individuals to bind the corporation is generally derived
from law, corporate bylaws or authorization from the board, either expressly or
impliedly by habit, custom or acquiescence in the general course of business.—Under Sec. 23, Corporation
Code, the power and the responsibility to decide whether the corporation should
enter into a contract that will bind the corporation is lodged in the board,
subject to the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or relevant provisions of
law. However, just as a natural person may authorize another to do certain acts
for and on his behalf, the board of directors may validly delegate some of its
functions and powers to officers, committees or agents. The authority of such
individuals to bind the corporation is generally derived from law, corporate
bylaws or authorization from the board, either expressly or impliedly by habit,
custom or acquiescence in the general course of business.
Same; It is not
the quantity of similar acts which establishes apparent authority, but the
vesting of a corporate officer with the power to bind the corporation.—Petitioner’s argument is not
persuasive. Apparent authority is derived not merely from practice. Its
existence may be ascertained through (1) the general manner in which the
corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the power to act or, in
other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it clothes
him; or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or
constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or beyond the scope of his
ordinary powers. It requires presentation of evidence of similar act(s)
executed either in its favor or in favor of other parties. It is not the
quantity of similar acts which establishes apparent authority, but the vesting
of a corporate officer with the power to bind the corporation.
Same; Estoppel;
It is familiar doctrine that if a corporation knowingly permits one of its
officers, or any other agent, to act within the scope of an apparent authority,
it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to do those acts, and
thus, the corporation will, as against anyone who has in good faith dealt with
it through such agent, be estopped from denying the agent’s authority.—Private respondent should not
be faulted for believing that Punsalan’s conformity to the contract in dispute
was also binding on petitioner. It is familiar doctrine that if a corporation
knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to act within the
scope of an apparent authority, it holds him out to the public as possessing
the power to do those acts; and thus, the corporation will, as against anyone
who has in good faith dealt with it through such agent, be estopped from
denying the agent’s authority.
Same; Even if a
certain contract is outside the usual powers of the president, the
corporation’s ratification of the same and acceptance of benefits make it
binding.—Private
respondent prepared an operations manual and conducted a seminar for the
employees of petitioner in accordance with their contract. Petitioner accepted
the operations manual, submitted it to the Bureau of Customs and allowed the
seminar for its employees. As a result of its aforementioned actions,
petitioner was given by the Bureau of Customs a license to operate a bonded
warehouse. Granting arguendo then that the Second Contract was outside the
usual powers of the president, petitioner’s ratification of said contract and
acceptance of benefits have made it binding, nonetheless. The enforceability of
contracts under Article 1403(2) is ratified “by the acceptance of benefits
under them” under Article 1405.
Same; In the
absence of a charter or bylaw provision to the contrary, the president of a corporation
is presumed to have the authority to act within the domain of the general
objectives of its business and within the scope of his or her usual duties.—Inasmuch as a corporate
president is often given general supervision and control over corporate operations,
the strict rule that said officer has no inherent power to act for the
corporation is slowly giving way to the realization that such officer has
certain limited powers in the transaction of the usual and ordinary business of
the corporation. In the absence of a charter or bylaw provision to the
contrary, the president is presumed to have the authority to act within the
domain of the general objectives of its business and within the scope of his or
her usual duties. [People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 297 SCRA 170(1998)]
Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. King, 478 SCRA 102 ,
December 15, 2005
Remedial Law;
Jurisdictions; Securities and Exchange Commission; National Labor Relations
Commission; Under Section 5 of PD 902-A, the law applicable at the time this
controversy arose, the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the National
Labor Relations Commission had original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases
involving the removal of corporate officers; But it had to be first established
that the person removed or dismissed was a corporate officer before the removal
or dismissal could properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and not the National Labor Relations Commission.—Under Section 5 of PD 902A, the
law applicable at the time this controversy arose, the SEC, not the NLRC, had
original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of
corporate officers. Section 5(c) of PD 902-A applied to a corporate officer’s
dismissal for his dismissal was a corporate act and/or an intra-corporate
controversy. However, it had to be first established that the person removed or
dismissed was a corporate officer before the removal or dismissal could
properly fall within the jurisdiction of the SEC and not the NLRC. Here, aside
from its bare allegation, petitioner failed to show that respondent was in fact
a corporate officer.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Under Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the “corporate officers” are
the president, secretary, treasurer and such other officers as may be provided
for in the by-laws.—“Corporate
officers” in the context of PD 902-A are those officers of a corporation who
are given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation’s
by-laws. Under Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the “corporate officers” are
the president, secretary, treasurer and such other officers as may be provided
for in the by-laws.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Respondent was an employee not a “corporate officer”; Court of Appeals is
correct in ruling that jurisdiction over the case was properly with the
National Labor Relations Commission, not the Securities and Exchange
Commission.—An
“office” is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected
by the directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an employee occupies no
office and generally is employed not by the action of the directors or
stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also determines
the compensation to be paid to such employee. In this case, respondent was
appointed vice president for nationwide expansion by Malonzo, petitioner’s
general manager, not by the board of directors of petitioner. It was also
Malonzo who determined the compensation package of respondent. Thus, respondent
was an employee, not a “corporate officer.” The CA was therefore correct in
ruling that jurisdiction over the case was properly with the NLRC, not the SEC.
Labor Law;
Dismissals; Loss of Confidence; While loss of confidence is a valid ground for
dismissing an employee, it should not be simulated; To be a valid ground for an
employee’s dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful
breach and founded on clearly established facts.—While loss of confidence is a valid
ground for dismissing an employee, it should not be simulated. It must not be
indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the
dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. To be a valid ground for an employee’s
dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach and
founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. Thus, a willful breach cannot be a breach resulting from mere
carelessness.
Same; Same; Same;
Grounds cited by petitioner were not sufficient to support a claim of loss of
confidence as a ground for dismissal.—The
grounds cited by petitioner, i.e., respondent’s alleged poor sales performance
and the allegedly excessive time he spent in the field, were not sufficient to
support a claim of loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal.
Same; Same; Same;
The promotion of an employee negates the employer’s claim that it has lost its
trust and confidence in the employee.—The
promotion of an employee negates the employer’s claim that it has lost its
trust and confidence in the employee. Hence, petitioner’s claim of loss of
confidence crumbles in the light of respondent’s promotion not only to
assistant vice-president but to the even higher position of vice- president.
[Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. King, 478 SCRA 102(2005)]
Atrium
Management Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 , February 28, 2001
Corporation Law;
Ultra Vires Acts; Checks; The act of issuing checks for the purpose of securing
a loan to finance the activities of the corporation is well within the ambit of
a valid corporate act, hence, not an ultra vires act.—Hi-Cement, however, maintains
that the checks were not issued for consideration and that Lourdes and E.T.
Henry engaged in a “kiting operation” to raise funds for E.T. Henry, who
admittedly was in need of financial assistance. The Court finds that there was
no sufficient evidence to show that such is the case. Lourdes M. de Leon is the
treasurer of the corporation and is authorized to sign checks for the
corporation. At the time of the issuance of the checks, there were sufficient
funds in the bank to cover payment of the amount of P2 million pesos. It is,
however, our view that there is basis to rule that the act of issuing the
checks was well within the ambit of a valid corporate act, for it was for
securing a loan to finance the activities of the corporation, hence, not an
ultra vires act.
Same; Same; Words
and Phrases; “Ultra Vires Acts,” Explained.—“An ultra vires act is one committed outside the
object for which a corporation is created as defined by the law of its
organization and therefore beyond the power conferred upon it by law.” The term
“ultra vires” is “distinguished from an illegal act for the former is merely
voidable which may be enforced by performance, ratification, or estoppel, while
the latter is void and cannot be validated.”
Same; Same;
Instances when personal liability of corporate directors, trustees or officers
may validly attach.—The
next question to determine is whether Lourdes M. de Leon and Antonio de las
Alas were personally liable for the checks issued as corporate officers and
authorized signatories of the check. “Personal liability of a corporate
director, trustee or officer along (although not necessarily) with the
corporation may so validly attach, as a rule, only when: “1. He assents (a) to
a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or (b) for bad faith or gross
negligence in directing its affairs, or (c) for conflict of interest, resulting
in damages to the corporation, its stockholders or other persons; “2. He
consents to the issuance of watered down stocks or who, having knowledge
thereof, does not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written
objection thereto; “3. He agrees to hold himself personally and solidarily
liable with the corporation; or “4. He is made, by a specific provision of law,
to personally answer for his corporate action.”
Same; Same;
Checks; A treasurer of a corporation whose negligence in signing a confirmation
letter for rediscounting of crossed checks, knowing fully well that the checks
were strictly endorsed for deposit only to the payee’s account and not to be
further negotiated, resulting in damage to the corporation may be personally
liable therefor.—In
the case at bar, Lourdes M. de Leon and Antonio de las Alas as treasurer and
Chairman of HiCement were authorized to issue the checks. However, Ms. de Leon
was negligent when she signed the confirmation letter requested by Mr. Yap of
Atrium and Mr. Henry of E.T. Henry for the rediscounting of the crossed checks
issued in favor of E.T. Henry. She was aware that the checks were strictly endorsed
for deposit only to the payee’s account and not to be further negotiated. What
is more, the confirmation letter contained a clause that was not true, that is,
“that the checks issued to E.T. Henry were in payment of Hydro oil bought by
Hi-Cement from E.T. Henry.” Her negligence resulted in damage to the
corporation. Hence, Ms. de Leon may be held personally liable therefor.
Negotiable
Instrument Law; Checks; Words and Phrases; “Holder in Due Course,” Explained.—The next issue is whether or
not petitioner Atrium was a holder of the checks in due course. The Negotiable
Instruments Law, Section 52 defines a holder in due course, thus: “A holder in
due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following
conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he
became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had
been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good
faith and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no
notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person
negotiating it.”
Same; Same; A
person to whom a crossed check was endorsed by the payee of said check could
not be considered a holder in due course.—In the instant case, the checks were crossed
checks and specifically indorsed for deposit to payee’s account only. From the
beginning, Atrium was aware of the fact that the checks were all for deposit
only to payee’s account, meaning E.T. Henry. Clearly, then, Atrium could not be
considered a holder in due course.
Same; Same; A
holder not in due course may still recover on the instrument.—It does not follow as a legal
proposition that simply because petitioner Atrium was not a holder in due
course for having taken the instruments in question with notice that the same
was for deposit only to the account of payee E.T. Henry that it was altogether
precluded from recovering on the instrument. The Negotiable Instruments Law
does not provide that a holder not in due course can not recover on the
instrument.
Same; Same; The
disadvantage of a holder not in due course is that the negotiable instrument is
subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable, such as absence or failure of
consideration.—The
disadvantage of Atrium in not being a holder in due course is that the
negotiable instrument is subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable. One
such defense is absence or failure of consideration. [Atrium Management
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23(2001)]
Gokongwei, Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, 89 SCRA 336 ,
April 11, 1979
Supreme Court;
Judgments; Securities and Exchange Commission; Corporation Law; Supreme Court
always strives to settle a legal controversy in a single proceeding.—xxx In the case at bar, there
are facts which cannot be denied, viz.: that the amended by-laws were adopted
by the Board of Directors of the San Miguel Corporation in the exercise of the
power delegated by the stockholders ostensibly pursuant to section 22 of the Corporation
Law; that in a special meeting on February 10, 1977 held specially for that
purpose, the amended by-laws were ratified by more than 80% of the stockholders
of record; that the foreign investment in the Hongkong Brewery and Distillery,
a beer manufacturing company in Hongkong, was made by the San Miguel
Corporation in 1948; and that in the stockholders’ annual meeting held in 1972
and 1977, all foreign investments and operations of San Miguel Corporation were
ratified by the stockholders.
Corporation Law;
While reasonableness of a by-law is a legal question, where reasonableness of a
by-law provision is one in which reasonable minds may differ a court will not
be justified in subsisting its judgment for those authorized to make the
by-laws.—The validity
or reasonableness of a by-law of a corporation is purely a question of law.
Whether the by-law is in conflict with the law of the land, or with the charter
of the corporation, or is in a legal sense unreasonable and therefore unlawful
is a question of law. This rule is subject, however, to the limitation that
where the reasonableness of a by-law is a mere matter of judgment, and one upon
which reasonable minds must necessarily differ, a court would not be warranted
in substituting its judgment instead of the judgment of those who are
authorized to make by-laws and who have exercised their authority.
Same; Under the
Corporation Law a corporation is authorized to prescribe the qualification of
its directors.—In
this jurisdiction, under Section 21 of the Corporation Law, a corporation may
prescribed in its by-laws “the qualifications, duties and compensation of
directors, officers and employees ***.” This must necessarily refer to a
qualification in addition to that specified by section 30 of the Corporation
Law, which provides that “every director must own in his right at least one
share of the capital stock of the stock corporation of which he is a director *
* *.”
Same; Stockholder
has no vested right to be elected as stockholder.—Any person “who buys stock in
a corporation does so with the knowledge that its affairs are dominated by a
majority of the stockholders and that he implied contracts that the will of the
majority shall govern in all matters within the limits of the act of
incorporation and lawfully enacted by-laws and not forbidden by law.” To this
extent, therefore, the stockholder may be considered to have “parted with his
personal right or privilege to regulate the disposition of his property which
he has invested in the capital stock of the corporation and surrendered it to
the will of the majority or his fellow incorporators. **** It can not therefore
be justly said that the contract, express or implied, between the corporation
and the stockholders is infringed *** by any act of the former which is
authorized by a majority, ***.”
Same; A director
stands in a fiduciary relation to the competition and its stockholders. The disqualification of a
competition from being elected to the board of directors is a reasonable
exercise of corporate authority. Although in the strict and technical sense,
directors of a private corporation are not regarded as trustees, there cannot
be any doubt that their character is that of a fiduciary insofar as the
corporation for the collective benefit of the stockholders, “they occupy a
fiduciary relation, and in these sense the relation is one of trust.”
Same; Same.—It is obviously to prevent the
creation of an opportunity for an officer or director of San Miguel
Corporation, who is also the officer or owner of competing corporation, from
taking advantage of the information which he acquires as director to promote
his individual or corporate interests to the prejudice of San Miguel
Corporation and its stockholders, that the questioned amendment of the by-laws
was made. Certainly, where two corporations are competitive in a substantial
sense, it would seem improbable, if not impossible, for the director, if he
were to discharge effectively his duty, to satisfy his loyalty to both
corporations and place the performance of his corporate duties above his
personal concerns.
Same; Same.—Sound principles of corporate
management counsel against sharing sensitive information with a director whose
fiduciary duty to loyalty may well require that he disclose this information to
a competitive rival. These dangers are enhanced considerably where the common
director such as the petitioner is a controlling stockholder of two of the
competing corporations. It would seem manifest that in such situations, the
director has an economic incentive to appropriate for the benefit of his own
corporation the corporate plans and policies of the corporation where he sits
as director.
Same; Another
reason for upholding a by-law provision that forbids a competitor to be elected
as corporate director are the laws prohibiting cartels.—There is another important
consideration in determining whether or not the amended by-laws are reasonable.
The Constitution and the law prohibit combinations in restraint of trade or
unfair competition. Thus, Section 2 of Article XIV of the Constitution
provides: “That State shall regulate or prohibit private monopolies when the
public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
competition shall be allowed.”
Same; Same.—Basically, these anti-trust
laws or laws against monopolies or combinations in restraint of trade are aimed
at raising levels of competition by improving the consumers’ effectiveness as
the final arbiter in free markets. These laws are designed to preserve free and
unfettered competition as the rule of trade. “It rests on the premise that the
unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation
of our economic resources, the lowest prices and the highest quality ***.” They
operate to forestall concentration of economic power. The law against
monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade is aimed at contracts and
combinations that, by reason of the inherent nature of the contemplated acts,
prejudice the public interest by unduly restraining competition or unduly
obstructing the course of trade.
Same; Election of
petitioner as San Miguel Corporation Director may run counter to the
prohibition contained in Section 13(5) of Corporation Law on investments in
corporations engaged in agriculture.—Finally,
considering that both Robina and SMC are, to a certain extent, engaged in
agriculture, then the election of petitioner to the Board of SMC may constitute
a violation of the prohibition contained in Section 13(5) of the Corporation
Law. Said section provides in part that “any stockholder of more than one
corporation organized for the purpose of engaging in agriculture may hold his
stock in such corporations solely for investment and not for the purpose of
bringing about or attempting to bring about a combination to exercise control
of such corporations. ***.”
Same; The by-law
amendment of SMC applies equally to all and does not discriminate against
petitioner only.—However,
the by-law, by its terms, applies to all stockholders. The equal protection
clause of the Constitution requires only that the by-laws operate equally upon
all persons of a class. Besides, before petitioner can be declared ineligible
to run for director, there must be hearing and evidence must be submitted to
bring his case within the ambit of the disqualification. Sound principles of
public policy and management, therefore, support the view that a by-law which
disqualifies a competitor from election to the Board of Directors of another
corporation is valid and reasonable.
Same; Petitioner
is not ipso facto disqualified to run on SMC director. He must be given full
opportunity by the SEC to show that he is not covered by the disqualification.—While We here sustain the
validity of the amended by-laws, it does not follow as a necessary consequence
that petitioner is ipso facto disqualified. Consonant with the requirement of
due process, there must be due hearing at which the petitioner must be given
the fullest opportunity to show that he is not covered by the disqualification.
As trustees of the corporation and of the stockholders, it is the
responsibility of directors to act with fairness to the stockholders. Pursuant
to this obligation and to remove any suspicion that this power may be utilized
by the incumbent members of the Board to perpetuate themselves in power, any
decision of the Board to disqualify a candidate for the Board of Directors
should be reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission en banc and its
decision shall be final unless reversed by this Court on certiorari.
Same; Every
stockholder has the right to inspect corporate books and records.—The stockholder’s right of
inspection of the corporation’s books and records is based upon their ownership
of the assets and property of the corporation. It is, therefore, an incident of
ownership of the corporate property, whether this ownership or interest be
termed an equitable ownership, a beneficial ownership, or a quasi-ownership.
This right is predicated upon the necessity of selfprotection. It is generally
held by majority of the courts that where the right is granted by statute to
the stockholder, it is given to him as such and must be exercised by him with
respect to his interest as a stockholder and for some purpose germane thereto
or in the interest of the corporation. In other words, the inspection has to
germane to the petitioner’s interest as a stockholder, and has to be proper and
lawful in character and not inimical to the interest of the corporation.
Same; The right
of stockholder to inspect corporate books extends to a wholly-owned subsidiary.—In the case at bar,
considering that the foreign subsidiary is wholly owned by respondent San
Miguel Corporation and, therefore, under its control, it would be more in
accord with equity, good faith and fair dealing to construe the statutory right
of petitioner as stockholder to inspect the books and records of the
corporation as extending to books and records of such wholly owned subsidiary
which are in respondent corporation’s possession and control.
Same; Purely
ultra vires corporate acts of corporate officers to invest corporate funds in
another business or corporation, i.e., acts not contrary to law, morals, public
order as public policy, may be ratified by the stockholders holding 2/3 of the
voting power.—Assuming
arguendo that the Board of Directors of San Miguel Corporation had no authority
to make the assailed investment, there is no question that a corporation, like
an individual, may ratify and thereby render binding upon it the originally
unauthorized acts of its officers or other agents. This is true because the
questioned investment is neither contrary to law, morals, public order or
public policy. It is a corporate transaction or contract which is within the
corporate powers, but which is defective from a purported failure to observe in
its execution the requirement of the law that the investment must be authorized
by the affirmative vote of the stockholders holding twothirds of the voting
power. This requirement is for the benefit of the stockholders. The stockholders
for whose benefit the requirement was enacted may, therefore, ratify the
investment and its ratification by said stockholders obliterates any defect
which it may have had at the outset. “Mere ultra vires acts”, said this Court
in Pirovano, “or those which are not illegal and void ab initio, but are not
merely within the scope of the articles of incorporation, are merely voidable
and may become binding and enforceable when ratified by the stockholders.”
Corporation Law;
Judgment; The doctrine of the law of the case.—We hold on our part that the
doctrine of the law of the case invoked by Mr. Justice Barredo has no
applicability for the following reasons: a) Our jurisprudence is quite clear
that this doctrine may be invoked only where there has been a final and
conclusive determination of an issue in the first case later invoked as the law
of the case.
Same; Same; When
doctrine of the law of the case not applicable.—The doctrine of the law of the
case, therefore, has no applicability whatsoever herein insofar as the question
of the validity or invalidity of the amended by-laws is concerned. The Court’s
judgment of April 11, 1979 clearly shows that the voting on this question
inconclusive with six against four Justices and two other Justices (the Chief
Justice and Mr. Justice Fernando) expressly reserving their votes thereon, and
Mr. Justice Aquino while taking no part in effect likewise expressly reserved
his vote thereon. No final aad conclusive determination could be reached on the
issue and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 56, section 11, since this special
civil action originally commenced in this Court, the action was simply
dismissed with the result that no law of the case was laid down insofar as the
issue of the validity or invalidity of the questioned by-laws is con cerned, and the relief sought
herein by petitioner that this Court bypass the SEC which has yet to hear and
determine the same issue pending before it below and that this Court itself
directly resolve the said issue stands denied.
Same; Same;
Constitutional Law; Due Process; When procedural due process was not observed.—The entire Court, therefore,
recognized that petitioner had not been given procedural due process by the SMC
board on the matter of his disqualification and that he was entitled to a “new
and proper hearing”. It stands to reason that in such hearing, petitioner could
raise not only questions of fact but questions of law, particularly questions
of law affecting the investing public and their right to representation on the
board as provided by law—not to mention that as borne out by the fact that no
restriction whatsoever appears in the Court’s decision, it was never
contemplated that petitioner was to be limited questions of fact and could not
raise the fundamental question of law bearing on the invalidity of the
questioned amended by-laws at such hearing before the SMC board. Furthermore,
it was expressly provided unanimously in the Court’s decision that the SMC
board’s decision on the disqualification of petitioner (“assuming the board of
directors of San Miguel Corporation should, after the proper hearing,
disqualify him” as qualified in Mr. Justice Barredo’s own separate opinion, at
page 2) shall be appealable to respondent Securities and Exchange Commission
“deliberating and acting en banc” and “ultimately to this Court.”
Same; Same;
Reservation of the vote of the Chief Justice.—As expressly stated in the
Chief Justice’s reservation of his vote, the matter of the question of the
applicability of the said section 13(5) to petitioner would be heard by this
Court at the appropriate time after the proceedings below (and necessarily the
question of the validity of the amended by-laws would be taken up anew and the
Court would at that time be able to reach a final and conclusive vote).
Same; Same;
Validity of the amended by-laws.—The
six votes cast by Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Santos, Abad Santos, De Castro
and this writer in favor of validity of the amended by-laws in question, with
only four members of this Court, namely, Justices Teehankee, Concepcion Jr.,
Fernandez and Guerrero opining otherwise, and with Chief Justice Castro and
Justice Fernando reserving their votes thereon and Justice Aquino and Melencio
Herrera not voting, thereby resulting in the dismissal of the petition “insofar
as it assails the validity of the amended by-laws . . . . for lack of necessary
votes”, has no other legal consequence than that it is the law of the case far
as the parties herein are concerned, albeit the majority opinion of six against
four Justices is not doctrinal in the sense that it cannot be cited as
necessarily a precedent for subsequent cases. This means that petitioner
Gokongwei and the respondents, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, are bound by the foregoing result, namely, that the Court en banc
has not found merit in the claim that the amended by-laws in question are
invalid. Indeed, it is one thing to say that dismissal of the case is not
doctrinal and entirely another thing to maintain that such dismissal leaves the
issue unsettled.
Same; Same; Where
petitioner can no longer revive the issue validity of the amended by-laws.—I reiterate, therefore, that as
between the parties herein, the issue of validity of the challenged bylaws is
already settled. From which it follows that the same are already enforceable
insofar as they are concerned. Petitioner Gokongwei may not hereafter act on
the assumption that he can revive the issue of validity whether in the
Securities Exchange Commission, in this Court or in any other forum, unless he
proceeds on the basis of a factual milieu different from the setting of this
case. Not even the Securities and Exchange Commission may pass on such question
anymore at the instance of herein petitioner or anyone acting in his stead or on
his behalf. The vote of four justices to remand the case thereto cannot alter
the situation.
Same; Same; Where
Court has not found merit in the claim that the amended by-laws in question are
valid.—I
concur in Justice Barredo’s statement that the dismissal (for lack of necessary
votes) of the petition to the extent that “it assails the validity of the
amended by-laws,” is the law of the case at bar, which means in effect that as
far and only in so far as the parties and the Securities and Exchange Commission
are concerned, the Court has not found merit in the claim that the amended
by-laws in question are valid.
Same; Same; Term
and meaning of “farming.”—This
is my view, even as I am for a restrictive interpretation of Section 13(5) of
the Philippine Corporation Law, under which I would limit the scope of the
provision to corporations engaged in agriculture, but only as the word
“agriculture” refers to its more limited meaning as distinguish ed from its
general and broad connotation. The term would then mean “farming” or raising
the natural products of the soil, such as by cultivation, in the acquisition of
agricultural land such as by homestead, before the patent may be issued.
Same; Same;
Poultry raising or piggery is included in the term “agriculture.”—It is my opinion that under
the public land statute, the development of a certain portion of the land
applied for a specified in the law as a condition precedent before the
applicant may obtain a patent, is cultivation, not let us say, poultry raising
or piggery, which may be included in the term “Agriculture” in its broad sense.
For under Section 13(5) of the Philippine Corporation Law, construed not in the
strict way as I believe it should because the provision is in derogation of
property rights, the petitioner in this case would be disqualified from
becoming an officer of either the San Miguel Corporation or his own supposedly
agricultural corporations. [Gokongwei, Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 89 SCRA 336(1979)]
Aurbach
vs. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, 180 SCRA 130 , December 15, 1989
Expertravel
& Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 147 , May 26, 2005
Actions;
Pleadings and Practice; Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping; Corporations; The
requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and the
failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused; Where the plaintiff
is a private corporation, the certification may be signed, for and on behalf of
the said corporation, by a specifically authorized person, including its
retained counsel, who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be
established by the documents.—It
is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory and that the failure to comply with this requirement cannot be
excused. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the
party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no
other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of
action. Hence, the certification must be accomplished by the party himself
because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar
actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may
be unaware of such facts. Hence, the requisite certification executed by the
plaintiff’s counsel will not suffice. In a case where the plaintiff is a
private corporation, the certification may be signed, for and on behalf of the
said corporation, by a specifically authorized person, including its retained
counsel, who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be established by
the documents.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Attorneys; The certificate of non-forum shopping may be incorporated in
the complaint or appended thereto as an integral part of the complaint; If the
authority of a party’s counsel to execute a certificate of non-forum shopping
is disputed by the adverse party, the former is required to show proof of such
authority or representation.—The
certificate of non-forum shopping may be incorporated in the complaint or
appended thereto as an integral part of the complaint. The rule is that
compliance with the rule after the filing of the complaint, or the dismissal of
a complaint based on its non-compliance with the rule, is impermissible.
However, in exceptional circumstances, the court may allow subsequent
compliance with the rule. If the authority of a party’s counsel to execute a
certificate of non-forum shopping is disputed by the adverse party, the former
is required to show proof of such authority or representation. In this case,
the petitioner, as the defendant in the RTC, assailed the authority of Atty.
Aguinaldo to execute the requisite verification and certificate of non-forum
shopping as the resident agent and counsel of the respondent. It was, thus,
incumbent upon the respondent, as the plaintiff, to allege and establish that
Atty. Aguinaldo had such authority to execute the requisite verification and
certification for and in its behalf. The respondent, however, failed to do so.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Same; Foreign Corporations; Resident Agents; Being a resident agent of a
foreign corporation does not mean that he is authorized to execute the
requisite certification against forum shopping—while a resident agent may be
aware of actions filed against his principal (a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines), he may not be aware of actions initiated by its
principal, whether in the Philippines against a domestic corporation or private
individual, or in the country where such corporation was organized and
registered, against a Philippine registered corporation or a Filipino citizen.—While Atty. Aguinaldo is the
resident agent of the respondent in the Philippines, this does not mean that he
is authorized to execute the requisite certification against forum shopping.
Under Section 127, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation Code, the
authority of the resident agent of a foreign corporation with license to do
business in the Philippines is to receive, for and in behalf of the foreign
corporation, services and other legal processes in all actions and other legal
proceedings against such corporation, thus: * * * Under the law, Atty.
Aguinaldo was not specifically authorized to execute a certificate of non-forum
shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. This is
because while a resident agent may be aware of actions filed against his
principal (a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines), such
resident may not be aware of actions initiated by its principal, whether in the
Philippines against a domestic corporation or private individual, or in the
country where such corporation was organized and registered, against a
Philippine registered corporation or a Filipino citizen.
Same; Evidence;
Judicial Notice; The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed
to be judicially known is that of notoriety.—Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice
have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction
of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to
be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial
notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general
notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a
reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and
ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable.
Same; Same; Same;
A court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on
the existence or non-existence of a fact which the court has no constructive
knowledge.—Things
of “common knowledge,” of which courts take judicial matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life,
or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are
capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are
universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or
other publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such
universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as
forming part of the common knowledge of every person. As the common knowledge
of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been
judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge. But a court cannot
take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence
or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge.
Same; Same; Same;
Telecommunications; Teleconferencing; Types; Words and Phrases; In this age of
modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business
transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing;
Teleconferencing is interactive group communication (three or more people in
two or more locations) through an electronic medium, bringing people together
under one roof even though they are separated by hundreds of miles.—In this age of modern technology,
the courts may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by
individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is interactive group
communication (three or more people in two or more locations) through an
electronic medium. In general terms, teleconferencing can bring people together
under one roof even though they are separated by hundreds of miles. This type
of group communication may be used in a number of ways, and have three basic
types: (1) video conferencing—television-like communication augmented with
sound; (2) computer conferencing—printed communication through keyboard
terminals, and (3) audio-conferencing—verbal communication via the telephone
with optional capacity for telewriting or telecopying. A teleconference represents
a unique alternative to face-to-face (FTF) meetings. It was first introduced in
the 1960’s with American Telephone and Telegraph’s Picturephone. At that time,
however, no demand existed for the new technology. Travel costs were reasonable
and consumers were unwilling to pay the monthly service charge for using the
picturephone, which was regarded as more of a novelty than as an actual means
for everyday communication. In time, people found it advantageous to hold
teleconferencing in the course of business and corporate governance, because of
the money saved, among other advantages.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Same; Corporation Law; In the Philippines, teleconferencing and
videoconferencing of members of the board of directors of private corporations
is a reality in light of R.A. No. 8792.—In the Philippines, teleconferencing and
videoconferencing of members of board of directors of private corporations is a
reality, in light of Republic Act No. 8792. The Securities and Exchange
Commission issued SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15, on November 30, 2001,
providing the guide lines to be complied with related to such conferences.
Thus, the Court agrees with the RTC that persons in the Philippines may have a
teleconference with a group of persons in South Korea relating to business
transactions or corporate governance. [Expertravel & Tours, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 459 SCRA 147(2005)]
Tan
vs. Sycip, 499 SCRA 216 , August 17, 2006
Corporation Law;
Acts of management pertain to the board of directors, and those of ownership,
to the stockholders or members.—Under
the Corporation Code, stockholders or members periodically elect the board of
directors or trustees, who are charged with the management of the corporation.
The board, in turn, periodically elects officers to carry out management
functions on a day-to-day basis. As owners, though, the stockholders or members
have residual powers over fundamental and major corporate changes. While
stockholders and members (in some instances) are entitled to receive profits,
the management and direction of the corporation are lodged with their
representatives and agents—the board of directors or trustees. In other words,
acts of management pertain to the board; and those of ownership, to the
stockholders or members. In the latter case, the board cannot act alone, but
must seek approval of the stockholders or members.
Same; One of the
most important rights of a qualified shareholder or member is the right to
vote—either personally or by proxy—for the directors or trustees who are to
manage the corporate affairs.—Conformably
with the foregoing principles, one of the most important rights of a qualified
shareholder or member is the right to vote—either personally or by proxy—for
the directors or trustees who are to manage the corporate affairs. The right to
choose the persons who will direct, manage and operate the corporation is
significant, because it is the main way in which a stockholder can have a voice
in the management of corporate affairs, or in which a member in a nonstock
corporation can have a say on how the purposes and goals of the corporation may
be achieved. Once the directors or trustees are elected, the stockholders or
members relinquish corporate powers to the board in accordance with law.
Same; Quorum; In
stock corporations, the presence of a quorum is ascertained and counted on the
basis of the outstanding capital stock.—In stock corporations, the presence of
a quorum is ascertained and counted on the basis of the outstanding capital
stock, as defined by the Code thus: “SEC-TION 137. Outstanding capital stock
defined.—The
term ‘outstanding capital stock’ as used in this Code, means the total shares
of stock issued under binding subscription agreements to subscribers or
stockholders, whether or not fully or partially paid, except treasury shares.”
Same; Same; Only
stock actually issued and outstanding may be voted—neither the stockholders nor
the corporation can vote or represent shares that have never passed to the
ownership of stockholders, or, having so passed, have again been purchased by
the corporation.—The
right to vote is inherent in and incidental to the ownership of corporate
stocks. It is settled that unis-sued stocks may not be voted or considered in
determining whether a quorum is present in a stockholders’ meeting, or whether
a requisite proportion of the stock of the corporation is voted to adopt a
certain measure or act. Only stock actually issued and outstanding may be
voted. Under Section 6 of the Corporation Code, each share of stock is entitled
to vote, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or declared
delinquent under Section 67 of the Code. Neither the stockholders nor the
corporation can vote or represent shares that have never passed to the
ownership of stockholders; or, having so passed, have again been purchased by
the corporation. These shares are not to be taken into consideration in
determining majorities. When the law speaks of a given proportion of the stock,
it must be construed to mean the shares that have passed from the corporation,
and that may be voted.
Same; Same; When
the principle for determining the quorum for stock corporations is applied by
analogy to nonstock corporations, only those who are actual members with voting
rights should be counted.—In
nonstock corporations, the voting rights attach to membership. Members vote as
persons, in accordance with the law and the bylaws of the corporation. Each
member shall be entitled to one vote unless so limited, broadened, or denied in
the articles of incorporation or bylaws. We hold that when the principle for
determining the quorum for stock corporations is applied by analogy to
non-stock corporations, only those who are actual members with voting rights
should be counted. Under Section 52 of the Corporation Code, the majority of
the members representing the actual number of voting rights, not the number or
numerical constant that may originally be specified in the articles of
incorporation, constitutes the quorum.
Same; Same; In
stock corporations, shareholders may generally transfer their shares; The
determination of whether or not “dead members” are entitled to exercise their
voting rights (through their executor or administrator), depends on the
articles of incorporation or bylaws.—In
stock corporations, shareholders may generally transfer their shares. Thus, on
the death of a shareholder, the executor or administrator duly appointed by the
Court is vested with the legal title to the stock and entitled to vote it.
Until a settlement and division of the estate is effected, the stocks of the
decedent are held by the administrator or executor. On the other hand,
membership in and all rights arising from a nonstock corporation are personal
and non-transferable, unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws of the
corporation provide otherwise. In other words, the determination of whether or
not “dead mem-bers” are entitled to exercise their voting rights (through their
executor or administrator), depends on those articles of incorporation or
bylaws.
Same; Same; Dead
members who are dropped from the membership ros-ter in the manner and for the
cause provided for in the By-Laws of Grace Christian High School, a nonstock
corporation, are not to be counted in determining the requisite vote in
corporate matters or the requisite quorum.—Under the By-Laws of GCHS, membership in the
corporation shall, among others, be terminated by the death of the member.
Section 91 of the Corporation Code further provides that termination
extinguishes all the rights of a member of the corporation, unless otherwise
provided in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws. Applying Section 91 to
the present case, we hold that dead members who are dropped from the membership
roster in the manner and for the cause provided for in the By-Laws of GCHS are
not to be counted in determining the requisite vote in corporate matters or the
requisite quorum for the annual members’ meeting. With 11 remaining members,
the quorum in the present case should be 6. Therefore, there being a quorum,
the annual members’ meeting, conducted with six members present, was valid.
Same; Same; Words
and Phrases; The phrase “may be filled” in Section 29 of the Corporation Code
shows that the filling of vacancies in the board by the remaining directors or
trustees constituting a quorum is merely permissive, not
mandatory—corporations, therefore, may choose how vacancies in their respective
boards may be filled up.—Undoubtedly,
trustees may fill vacancies in the board, provided that those remaining still
constitute a quorum. The phrase “may be filled” in Section 29 shows that the
filling of vacancies in the board by the remaining directors or trustees
constituting a quorum is merely permissive, not mandatory. Corporations,
therefore, may choose how vacancies in their respective boards may be filled
up—either by the remaining directors constituting a quorum, or by the
stockholders or members in a regular or special meeting called for the purpose.
The By-Laws of GCHS prescribed the specific mode of filling up existing vacancies
in its board of directors; that is, by a majority vote of the remaining members
of the board.
Same; Same; There
is a well-defined distinction between a corporate act to be done by the board
and that by the constituent members of the corporation.—While a majority of the
remaining corporate members were present, however, the “election” of the four
trustees cannot be legally upheld for the obvious reason that it was held in an
annual meeting of the members, not of the board of trustees. We are not unmindful
of the fact that the members of GCHS themselves also constitute the trustees,
but we cannot ignore the GCHS bylaw provision, which specifically prescribes
that vacancies in the board must be filled up by the remaining trustees. In
other words, these remaining member-trustees must sit as a board in order to
validly elect the new ones. Indeed, there is a well-defined distinction between
a corporate act to be done by the board and that by the constituent members of
the corporation. The board of trustees must act, not individually or
separately, but as a body in a lawful meeting. On the other hand, in their
annual meeting, the members may be represented by their respective proxies, as
in the contested annual members’ meeting of GCHS. [Tan vs. Sycip, 499 SCRA
216(2006)]
Bitong vs. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division), 292 SCRA 503 , July
13, 1998
Corporation Law;
Stock Certificates; A mere typewritten statement advising a stockholder of the
extent of his ownership in a corporation without qualification and/or
authentication cannot be considered as a formal certificate of stock.—Section 63 of The Corporation
Code expressly provides—x x x This provision above quoted envisions a formal
certificate of stock which can be issued only upon compliance with certain requisites.
First, the certificates must be signed by the president or vice-president,
countersigned by the secretary or assistant secretary, and sealed with the seal
of the corporation. A mere typewritten statement advising a stockholder of the
extent of his ownership in a corporation without qualification and/or
authentication cannot be considered as a formal certificate of stock. Second,
delivery of the certificate is an essential element of its issuance. Hence,
there is no issuance of a stock certificate where it is never detached from the
stock books although blanks therein are properly filled up if the person whose
name is inserted therein has no control over the books of the company. Third,
the par value, as to par value shares, or the full subscription as to no par
value shares, must first be fully paid. Fourth, the original certificate must
be surrendered where the person requesting the issuance of a certificate is a
transferee from a stockholder.
Same;
Same; Stock and Transfer Books; Evidence; Books and records of a corporation
which include even the stock and transfer book are generally admissible in
evidence in favor of or against the corporation and its members to prove the
corporate acts, its financial status and other matters including one’s status
as a stockholder.—The certificate of stock itself once issued is a continuing
affirmation or representation that the stock described therein is valid and
genuine and is at least prima facie evidence that it was legally issued in the
absence of evidence to the contrary. However, this presumption may be rebutted.
Similarly, books and records of a corporation which include even the stock and
transfer book are generally admissible in evidence in favor of or against the
corporation and its members to prove the corporate acts, its financial status
and other matters including one’s status as a stockholder. They are ordinarily
the best evidence of corporate acts and proceedings.
Same; Same; Same;
Same; Parol Evidence; The books and records of a corporation are not conclusive
even against the corporation but are prima facie evidence only—parol evidence
may be admitted to supply omissions in the records, explain ambiguities, or
show what transpired where no records were kept, or in some cases where such
records were contradicted.—However,
the books and records of a corporation are not conclusive even against the
corporation but are prima facie evidence only. Parol evidence may be admitted
to supply omissions in the records, explain ambiguities, or show what transpired
where no records were kept, or in some cases where such records were
contradicted. The effect of entries in the books of the corporation which
purport to be regular records of the proceedings of its board of directors or
stockholders can be destroyed by testimony of a more conclusive character than
mere suspicion that there was an irregularity in the manner in which the books
were kept.
Same; Same; Same;
Stock issued without authority and in violation of law is void and confers no
rights on the person to whom it is issued and subjects him to no liabilities.—The foregoing considerations
are founded on the basic principle that stock issued without authority and in
violation of law is void and confers no rights on the person to whom it is
issued and subjects him to no liabilities. Where there is an inherent lack of
power in the corporation to issue the stock, neither the corporation nor the
person to whom the stock is issued is estopped to question its validity since
an estoppel cannot operate to create stock which under the law cannot have
existence.
Same; Same; Same;
A formal certificate of stock could not be considered issued in contemplation
of law unless signed by the president or vice-president and countersigned by
the secretary or assistant secretary.—Based
on the foregoing admission of petitioner, there is no truth to the statement
written in Certificate of Stock No. 008 that the same was issued and signed on
25 July 1983 by its duly authorized officers specifically the President and
Corporate Secretary because the actual date of signing thereof was 17 March
1989. Verily, a formal certificate of stock could not be considered issued in
contemplation of law unless signed by the president or vice-president and
countersigned by the secretary or assistant secretary.
Same; Same; Same;
When a Certificate of Stock was admittedly signed and issued only on 17 March
1989 and not on 25 July 1983, the certificate has no evidentiary value for the
purpose of proving that a stockholder was such since 1983 up to 1989.—In this case, contrary to
petitioner’s submission, the Certificate of Stock No. 008 was only legally
issued on 17 March 1989 when it was actually signed by the President of the
corporation, and not before that date. While a certificate of stock is not
necessary to make one a stockholder, e.g., where he is an incorporator and
listed as stockholder in the articles of incorporation although no certificate
of stock has yet been issued, it is supposed to serve as paper representative
of the stock itself and of the owner’s interest therein. Hence, when
Certificate of Stock No. 008 was admittedly signed and issued only on 17 March
1989 and not on 25 July 1983, even as it indicates that petitioner owns 997
shares of stock of Mr. & Ms., the certificate has no evidentiary value for
the purpose of proving that petitioner was a stockholder since 1983 up to 1989.
Same; Same;
Trusts; It is a settled rule that the trustee should endorse the stock
certificate to validate the cancellation of her share and to have the transfer
recorded in the books of the corporation.—And, there is nothing in the records which shows
that JAKA had revoked the trust it reposed on respondent Eugenia D. Apostol.
Neither was there any evidence that the principal had requested her to assign and
transfer the shares of stock to petitioner. If it was true that the shares of
stock covered by Certificate of Stock No. 007 had been transferred to
petitioner, the person who could legally endorse the certificate was private
respondent Eugenia D. Apostol, she being the registered owner and trustee of
the shares of stock covered by Certificate of Stock No. 007. It is a settled
rule that the trustee should endorse the stock certificate to validate the
cancellation of her share and to have the transfer recorded in the books of the
corporation.
Same; Same;
Requirements for a Valid Transfer of Stocks.—Thus, for a valid transfer of stocks, the
requirements are as follows: (a) There must be delivery of the stock
certificate; (b) The certificate must be endorsed by the owner or his
attorney-in-fact or other persons legally authorized to make the transfer; and,
(c) To be valid against third parties, the transfer must be recorded in the
books of the corporation. At most, in the instant case, petitioner has satisfied
only the third requirement. Compliance with the first two requisites has not
been clearly and sufficiently shown.
Same; Same;
Considering that the requirements provided under Sec. 63 of the Corporation
Code should be mandatorily complied with, the rule on presumption of regularity
cannot apply.—Considering
that the requirements provided under Sec. 63 of The Corporation Code should be
mandatorily complied with, the rule on presumption of regularity cannot apply.
The regularity and validity of the transfer must be proved. As it is, even the
credibility of the stock and transfer book and the entries thereon relied upon
by petitioner to show compliance with the third requisite to prove that she was
a stockholder since 1983 is highly doubtful.
Same; Same; Dividends;
When a dividend is declared, it belongs to the person who is the substantial
and beneficial owner of the stock at the time regardless of when the
distribution profit was earned.—That
JAKA retained its ownership of its Mr. & Ms. shares was clearly shown by
its receipt of the dividends issued in December 1986. This only means, very
obviously, that Mr. & Ms. shares in question still belonged to JAKA and not
to petitioner. For, dividends are distributed to stockholders pursuant to their
right to share in corporate profits. When a dividend is declared, it belongs to
the person who is the substantial and beneficial owner of the stock at the time
regardless of when the distribution profit was earned.
Same; Actions;
Derivative Suits; The power to sue and be sued in any court by a corporation
even as a stockholder is lodged in the board of directors that exercises its
corporate powers and not in the president or officer thereof.—The admissions of a party
against his interest inscribed upon the record books of a corporation are
competent and persuasive evidence against him. These admissions render nugatory
any argument that petitioner is a bona fide stockholder of Mr. & Ms. at any
time before 1988 or at the time the acts complained of were committed. There is
no doubt that petitioner was an employee of JAKA as its managing officer, as
testified to by Senator Enrile himself. However, in the absence of a special
authority from the board of directors of JAKA to institute a derivative suit
for and in its behalf, petitioner is disqualified by law to sue in her own
name. The power to sue and be sued in any court by a corporation even as a
stockholder is lodged in the board of directors that exercises its corporate
powers and not in the president or officer thereof.
Same; Same; Same;
The stockholder’s right to institute a derivative suit is not based on any
express provision of the Corporation Code but is impliedly recognized when the
law makes corporate directors or officers liable for damages suffered by the
corporation and its stockholders for violation of their fiduciary duties.—It is well settled in this
jurisdiction that where corporate directors are guilty of a breach of trust,
not of mere error of judgment or abuse of discretion, and intracorporate remedy
is futile or useless, a stockholder may institute a suit in behalf of himself
and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring about a
redress of the wrong inflicted directly upon the corporation and indirectly
upon the stockholders. The stockholder’s right to institute a derivative suit
is not based on any express provision of The Corporation Code but is impliedly
recognized when the law makes corporate directors or officers liable for
damages suffered by the corporation and its stockholders for violation of their
fiduciary duties.
Same; Same; Same;
A stockholder’s suit cannot prosper without first complying with the legal
requisites for its institution, the most important being the bona fide
ownership by a stockholder of a stock in his own right at the time of the
transaction complained of which invests him with standing to institute a
derivative action for the benefit of the corporation.—The basis of a stockholder’s
suit is always one in equity. However, it cannot prosper without first complying
with the legal requisites for its institution. The most important of these is
the bona fide ownership by a stockholder of a stock in his own right at the
time of the transaction complained of which invests him with standing to
institute a derivative action for the benefit of the corporation.
No comments:
Post a Comment