OUTLINE ON PHILIPPINE

CORPORATE LAW
taken from the outline of

Atty. CESAR L. VILLANUEVA

(for updating)
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1. Philippine Corporate Law: Sort of Codification of American Corporate Law

Harden v. Benguet Consolidated Mining, 58 Phil. 141 (1933)

2. The Corporation Law

3. The Corporation Code
4. Proper Treatment of Philippine Corporate Law

II. CONCEPTS

1. Definition (Section 2; Articles 44(3), 45, 46, and 1775, Civil Code)

2. Tri-Level Existence of the Corporation

(a) Aggregation of Assets and Resources
(b) Business Enterprise or Economic Unit
(c) Juridical Entity

3. Relationships Involved in a Corporate Setting

(a) Juridical Entity Level, which views the State-corporations relationship

(b) Contractual Relationship Level, which considers that the corporate setting is at once a
contractual relationship on four (4) levels:
- Between the corporation and its agents or representatives to act in the real
world, such as its directors and its officers, which is governed also by the
Law on Agency;
- Between the corporation and its shareholders or members;
- Between and among the shareholders in a common venture; and
- Between the corporation and third-parties or "outsiders", which is
essentially governed by Contract Law.

4. Theories on the Formation of Corporation:

(a) Theory of Concession

Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated, 26 SCRA 242 [1968]).
International Express Travel & Tour Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 674 (2000).
Torres v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 793 (1997).
Ang Pue & Co. v. Sec. of Commerce and Industry, 5 SCRA 645 (1962)

(b) Theory of Enterprise Entity

PSE v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 232 (1997).
Tan Boon Bee & Co., Inc. v. Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205 (1988)

5. Four Attributes of a Corporation from its Statutory Definition:

(a) A corporation is an artificial being
(b) Created by operation of law
(c) With right of succession
(d) Has the powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or
incident to its existence

6. Advantages and Disadvantages of Corporate Form:

(a) Four Basic Advantageous Characteristics of Corporate Organization:

1
 (i) STRONG LEGAL PERSONALITY
Remo, Jr. v. IAC, 172 SCRA 405 (1989).

(ii) LIMITED LIABILITY TO INVESTORS AND OFFICERS

San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631
(1998)
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 356 SCRA 671 (2001).
Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos, 357 SCRA
77 (2001)

(iii) FREE TRANSFERABILITY OF UNITS OF OWNERSHIP FOR INVESTORS

(iv) CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT

(b) Disadvantages:
(i) Abuse of corporate management
(ii) Abuse of limited liability feature
(iii) Cost of maintenance
(iv) Double taxation
Sec. 24(B)(2), 1997 NIRC
Sec. 27(D)(4), 1997 NIRC
Sec. 29, 1997 NIRC

7. COMPARED WITH OTHER BUSINESS MEDIA

4 Distribution of Risk, Profit and Control

(a) Sole Proprietorships

(b) Partnerships and Other Associations Arts. 1768 and 1775, Civil Code
Can a defective attempt o form a corporation result at least in the formation of a
partnership?

Pioneer Insurance v. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 668 (1989)

(c) Joint Ventures

Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr., 232 SCRA 110 (1994)

(d) Cooperatives (Art. 3, R.A. No. 6938)

Corpuz v. Grospe, 333 SCRA 425 (2000)

(e) Business Trusts (Article 1442, Civil Code)

(f) Sociedades Annimas

Mead v. McCullough, 21 Phil. 95,106 (1911)
Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Pineda, 98 Phil. 711 (1956)
Phil. Product Co. v. Primateria Societe Anonyme, 15 SCRA 301 (1965)

(g) Cuentas En Participacion

Bourns v. Carman, 7 Phil. 117 (1906)

III. NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF A CORPORATION

1. Nature of Power to Create a Corporation (Sec. 16, Article XII, 1987 Constitution)
NDC v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257 (1990).

2. CORPORATION AS A PERSON:

(a) Entitled to Due Process

Smith Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136, 144 (1920).

(b) Equal Protection Clause

Smith Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136 (1920)

2
 (c) Unreasonable Searches and Seizure
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967).
Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 837 (1971)

(d) But Not Entitled to Privilege Against Self incrimination

Bataan Shipyard & Engineering v. PCGG, 150 SCRA 181 (1987).

3. Liability for Torts

PNB v. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 237 (1978)
Sergio F. Naguiat v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 564 (1997)

4. Corporate Criminal Liability

West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Hurd, 27 Phil. 401 (1914)
People v. Tan Boon Kong, 54 Phil. 607 (1930)
Sia v. Court of Appeals, 121 SCRA 655 (1983)

Articles 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code

Times, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 (1971)

People v. Concepcion, 44 Phil. 129 (1922)
Cometa v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 459 (1999)

5. Recovery of Moral and Other Damages

Art. 2217 of the Civil Code
Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Philippine National Bank, 22 SCRA 359 (1968)
APT v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 579 (1998)
Prime White Cement Corp. v. IAC, 220 SCRA 103 (1993)
LBC Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 602 (1994)
Acme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 714 (1996)
Solid Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 267 (1997)
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 589 (1999)

6. CORPORATE NATIONALITY:
UNDER WHOSE LAWS INCORPORATED (Sec. 123)

EXCEPTIONS: TEST OF CONTROLLING OWNERSHIP Also Applies In:

(a) Exploitation of Natural Resources
Sec. 140; Sec. 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. The LRC and the Register of Deeds of
Davao, 102 Phil. 596 [1957])
Register of Deeds of Rizal v. Ung Sui Si Temple, 97 Phil. 58 (1955)

(b) Public Utilities

Sec. 11, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
People v. Quasha, 93 Phil. 333 (1953)
J.R.S. Business Corp. v. Imperial Insurance, 11 SCRA 634 (1964)
Tatad v.Garcia, Jr., 243 SCRA 436 (1995)

(c) Mass Media (Sec. 11(1), Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)

Sources:
P.D. 36, as amended by P.D.s 191 and 197; DOJ Opinion No. 120, s. of 1982; Section 2,
P.D. 576; SEC Opinion dated 24 March 1983; DOJ Opinion 163, s. 1973; SEC Opinion
dated 15 July 1991, XXV SEC QUARTERLY BULLETIN, (No. 4December, 1991), at p. 31.

Cable Industry
E.O. No. 205, s. 1987

(d) Advertising Business

Sec. 11(2), Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution

3
 (e) War-Time Test
Filipinas Compania de Seguros v. Christern, Huenefeld & Co., Inc., 89 Phil. 54 (1951)
Davis Winship v. Philippine Trust Co., 90 Phil. 744 (1952)
Haw Pia v. China Banking Corp., 80 Phil. 604 (1948)

(f) Investment Test

as to "Philippine Nationals - Sec. 3(a) &(b), R.A. 7042, Foreign Investments Act of 1992

(g) The Grandfather Rule

Opinion of DOJ No. 18, s. 1989, dated 19 January 1989
SEC Opinion, dated 6 November 1989, XXIV SEC QUARTERLY BULLETIN (No. 1- March 1990)
SEC Opinion, dated 14 December 1989, XXIV SEC QUARTERLY BULLETIN (No. 2 -June 1990)

Up to what level do you apply the grandfather rule?

Palting v. San Jose Petroleum Inc., 18 SCRA 924 [1966])

(h) Special Classifications

Sec. 140

IV. SEPARATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AND DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE VEIL OF

CORPORATE FICTION

A. MAIN DOCTRINE: A CORPORATION HAS A PERSONALITY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ITS
STOCKHOLDERS OR MEMBERS.

1. Sources: Sec. 2; Article 44, Civil Code

2. Importance of Protecting Main Doctrine:

San Juan Structural v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631 (1998).
LBP v. Court of Appeals, 364 SCRA 375 (2001).

3. Applications:
(a) Majority Ownership of or Dealings in Shareholdings:
DBP v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 841 (1990)
Sunio v. NLRC , 127 SCRA 390 (1984)
Asionics Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 290 SCRA 164 (1998)
Francisco v. Mejia, 362 SCRA 738 (2001)
Laguio v. NLRC, 262 SCRA 715 (1996)

(b) Dealings Between the Corporation and Stockholders:

Stockholders of F. Guanzon and Sons, Inc. v. Register of Deeds of Manila, 6 SCRA 373
(1962).
LBP v. Court of Appeals, 364 SCRA 375 (2001)
LBP v. Court of Appeals, 364 SCRA 375 (2001)
Remo, Jr. v. IAC, 172 SCRA 405 (1989)
PNB v. Ritratto Group, Inc., 362 SCRA 216 (2001)

(c) On Privileges Enjoyed:

Manila Gas Corp. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 62 Phil. 895 (1936).

(d) Being a Corporate Officer:

Good Earth Emporium, Inc. v. CA, 194 SCRA 544 (1991)
Cruz v. Dalisay, 152 SCRA 487 (1987)
Booc v. Bantuas, 354 SCRA 279 (2001)
Intestate Estate of Alexander T. Ty v. Court of Appeals, 356 SCRA 61 (2001)
(e) Obligations and Debts:
Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 789 (1989).
Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, Inc., 72 SCRA 347 (1976)

4
 Saw v. CA, 195 SCRA 740 (1991)
Industrial and Dev. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 333 (1997)
APT v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 579 (1998)

B. PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION:

1. Source of Incantation:
DBP v. Court of Appeals, 357 SCRA 626, 358 SCRA 501, 363 SCRA 307 (2001)

2. Nature of Doctrine
Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 15 (1997)
PNB v. Ritratto Group, Inc., 362 SCRA 216 (2001).
Gochan v. Young, 354 SCRA 207 (2001).
Rovels Enterprises, Inc. v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 136821, 17 October 2002.

3. When Piercing Doctrine Not Applicable:

(a) Piercing the corporate veil is remedy of last resort and is not available when other
remedies are still available.
Umali v. CA, 189 SCRA 529 (1990)

(b) Piercing is not allowed unless the remedy sought is to make the officer or another
corporation pecuniarily liable for corporate debts
Umali v. CA, 189 SCRA 529 (1990)
Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992)

(c) Piercing is not available when personal obligations of an individual are to be enforced
against the corporation
Robledo v. NLRC, 238 SCRA 52 (1994
Francisco Motors Corp. v Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 72 (1999)

(d) To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, it is elementary that

the wrongdoing cannot be presumed and must be clearly and convincingly
established.
Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 315 (1999)
Marubeni Corp. v. Livag, G.R. No. 130998, 10 August 2002

(e) Not Applicable to Theorizing:

Boyer-Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 470 (1992)
Union Bank v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198 (1998)

(f) Piercing doctrine is meant to prevent fraud, and cannot be employed to perpetrate
fraud or a wrong.
Gregorio Araneta, Inc. v. Tuason de Paterno and Vidal, 91 Phil. 786 (1952)

The theory of corporate entity was not meant to promote unfair objectives or
otherwise, nor to shield them.
Villanueva v. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 (1989)

(g) Piercing is a power belonging to the court and cannot be assumed improvidently by a
sheriff
Cruz v. Dalisay, 152 SCRA 482 (1987)

3. Consequences and Types of Piercing Cases:

Umali v. CA, 189 SCRA 529 [1990])
PNB v. Andrada Electric & Engineering Co., G.R. No. 142936, 17 April 2002
(a) The application of the doctrine to a particular case does not deny the corporation of
legal personality for any and all purposes, but only for the particular transaction or
instance for which the doctrine was applied.
Koppel (Phil.) Inc. v. Yatco, 77 Phil. 496 (1946)
antoco v. Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, 106 Phil. 198 (1959)

5
 (b) Classification of Piercing Cases:

(i) Fraud Piercing: When corporate entity used to commit fraud or do a wrong;

(ii) Alter-ego Piercing: When corporate entity merely a farce since the corporation is
merely the alter ego, business conduit, or instrumentality of a person or another
entity; and

(iii) Equity Cases: When piercing the corporate fiction is necessary to achieve justice
or equity.
R.F. Sugay & Co., v. Reyes, 12 SCRA 700 (1964)
PNB v. Andrada Electric & Engineering Co., G.R. No. 142936, 17 April 2002.

4. Fraud Cases:
Francisco v. Mejia, 362 SCRA 738 (2001)

(a) Acts by the Controlling Shareholder:

Namarco v. Associated Finance Co., 19 SCRA 962 (1967)

(b) One cannot evade civil liability by incorporating properties or the business.
Palacio v. Fely Transportation Co., 5 SCRA 1011 (1962)

(c) When used to avoid a contractual commitment against non-competition.

Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Ferrer, 25 SCRA 845 (1968)

(d) Parent-Subsidiary Relations; Affiliates

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Norton and Harrison, 11 SCRA 704, (1954)
Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC, 278 SCRA 716 (1997)

(e) Guiding Principles in Fraud Cases:

4Why is there inordinate showing of alter-ego elements? 4
(i) There must have been fraud or an evil motive in the affected transaction, and the
mere proof of control of the corporation by itself would not authorize piercing;
and
(ii) The main action should seek for the enforcement of pecuniary claims pertaining
to the corporation against corporate officers or stockholders.

5. Alter-Ego Cases:
PNB v. Andrada Electric & Engineering Co., G.R. No. 142936, 17 April 2002
MR Holdings,Ltd. V. Bajar, G.R. No. 138104, 11 April 2002
Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr. v. Uy, 344 SCRA 238 (2000)
Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 257 SCRA 149 (1996)
DBP v. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 307 (2001).

(a) Where the stock of a corporation is owned by one person.

Arnold v. Willets and Patterson, Ltd., 44 Phil. 634 (1923)

(b) When corporation is merely an adjunct, business conduit or alter ego of another.
Tan Boon Bee & Co. v. Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205 (1988).

The corporate veil cannot be used to shield an otherwise blatant violation of the
prohibition against forum-shopping.
First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259 (1996).

(c) Employment of same workers; single place of business, etc., may indicate alter ego
situation.
La Campana Coffee Factory v. Kaisahan ng Manggagawa, 93 Phil. 160 (1953)

Where the corporate fiction was used as a means to perpetrate a social injustice or
as a vehicle to evade obligations or confuse the legitimate issues.

6
 Azcor Manufacturing, Inc. v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 26 (1999)

(d) Use of nominees to man the corporation for the benefit of the controlling stockholder.
Marvel Building v. David, 9 Phil. 376 (1951)

(e) Avoidance of tax.

Yutivo Sons Hardware v. Court of Tax Appeals 1 SCRA 160 (1961)
Liddell & Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 2 SCRA 632 (1961)

(e) Mixing of bank deposit accounts.

Ramirez Telephone Corp. v. Bank of America, 29 SCRA 191 (1969)

(f) Disrespect of Separate Entities:

Where it appears that two business enterprises are owned, conducted, and
controlled by the same parties.
Sibagat Timber Corp. v. Garcia, 216 SCRA 70 (1992)

(g) Thinly-capitalized corporations

McConnel v. Court of Appeals, 1 SCRA 722 (1961)

(h) Parent-subsidiary relationship.

Koppel (Phil.), Inc. v. Yatco, 77 Phil. 97 (1946)
PHIVIDEC v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 669 (1990)
MR. Holdings, Ltd. V. Bajar, G.R. No. 138104, 11 April 2002

(i) Affiliated companies:

Guatson International Travel and Tours, Inc. v. NLRC, 230 SCRA 815 (1990).
Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, 362 SCRA 620 (2001)
Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 370 SCRA 208 (2001)

(j) Summary of Probative Factors:

Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 257 SCRA 149 (1996)

(l) Guiding Principles in Alter-Ego Cases:

(i) The doctrine applies in this case even in the absence of evil intent; it applies
because of the direct violation of a central corporate law principle of separating
ownership from management.
(ii) The doctrine in such cased is based on estoppel: if stockholders do not respect
the separate entity, others cannot also be expected to be bound by the separate
juridical entity.
(iii) Piercing in alter ego cases may prevail even when no monetary claims are sought
to be enforced against the stockholders or officers of the corporation.

(m) Distinction Between Fraud Piercing and Alter-ego Piercing

Lipat v. Pacific Banking Corp., G.R. No. 142435, 30 April 2003)

6. Equity Cases:
(a) When used to confuse legitimate issues.
Telephone Engineering and Service Co., Inc. V. WCC, 104 SCRA 354 (1981)

(c) When used to raise technicalities.

Emilio Cano Enterprises v. CIR, 13 SCRA 291 (1965)
7. Piercing Doctrine and Due Process Clause

(a) The need to bring a new case against the officer.

Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 370 SCRA 208 (2001)
McConnel v. Court of Appeals, 1 SCRA 723 (1961)
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, 365 SCRA 538 (2001)

7
 (b) When corporate officers are sued in their official capacity when the corporation was
not made a party, the corporation is not denied due process.
Emilio Cano Enterprises v. CIR, 13 SCRA 291 (1965)

(c) Provided that evidential basis has been adduced during trial to apply the piercing
doctrine.
Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 211 (1991)
Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 120 (1992)
V. CLASSIFICATIONS OF CORPORATIONS
1. In Relation to the State:

(a) Public Corporation (Sec. 3, Act No. 1459).

(b) Quasi-public corporation.

Marilao Water Consumers Associates v. IAC, 201 SCRA 437 (1991);

(c) Private Corporation (Sec. 3, Act 1459).

National Coal Co., v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil. 583 (1924)
Bliss Dev. Corp. Employees Union v. Calleja, 237 SCRA 271 (1994)
Cervantes v. Auditor General, 91 Phil. 359 (1952)
PNOC-Energy Development Corp. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA 487 (1991)
Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission, 201 SCRA 593 (1991)
Camparedondo v. NLRC, 312 SCRA 47 (1999)
Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. NLRC, 196 SCRA 176 (1991)
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, 209 SCRA 55 (1992)
PUP v. Court of Appeals, 368 SCRA 691 (2001)

2. As to Place of Incorporation:
(a) Domestic Corporation
(b) Foreign Corporation (Sec. 123)

3. As to Purpose of Incorporation:

(a) Municipal Corporation

(b) Religious Corporation (Secs. 109 and 116)

Long v. Basa, 366 SCRA 113 (2001)

(c) Educational Corporations (Secs. 106, 107 and 108; Sec. 25, B.P. Blg. 232)

(d) Charitable, Scientific or Vocational Corporations

(e) Business Corporation

4. As to Number of Members:
(a) Aggregate Corporation;
(b) Corporation Sole (Secs. 110 to 115)

Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. LRC and the Register of Deeds of
Davao City, 102 Phil. 596 (1957)

Director of Land v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986), overturned the previous doctrine in -

Republic v. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875 (1982) &

Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 127 SCRA 687 (1984), that a corporation sole is disqualified to
acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain

Republic v. IAC, 168 SCRA 165 (1988)

5. As to Legal Status:
(a) De Jure Corporation

8
 (b) De Facto Corporation (Sec. 20)
(c) Corporation by Estoppel (Sec. 21)

6. As to Existence of Shares (Secs. 3 and 5)

(a) Stock Corporation;
(b) Non-Stock Corporation

VI. CORPORATE CONTRACT LAW

1. Pre-Incorporation Contracts
(a) Who Are Promoters?
Sec. 3.10, Securities Regulation Code (R.A. 8799)

(b) Nature of Pre-incorporation Agreements (Secs. 60 and 61)

Bayla v. Silang Traffic Co., Inc., 73 Phil. 557 (1942)
(c) Theories on Liabilities for Promoter's Contracts
Cagayan Fishing Dev. Co., Inc. v. Teodoro Sandiko, 65 Phil. 223 (1937)
Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc. v. Public Service Comm., 25 SCRA 285 (1968)
Caram, Jr. v. CA, 151 SCRA 372 (1987)

2. De Facto Corporation (Sec. 20)

(a) Elements for Existence of De Facto Corporation:
(1) Valid law under which incorporated;
(2) Attempt in good faith to incorporate; colorable compliance
(3) Assumption of corporate powers; and
(4) Issuance of certificate of incorporation.
Arnold Hall v. Piccio, 86 Phil. 634 (1950)

2. Corporation by Estoppel Doctrine (Sec. 21)

Salvatierra v. Garlitos, 103 Phil. 757 (1958)
Albert v. University Publishing Co., 13 SCRA 84 (1965)
International Express Travel & Tour Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 674 (2000)
Asia Banking Corporation v. Standard Products, 46 Phil. 145 (1924)
Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Ogilvie, Supreme Court Advanced Decision, 55 O.G. No. 35, p.
7331

(a) Nature of the Doctrine

Lozano v. De Los Santos, 274 SCRA 452 (1997)
Ohta Dev. Co. v. Steamship Pompey, 49 Phil. 117 (1926)
Compania Agricole de Ultramar v. Reyes, 4 Phil. 1 (1911)

(b) Two Levels: (i) With "fraud;" and (ii) Without "fraud"
People v. Garcia, 271 SCRA 621 (1997)
People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 117010, 18 April 1997 (unpublished)

4. TRUST FUND DOCTRINE

(a) Commercial/Common Law Premise on Equity vis-a-vis Debts (Art. 2236, Civil Code)
(b) Nature of Doctrine
Ong v. Tiu, G.R. No. 144476-144629, 8 April 2003
NTC v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 508 (1999).
Boman Environmental Dev. Corp. v. CA, 167 SCRA 540 (1988)
Comm. of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 152 (1999)

(d) To Purchase Own Shares (Secs. 8, 41, 43 and 122, last paragraph)
Phil. Trust Co. v. Rivera, 44 Phil. 469 (1923)
Steinberg v. Velasco, 52 Phil. 953 (1929)

VII. ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

9
 1. Nature of Charter - The charter is in the nature of a contract between the corporation and
the government.
Government of P.I. v. Manila Railroad Co., 52 Phil. 699 (1929)

2. Procedure and Documentary Requirements (Sec. 14 and 15)

(a) As to Number and Residency of Incorporators (Sec. 10)
(b) Corporate Name Secs. 18, 14(1) and 42
Red Line Trans. v. Rural Transit, 60 Phil. 549 (1934)
Ang Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus v. Iglesia ng Dios Kay Dristo Jesus, 372
SCRA 171 (2001)
Universal Mills Corp. v. Universal Textile Mills Inc., 78 SCRA 62 (1977)
Industrial Refractories Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 3 October 2002
Lyceum of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 610, 615 (1993
Laureano Investment and Dev. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 253 (1997)
Pison-Arceo Agricultural Dev. Corp. v. NLRC, 279 SCRA 312 (1997)
Philippine First Insurance Co. v. Hartigan, 34 SCRA 252 (1970)
Republic Planters Bank v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 738 (1992)

(c) Purpose Clause (Secs. 14(2) and 42

Uy Siuliong v. Director of Commerce and Industry, 40 Phil. 541 (1919)

(d) Corporate Term (Sec. 11)

Alhambra Cigar v. SEC, 24 SCRA 269 (1968)

(e) Principal Place of Business

Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon, 19 SCRA 379 (1967)
Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc., 119 SCRA 367 (1982)

(f) Minimum Capitalization (Sec. 12)

- Why is maximum capitalization required to be indicated?

(g) Subscription and Paid-up Requirements (Sec. 13)

(h) Steps and Documents Required in SEC

3. Grounds for Disapproval (Sec. 17)

Asuncion v. De Yriarte, 28 Phil. 67 (1914)

4. Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation (Sec. 16)

5. Commencement of Corporate Existence (Sec. 19)

VIII. BY-LAWS
1. Nature and Functions
Gokongwei v. SEC, 89 SCRA 337 (1979)
Pea v. CA, 193 SCRA 717 (1991)
Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners (South) Assn., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 681 (1997)

(a) Common Law Limitations on By-Laws

(i) By-Laws Cannot Be Contrary to Law and Articles of Incorporation
Grace Christian High School v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 133 (1997)

(ii) By-Law provisions cannot be unreasonable or be contrary to the nature of by-

laws.
Government of P.I. v. El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil. 399 (1927)
Thomson v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 280 (1998)
Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc. v. CA, 210 SCRA 510 (1992).
Salafranca v. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village Homeowners Assn., 300 SCRA 469 (1998)

(iii) By-Law provisions cannot discriminate

10
 (b) Binding Effects on By-laws
China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 503 (1997)
PMI Colleges v. NLRC, 277 SCRA 462 (1997)

2. Adoption Procedure (Sec. 46)

Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners (South) Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 681
(1997)

3. Contents (Sec. 47)

4. Amendments (Sec. 48)
Power to amend may be delegated to the board of directors.

IX. CORPORATE POWERS, AUTHORITY AND ACTIVITIES

1. Corporate Power and Capacity (Art. 46, Civil Code; Secs. 36 and 45)
Land Bank of the Philippines v. COA, 190 SCRA 154 (1990)
Pilipinas Loan Company v. SEC, 356 SCRA 193 (2001)

(a) Classification of Corporate Powers: Express; Implied; and Incidental

(b) Where Corporate Power Lodged
Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 334 (2001).
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 572 (1999)

2. Ultra Vires Acts

(a) Concept and Types (Sec. 45)
Atrium Management Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 (2001)

(b) Ratification of Ultra Vires Acts:

Pirovano v. De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., 96 Phil. 335 (1954)
Carlos v. Mindoro Sugar Co., 57 Phil. 343 (1932)
Republic v. Acoje Mining Co., 3 SCRA 361 (1963)
Crisologo Jose v. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 594 (1989)
Harden v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 58 Phil. 140 (1933)
Safic Alcan & Cie v. Imperial Vegetable Oil Co., Inc., 355 SCRA 559 (2001)

(i) Theory of Estoppel or Ratification

Lipat v. Pacific Banking Corp., G.R. No. 142435, 30 April 2003.
Vicente v. Geraldez, 52 SCRA 210 (1973).
Aguenza v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 271 SCRA 1 (1997)

(ii) Theory of Apparent Authority (Art. 1883, Civil Code)

Prime White Cement Corp. v. IAC, 220 SCRA 103, 113-114 (1993)
Francisco v. GSIS, 7 SCRA 577 (1963)
Yao Ka Sin Trading v. CA, 209 SCRA 763 (1992)
Soler v. Court of Appeals, 358 SCRA 57 (2001)
First Philipine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259 (1996)
Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 601 (1997)
Safic Alcan & Cie v. Imperial Vegetable Oil Co., Inc., 355 SCRA 559 (2001)
Nyco Sales Corp. v. BA Finance Corporation, 200 SCRA 637 (1991)
Inter-Asia Investment Industries v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125778, 10 June 2003

3. Specific (Express) Powers

(a) Enumerated Powers (Secs. 36)
Luneta Motor Co. v. A.D. Santos, Inc., 5 SCRA 809 (1962)

(b) Extend or Shorten Corporate Term (Secs. 37 and 81 [1])

(c) Increase or Decrease Capital Stock (Sec. 38)

Central Textile Mills, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, 260 SCRA368
(1996).

11
 Madrigal & Co. v. Zamora, 151 SCRA 355 (1987)

(d) Incur, Create or Increase Bonded Indebtedness (Sec. 38)

(e) Sell or Dispose of Assets (Sec. 40)
Islamic Directorate of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 454 (1997)
Pea v. CA, 193 SCRA 717 (1991)

(e) Invest Corporate Funds for Non-Primary Purpose Endeavor (Sec. 42)
De la Rama v. Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., 27 SCRA 247 (1969)

(f) Declare Dividends (Sec. 43)

Nielson & Co. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 26 SCRA 540 (1968)
NTC v. CA, 311 SCRA 508 (1999)

(i) Enter into Management Contracts (Sec. 44)

Nielson & Co., Inc. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining, 26 SCRA 540 [1968]
Ricafort v. Moya, 195 SCRA 247 [1991] Why the difference in rule between entity and
individual?

(j) Other Powers

- Sell Land and Other Properties
San Juan Structural v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631 (1998).
AF Realty & Dev., Inc. v. Dieselman Freight Services Co., 373 SCRA 385 (2002).

- Borrow Funds
China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 503 (1997).
Atrium Management Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 (2001)

- Power to Sue
Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar, 350 SCRA 475 (2001)
Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 334 (2001)
SSS v. COA, G.R. No. 149240, 11 July 2002
Esteban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio, 360 SCRA 230 (2001)

- Provide Gratuity Pay for Employees

Lopez Realty v. Fontecha, 247 SCRA 183, 192 (1995).

- Donate

- Enter Partnership or Joint Venture.

Tuason & Co. v. Bolanos, 95 Phil. 106 (1954)

X. DIRECTORS, TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS

1. Powers of Board of Directors (Sec. 23)
Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40 [1979]
Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 01 July 2003.
De Liano v. Court of Appeals, 370 SCRA 349 (2001).
(a) Two Theories on Source of Power of Board of Directors
Angeles v. Santos, 64 Phil. 697 [1937]

(b) Board Must Act As a Body (Sec. 25)

The Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of Maximo M. Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987 [1967]
Ramirez v. Orientalist Co. and Fernandez, 38 Phil. 634 [1918]
Acua v. Batac Producers Cooperative Marketing Assn., 20 SCRA 526 [1967]
AF Realty & Dev., Inc. v. Dieselman Freight Services Co., 373 SCRA 385 (2002).
Lopez Realty v. Fontecha, 247 SCRA 183 (1995).

(c) Effects of Bogus Board

Islamic Directorate of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 454 (1997).

12
 (c) Executive Committee (Sec. 35)

2. BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE

Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Miling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36 [1962]
PSE v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 232 [1997]
Ong v. Tiu, G.R. No. 144476-144629, 8 April 2003
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, 209 SCRA 55 (1992)

3. Qualifications of Directors and Trustees (Secs. 23 and 27)

Gokongwei, Jr. v. SEC, 89 SCRA 336 [1979]

(a) A director must own at least one share of stock

Pea v. CA, 193 SCRA 717 [1991]
Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc. v. Cloribel, 26 SCRA 255 [1969]

(b) Mere beneficial ownership in a voting trust arrangement no longer qualifies

Lee v. CA, 205 SCRA 752 [1992]

4. Election of Directors and Trustees

(a) Directors (Secs. 24 and 26)
Premium Marble Resources v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 11 [1996]

(c) Trustee (Secs. 92 and 138)

(c) Cumulative Voting (Sec. 24)

5. Vacancy in Board (Sec. 29)

Grace Christian High School v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 133 (1997)

6. Term of Office, Hold-over Principle

Government v. El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil. 399 (1927)
Ponce v. Encarnacion, 94 Phil. 81 (1953)

7. Removal of Directors or Trustees (Sec. 28)

Roxas v. De la Rosa, 49 Phil. 609 [1926]

8. Directors' or Trustees' Meetings (Secs. 49, 53, 54 and 92)

Lopez v. Ericta, 45 SCRA 539 [1972]

9. Compensation of Directors (Sec. 30)

Western Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Salas, 278 SCRA 216, 223 (1997)

10. Role of Directors

(a) Directors as Fiduciaries.
- Pre-Corporation Code:
Palting v. San Jose Petroleum, Inc., 18 SCRA 924 (1966)

- Nature of Duties of Directors and Officers:

Prime White Cement Corp. v. IAC, 220 SCRA 103 (1993)

(b) Duty of Obedience

Lopez Realty, Inc. v. Fontecha, 247 SCRA 183 (1995)

(d) Duty of Diligence (Sec. 31)

Steinberg v. Velasco, 52 Phil. 953 [1929]

(e) Duty of Loyalty (Secs. 31 to 34)

Mead v. McCullough, 21 Phil. 95 [1911]
- Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity

13
 Gokongwei v. SEC, 89 SCRA 336 [1979]
See Annotations: Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity, 89 SCRA 412

- Self-dealings (Secs. 32 and 33)

- Using Inside Information

Gokongwei v. SEC, 89 SCRA 336 [1979]
Strong v. Repide, 41 Phil. 947 (1909).

- Applies to confidential employees

Sing Juco v. Llorente, 43 Phil. 589 [1922])

(e) Duty to Creditors and Outsiders

(f) Corporate Dealings with Directors and Officers (Sec. 32)

Gokongwei v. SEC, 89 SCRA 336 [1979]
Prime White Cement Corp. v. IAC, 220 SCRA 103 [1993]

(g) Contracts Between Corporations with Interlocking Directors (Sec. 33)

DBP v. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 307 (2001)

(g) SEC Code of Corporate Governance (SEC Mem. Circular No. 2, series of 2002)

11. Who Is a Corporate "Officer"? (Sec. 25)

Gurrea v. Lezama, 103 Phil. 553 [1958]
Mita Pardo de Tavera v. Tuberculosis Society, 112 SCRA 243 [1982]
PSBA v. Leao, 127 SCRA 778 [1984]
Dy v. NLRC, 145 SCRA 211 [1986]
Visayan v. NLRC, 196 SCRA 410 [1991
De Rossi v. NLRC, 314 SCRA 245 (1999)
Ongkingco v. NLRC, 270 SCRA 613 (1997).
Tabang v. NLRC, 266 SCRA 462 (1997).
Nacpil v. International Broadcasting Corp., 379 SCRA 653 (2002).

12. Powers of Corporate Officers:

(a) Rule on Corporate Officers Power to Bind Corporation
Vicente v. Geraldez, 52 SCRA 210 (1973)
Boyer-Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 470 (1992)

(b) When Corporation Bound by Act of Its President.

Peoples Aircargo v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 170 (1998)
Safic Alcan & Cie v. Imperial Vegetable Oil Co., 355 SCRA 559 (2001)
R.F. Sugay v. Reyes, 12 SCRA 700 (1961)

(c) Corporate Secretary

Torres, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 793 (1997)
Esguerra v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 380 (1997)

(d) Corporate Treasurer

San Juan Structural v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631, 645 (1998)
Atrium Management Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 (2001)

(c) Corporate Bookkeeper

Pabon v. NLRC, 296 SCRA 7 (1998).
Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Far East Motor Corp., 81 SCRA 298 (1978), overturning Delta Motor
Sales Corp. v. Mangosing, 70 Phil. 598 (1976); reiterated in
R. Transport Corp. v. CA, 241 SCRA 77 [1995]
E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. v. Benito, 312 SCRA 65 (1999)

13. LIABILITIES OF CORPORATE OFFICERS: (Sec. 31)

14
 Vazquez v. Borja, 74 Phil. 560 (1944)
Palay, Inc. v. Clave, 124 SCRA 638 [1093]
Pabalan v. NLRC, 184 SCRA 495 [1990]
Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta, Inc. Inc., 72 SCRA 347 [1976]
Mindanao Motors Lines, Inc. v. CIR, 6 SCRA 710 [1962]
Republic Planters Bank v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 738 (1992)
NPC. v. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 419 (1997)
Emilio Cano Enterprises, Inc. v. CIR, 13 SCRA 291 (1965
Paradise Sauna Massage Corporation v. Ng, 181 SCRA 719 (1990)
Western Agro Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 709 (1990)
Rustan Pulp & Paper Mills, Inc. v. IAC, 214 SCRA 665 (1992)
Banque Generale Belge v. Walter Bull and Co., 84 Phil. 164 (1949)
EPG Constructions Co. v. CA, 210 SCRA 230 (1992)
Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 120 (1992).

Enumeration of instances when corporate officers personally liable:

Tramat Mercantile, Inc. v. CA, 238 SCRA 14 (1994)
MAM Realty v. NLRC, 244 SCRA 797, (1995)
NFA v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 700 (1999)
Atrium Management Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 23 (2001)

(a) Special Provisions in Labor Laws. Since a corporate employer is an artificial person,
it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the "person
acting in the interest of (the) employer" as defined in the Labor Code.
A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC, 142 SCRA 269 (1986)
Villanueva v. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 (1989)
Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfields v. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428
(2000)
Del Rosario v. NLRC, 187 SCRA 777 (1990).
Lim v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 328 (1989).

Maglutac v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 767 (1990) reiterated in

Gudez v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 644 (1990) and
Chua v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 353 (1990)

De Guzman v. NLRC, 211 SCRA 723 (1992)

AHS/Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 319 (1996).
Reahs Corporation v. NLRC, 271 SCRA 247 (1997), reviewed the A.C. Ransom doctrine of
imposing solidarily liability on the highest officers of the corporation for judgment on
labor claims.

National Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 419 (1997)

Uichico v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 35 (1997).
Brent Hospital, Inc. v. NLRC, 292 SCRA 304 (1998).
Nicario v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 619 (1998).
Restuarante Las Conchas v. Llego, 314 SCRA 24 (1999)
Carmelcraft Corp. v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 393 (1990)
Valderrama v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 466 (1996)

XI. STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS

1. Shareholder Not Creditor of Corporation
Garcia v. Lim Chu Sing, 59 Phil. 562 [1934]

2. Subscription Contract (Sec. 60 & 72)

Trillana v. Quezon Colegialla, 93 Phil. 383 [1953]

(a) Purchase Agreement

Bayla v. Silang Traffic Co., Inc., 73 Phil. 557 [1942]

(b) Pre-Incorporation Subscription (Sec. 61)

15
 (c) Release from Subscription Obligation

Velasco v. Poizat, 37 Phil. 802 [1918]

PNB v. Bitulok Sawmill, Inc., 23 SCRA 1968 [1968]
National Exchange Co. v. Dexter, 51 Phil. 601 [1928]
Ong v. Tiu, G.R. No. 144476-144629, 8 April (2003)

(d) When condition of payment provided for by-laws

De Silva v. Aboitiz & Co., 44 Phil. 755 [1923]

3. Consideration (Sec. 62).

(a) Cash (c) Service (d) Shares
(b) Property (d) Retained Earnings

Lincoln Philippine Life v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 92 (1998).

4. Watered Stocks (Sec. 65)

4. Payment of Balance of Subscription (Secs. 66 and 67)

Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co. v. Baltazar, 93 Phil. 404 [1953]

5. Delinquency on Subscription (Secs. 68, 69, 70 and 71)

Philippine Trust Co. v. Rivera, 44 Phil. 469 [1923]
Miranda v. Tarlac Rice Mill Co., 57 Phil. 619 [1932]
Garcia v. Suarez, 67 Phil. 441 (1939)

Who May Question a Delinquency Sale (Sec. 68 and 69)

7. Certificate of Stock (Sec. 63)

(a) Nature of Certificate
Tan v. SEC, 206 SCRA 740 [1992]
De los Santos v. Republic, 96 Phil. 577 [1955]
Ponce v. Alsons Cement Corp., G.R. No. 139802, 10 December 2002
C.N. Hodges v. Lezama, 14 SCRA 1030 [1965]
Lincoln Philippine Life v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 92 (1998)
Bitong v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 503 (1998)

(b) Quasi-negotiable Character of the Certificate of Stock

Bachrach Motor Co. v. Lacson Ledesma, 64 Phil. 681 [1937]
Razon v. IAC, 207 SCRA 234 (1992)
Bitong v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 503 (1998)
Rural Bank of Lipa City v. Court of Appeals, 366 SCRA 188 (2001).

(d) Right to Issuance (Sec. 64)

Baltazar v. Lingayen Gulf Elect. Power Co., Inc., 14 SCRA 522 [1965]

(d) Lost or Destroyed Certificates (Sec. 63 and 73)

While Section 73 of the Corporation Code appears to be mandatory, the same admits
exceptions, such that a corporation may voluntarily issue a new certificate in lieu of the
original certificate of stock which has been lost without complying with the requirements
under Section 73 of the Corporation Code, provided that the corporation is certain as to
the real owner of the shares to whom the new certificate shall be issued. . . . It would
be an internal matter for the corporation to find measures in ascertaining who are the
real owners of stock for purposes of liquidation. It is well-settled that unless proven
otherwise, the stock and transfer book of the corporation is the best evidence to
establish stock ownership. (SEC Opinion, dated 28 January 1999, addressed to Ms. Ma.
Cecilia Salazar-Santos).

(e) Forged and Unauthorized Transfers

J. Santamaria v. HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corp., 89 Phil. 780 [1951]

16
 Neugene Marketing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 295 [1999]

8. Stock and Transfer Book (Secs. 63, 72 and 74)

Fua Cun v. Summers, 44 Phil. 704 [1923]
Monserrat v. Ceran, 58 Phil. 469 [1933]
Chua Guan v. Samahang Magsasaka, Inc., 62 Phil. 472 [1935]
Uson v. Diosomito, 61 Phil. 535 [1935]
Escao v. Filipinas Mining Corporation, 74 Phil. 71 [1944]
Bachrach Motors v. Lacson-Ledesma, 64 Phil. 681 [1937]
Nava v. Peers Marketing Corp., 74 SCRA 65 [1976]
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Bitanga, 362 SCRA 635 (2001).
Garcia v. Jomouad, G.R. No. 133969, 26 January 2000.
Chemphil Export & Import Corporation v Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 257 (1995)
China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 503 (1997)
Torres, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 793 (1997)
Magsaysay-Labrador v. CA, 180 SCRA 266 (1989)
APT v. Sandiganbayan, 341 SCRA 551, 560 (2000).
Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 634 (1998)
TCL Sales Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 35 (2001).

9. Situs of Shares of Stocks (Sec. 55)

Wells Fargo Bank and Union v. Collector, 70 Phil. 325 (1940)
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc., 26 SCRA 242 (1968)
Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186 (1939)

XII. RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS

1. What Does Share Represent?
Stockholders of F. Guanson and Sons, Inc. v. Register of Deeds of Manila, 6 SCRA 373 (1962)
Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 634 (1998)
TCL Sales Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 35 (2001)

3. Right to Certificate of Stock for Fully Paid Shares (Sec. 64)

Tan v. SEC, 206 SCRA 740 [1992]

4. Preemptive Rights (Sec. 39)

Datu Tagoranao Benito v. SEC, 123 SCRA 722 [1983]
Dee v. SEC, 199 SCRA 238 [1991]

4. Right to Transfer of Shareholdings (Sec. 63)

Thomson v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 280 (1998).

(a) Non-transferability of Membership in Non-Stock Corporation (Secs. 90 and 91).

(b) Restriction on Transfers
Lambert v. Fox, 26 Phil. 588 [1914]

- Right of Refusal
Padgett v. Babcock & Templeton, Inc., 59 Phil. 232 [1933]
Fleishcher v. Botica Nolasco, 47 Phil. 583 (1925).
Rural Bank of Salinas v. CA, 210 SCRA 510 (1992).

Restraint of Trade
Ollendorf v. Abrahamson, 38 Phil. 585 (1918)

(d) Remedy If Registration Refused

Ponce v. Alsons Cement Corp., G.R. No. 139802, 10 December 2002)
Hager v. Bryan, 19 Phil. 138 [1911])
Won v. Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, 104 Phil. 466 (1958)
Batong Buhay Gold Mines v. CA, 147 SCRA 4 (1987)
Rivera v. Florendo, 144 SCRA 643, 657 (1986)

17
5. Rights to Dividends (Sec. 43)
Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, 269 SCRA 1 (1997)

6. Right to Vote and to Attend Meetings (Sec. 6, Sec. 89)

Price and Sulu Dev. Co. v. Martin, 58 Phil. 707 (1933)
Cojuangco Jr. v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991)
Republic v. COCOFED, 372 SCRA 462 (2001)

(a) Instances When Stockholders Entitled to Vote:

- Election of directors and trustees (Sec. 24)
- Amendment of articles of incorporation (Sec. 16)
- Investment in another business or corporation (Secs. 36 and 42)
- Merger and consolidation (Sec. 72)
- Increase and Decrease of capital stock (Sec. 38)
- Adoption, amendment and repeal of by-laws (Sec. 48)
- Declaration of stock dividends (Sec. 43)
- Management contracts (Sec. 44)
- Fixing of consideration of no par value shares (Sec. 62)

(b) Joint Ownership (Sec. 56)

(c) Treasury Share No Voting Rights (Sec. 57)

(d) Pledgor, Mortgagors and Administrators (Sec. 55)

Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 634 (1998)
Gochan v. Young, 354 SCRA 207 (2001)

(e) Conduct of Stockholders' or Members' Meetings:

(i) Kinds and Requirements of Meetings (Secs. 49 and 50);
(ii) Place and Time of Meeting (Secs. 51 and 93);
(iii) Quorum (Sec. 52)

7. Rights to Inspect and Copy

(a) Basis of the Right
Gokongwei, Jr. v. SEC, 89 SCRA 336 [1979]

(b) Limitations on Right

Africa v. PCGG, 205 SCRA 39 (1992)
W.G. Philpotts v. Philippine Manufacturing Co., 40 Phil. 471 (1919)
Veraguth v. Isabela Sugar Co., 57 Phil. 266 (1932)
Pardo v. Hercules Lumber Co., 47 Phil. 964 (1924)

(c) Specified Records (Secs. 74, 75 and 141)

(d) Remedies If Inspection Is Denied: Mandamus
Gonzales v. PNB, 122 SCRA, 489 [1983]
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 39 [1991]

(e) Confidential Nature of SEC Examinations (Sec. 142)

8. Appraisal Right (Secs. 81 to 86 and 105)
9. Derivative Suits (Sec. 5, Rule II, New Rules of Procedure of the SEC)
San Miguel Corp. v. Kahn, 176 SCRA 447 [1989]

(a) Who May Bring the Suit

Gochan v. Young, 354 SCRA 207 (2001)
Pascual v. Orozco, 19 Phil. 83 (1911)
Bitong v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 503 (1998).
Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar, 350 SCRA 475 (2001).
Hornilla v. Salunat, Adm. Case No. 5804, 01 July 2003.

18
 (b) Exhaustion of Intra-Corporate Remedies
Everett v. Asia Banking Corp., 49 Phil. 512 [1927]
Angeles v. Santos, 64 Phil. 697 [1937]

(c) Nature of Relief

Evangelista v. Santos, 86 Phil. 387 [1950]
Republic Bank v. Cuaderno, 19 SCRA 671 [1967]
Reyes v. Tan, 3 SCRA 198 [1961]
Commart (Phils.) Inc. v. SEC, 198 SCRA 73 [1991]
Gochan v. Young, 354 SCRA 207 (2001).
Lim v. Lim-Yu, 352 SCRA 216 (2001).
Chase v. CFI of Manila, 18 SCRA 602 (1966)
Western Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Salas, 278 SCRA 216 (1997)

10. Right to Proportionate Share of Remaining Assets Upon Dissolution of the Corporation
(a) Different rules apply to non-stock corporation and foundations (Secs. 94 and 95; Section
34(H)(2)(c), 1997 NIRC).
11. Contracts and Agreement Affecting Shareholdings
(a) Proxy (Sec. 58)
(b) Voting Trust Agreements (Sec. 59)
Lee v. CA, 205 SCRA 752 [1992]).
Everett v. Asia Banking Corporation, 49 Phil. 512 (1926).
NIDC v. Aquino, 163 SCRA 153 (1988).

(c) Pooling Agreements or Shareholders Agreements (Sec. 100)

XIII. CAPITAL STRUCTURE: SHARES OF STOCK

2. Concept of "Capital Stock"
Central Textile Mills v. National Wage and Productivity Commission, 260 SCRA 368 [1996]
MSCI-NACUSIP Local Chapter v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, 269 SCRA 173
(1997)
NTC v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 508 (1999)

2. Classification of Shares (Sec. 6)

(a) Common Shares
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 152 (1999)

(b) Preferred Shares

Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, 269 SCRA 1 [1997]
Participating and Non-participating
Cumulative and Non-cumulative
Par Value and No Par Value

Preferred stocks are those which entitle the shareholder to some priority on dividends
and asset distribution.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 152 (1999)

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lincoln Philippines Life Insurance Co., 379 SCRA 423
(2002)

(b) Redeemable shares (Sec. 8)

Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, 269 SCRA 1 [1997]
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 152 (1999)

(c) Founder Shares (Sec. 7)

(d) Treasury Shares (Sec. 9)
Commissioner v. Manning, 66 SCRA 14 [1975]

(e) Stock Warrants

19
 (f) Stock Options
(g) Re-Classification of Shares
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 152 (1999)

3. Hybrid Securities
Government v. Phil. Sugar Estates, 38 Phil. 15 [1918]

4. Quasi-Reorganization
(a) Reduction of Capital Stock (Sec. 38)
Madrigal & Co. v. Zamora, 151 SCRA 355 (1987).

(b) Stock Splits

(c) Stock Consolidations

XIV. ACQUISITIONS, MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS

A. Acquisitions and Transfers

1. Concept of "Enterprise" or "Economic unit" or "Going concern".

2. Types of Acquisitions\Transfers
(a) In a pure "assets only" transfer, the transferee is not liable for the debts
and liabilities of the transferor, except where the transferee expressly or
impliedly agrees to assume such debts;
(b) In a transfer of the "business enterprise," the transferee is liable for the
debts and liabilities of the transferor; and
(c) In an "equity transfer," the transferee is not liable for the debts and
liabilities of the transferor, except where the transferee expressly or
impliedly agrees to assume such debts.

PNB v. Andrada Electric, G.R. No. 142936, 17 April 2002]

3. Business Enterprise Transfers

A.D. Santos v. Vasquez, 22 SCRA 1156 [1968]
Laguna Transportation Co., Inc. v. SSS, 107 Phil. 833 [1960]
San Teodoro Dev. v. SSS, 8 SCRA 96 (1963).
Oromeca Lumber Co. v. SSS, 4 SCRA 1188 (1962)
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 277 (1992).
Buan v. Alcantara, 127 SCRA 845 (1984).

3. Equity Transfers
Phividec v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 669 [1990]
DBP v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 841 (1990).

4. Aspects as to Employees
Complex Electronics Employees Assn. v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 403 [1999]

B. Merger and Consolidation

1. Concepts
PNB v. Andrada Electric & Engineering Co., G.R. No. 142936, 17 April 2002

2. Procedure:
(a) Plan of Merger or Consolidation (Sec. 76)
(b) Stockholders' or Members' Approval (Sec. 77)
(c) Articles of Merger or Consolidation (Sec. 78)
(d) Approval by SEC (Sec. 79)

Submission of Financial Statements Requirements

SEC Opinion 14, s. of 2002, 15 November 2002

20
 In additional requirements by SEC for the processing of the application

2. Effects of Merger or Consolidation (Sec. 80)

Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 511 [1998]
PNB v. Andrada Electric & Engineering Co., G.R. No. 142936, 17 April (2002)
Babst v. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 341 (2001)

C. Effects on Employees of Corporation

1. Assets Only Transfers
Sundowner Dev. Corp. v. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14 [1989)
MDII Supervisors & Confidential Employees Asso. V. Pres. Assistance on Legal Affairs, 79
SCRA 40 (1977)

1. Business-Enterprise Transfers
Central Azucarera del Danao v. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 295 [1985]
Yu v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 134 [1995]
Sunio v. NLRC, 127 SCRA 390 [1984]
San Felipe Neri School of Mandaluyong, Inc. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA 478 (1991)

2. Equity Transfers
Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 247 SCRA 386 (1995)
Manlimos v. NLRC, 242 SCRA 145 [1995]
Robledo v. NLRC, 238 SCRA 52 [1994]
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 277 (1992)
Development Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 841[1990]
Coral v. NLRC, 258 SCRA 704 [1996]
Avon Dale Garments, Inc. v. NLRC, 246 SCRA 733 [1995]

3. Mergers and Consolidations

Filipinas Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 177 SCRA 203 [1989]
Filipinas Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 200 SCRA 773 [1991]
National Union Bank Employees v. Lazaro, 156 SCRA 123 [1988]
First General Marketing Corp. v. NLRC, 223 SCRA 337 (1993)

4. Spin-Offs
SMC Employees Union-PTGWO v. Confessor, 262 SCRA 81 [1996]

XV. REHABILITATION AND INSOLVENCY

BASIC LAW:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10142

titled
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REHABILITATION OR LIQUIDATION OF FINANCIALLY
DISTRESSED ENTERPRISES AND INDIVIDUALS

Cross References:
1. Corporate Bankruptcy Laws in General
(a) Governing Laws (The Insolvency Act, PD 902-A, and The Securities Regulation Code [RA
8799])
(b) Types of bankruptcy proceedings in the Philippines
(c) Resolution on jurisdiction issues on bankruptcy proceedings
Ching v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 201 SCRA 190 [1991]

2. Suspension of Payments
(a) Insolvency Law (Secs. 2 to 13)
- Situation of the corporate debtor
- Nature of petition
- Required vote of creditors
- Consequences of approval/non-approval

21
 (b) Pres. Decree No. 902-A (Sec. 5[d]), Section 5.10 of The Securities Regulation Code
(c) Supreme Court Interim Rules on Corporation Rehabilitation (supplanted SEC Rules on
Petition, SEC Memo, dated 7 October 1997)

3. Corporate Rehabilitation
(a) Nature of Rehabilitation
Ruby Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 445 (1998)

(b) Basis of RTC Power to Undertake Corporate Rehabilitation

(Secs. 5[d] and 6, PD 902-A, Sec. 5.10, The Securities Regulation Code)
(c) SC Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation
Chas Realty and Development Corporation v. Talavera, G.R. No. 151925, 6 February 2003

(e) Appointment of Management Committee or a Rehabilitation Receiver

Jacinto v. First Womens Credit Corp. G.R. No. 154049, 29 August 2003.

(f) The Automatic Stay and its Legal Effects; When it becomes effective
Barotac Sugar Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 497 (1997); reiterated in Union
Bank v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198 [1998])

- Duration B.F. Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 262 [1990]

- Effect on Individual Petitioners Joining the Petition

Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198 (1998)
Modern Paper Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 749 (1998)
Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 788 [1989]
Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA 534 [1988]

- Claims Covered by the Automatic Stay

PCIB v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 436 [1989]
Alemars Sibal & Sons, Inc. v. Elbinias, 186 SCRA 94 [1990]
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. IAC, 213 SCRA 830 [1992]
Bank of PI v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 223 [1994]

- Types of Claims Covered

Finasia Investments v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 446 [1994]
Rubberworld [Phils.], Inc. v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 721 (1999); 336 SCRAA 433 (2000)

(g) Rationale for Suspensive Effect of Appointment on Existing Suits and Causes of
Action

(h) Powers of Management Committee or the Rehabilitation Receiver (Sec. 6, PD 902-A)

(i) SEC Power to Liquidate Corporation
(j) Basic Differences Between Suspension of Payments Proceedings under the
Insolvency Law and Under Pres. Decree No. 902-A

4. Insolvency Proceedings
Chua v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 558 (1990).

(a) Governing Law and Jurisdiction

(b) General Effect of Corporate Insolvency Proceedings
(c) VOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY
(d) Filing of Petition (Sec. 14, TIL)
(e) Effect of Order of Insolvency (Sec. 18)
De Amuzategui v. Macleod, 33 Phil. 80 [1915]
Unson v. Abeto, 47 Phil. 42 [1924]

(f) INVOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY (Sec. 20 to 33)

22
 (g) Qualifications of Petitioning Creditors
State Investment House, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 203 SCRA 9 (1991).

(h) Order to Show Cause (Sec. 21); Hearing of petition (Sec. 24)

(i) Acts of Insolvency and Order of Adjudication (Sec. 20)

(j) Meeting of Creditors to Elect Assignee (Secs. 29 and 30)
(k) Effects of Order of Insolvency and Appointment of Receiver (Secs. 32, 34 and 35)
Radiola-Toshiba Phil. v. IAC, 199 SCRA 373 [1991])
(l) Liquidation of Assets and Payment of Debts (Sec. 33)
(m) Remedies of Secured Creditors (Sec. 29, 43 and 59)
(n) Composition (Sec. 63)
(o) Discharge (Secs. 52, 64, and 66)
(p) Appeal in certain cases (Sec. 82)

XVI. DISSOLUTION

1. No Vested Rights to Corporate Fiction

Gonzales v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 174 SCRA 377 [1989]
2. Voluntary Dissolution (Sec. 117)
(a) No Creditors Affected (Sec. 118)
(b) There Are Creditors Affected (Secs. 119 and 122).
3. Involuntary Dissolution (Sec. 121; Sec. 6(l), P.D. 902-A; Sec. 2, Rule 66, Rules of Court)
(a) Quo Warranto (Republic v. Bisaya Land Transportation Co., 81 SCRA 9 [1978]; Republic
v. Security Credit & Acceptance Corp., 19 SCRA 58 [1967]; xGovernment v. El Hogar
Filipino, 50 Phil. 399 [1927]).
(b) Expiration of Term
(c) Shortening of Corporate Term (Sec. 120)
(d) Non-user of Corporate Charter and Continuous Inoperation of a Corporation
(Sec. 22)
Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Pineda, 98 Phil. 711 (1956).
Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA 534 (1988).

(e) Demand of Minority Stockholders for Dissolution

Financing Corp. of the Phil. v. Teodoro, 93 Phil. 404 [1953]).

4. Legal Effects of Dissolution

Republic v. Tancinco, G.R. No. 139256, 27 December 2002.
Vesagas v. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 509, 516 (2002).
Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. SEC, 24 SCRA 269 (1968)
PNB v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig, Br. XXI, 209 SCRA 294 (1992)

5. Methods of Liquidation (Sec. 122)

Board of Liquidators v. Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987 [1967]
Sumera v. Valencia, 67 Phil. 721 [1939]
Buenaflor v. Camarines Industry, 108 Phil. 472 [1960]
PVB Employees Union-N.U.B.E. v. Vega, 360 SCRA 33 (2001).
China Banking Corp. v. M. Michelin & Cie, 58 Phil. 261 (1933)
Republic v. Marsman Dev. Co., 44 SCRA 418 (1972).

6. Who Are Liable After Dissolution and Winding-Up?

National Abaca Corp. v. Pore, 2 SCRA 989 [1961]
Tan Tiong Bio v. Commissioner, 100 Phil. 86 [1956]
Gelano v. Court of Appeals, 103 SCRA 90 [1981]
De Guzman v. NLRC, 211 SCRA 723 (1992
Gelano v. court of Appeals (103 SCRA 90)
Clemente v. Court of Appeals, 242 SCRA 717 (1995).
Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 342 (1999)
Knecht v. United Cigarette Corp., G.R. No. 139370, 04 July (2002)

23
 BPI v. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 840 (2001).

7. Reincorporation
Chung Ka Bio v. IACt, 163 SCRA 534 [1988]

XVII. CLOSE CORPORATION

1. Definition (Sec. 96)

Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, 225 SCRA 678 [1993]
San Juan Structural v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631 (1998)

2. Articles of Incorporation Requirements

(Sec. 97)
(a) Pre-Emptive Rights (Sec. 102);
(b) Amendment (Sec. 103)

3. Restriction on Transfer of Shares (Secs. 98 and 99)

4. Agreements by Stockholder (Sec. 100)

5. No Necessity of Board (Sec. 101)

Sergio F. Naguiat v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 564 [1997]).

6. Deadlocks (Sec. 104)

7. Withdrawal and Dissolution (Sec. 105)

Financing Corp. of the Phil. v. Teodoro, 93 Phil. 404 (1953).

XVIII. NON-STOCK CORPORATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS

1. Theory on Non-Stock Corporation (Secs. 14(2), 43, 87, 88 and 94(5))

Collector of Internal Revenue v. Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu, 5 SCRA 321 [1962]
Collector of Internal Revenue v. University of Visayas, 1 SCRA 669 [1961]
Manila Sanitarium and Hospital v. Gabuco, 7 SCRA 14 (1963)
People v. Menil, G.R. 115054-66, 12 September 1999 [unrep.]

2. Non-Applicability of the Nationalization Laws

SEC Opinion No. 12, series of 2002, 21 November 2002

3. Conversion of Non-Stock Corporation to Stock Corporation (SEC Opinion dated 24

February 2003, addressed to Benedicta P. Bello; SEC Opinion dated 10 December 1992, Mr.
Efren Valiente)

4. What is a Foundation? (Secs. 30 and 34(H), NIRC of 1997; Sec. 24, Revenue Regulations No.
2; BIR-NEDA Regulations No. 1-81, as amended)
Collector v. V.G. Sinco Educational Corp., 100 Phil. 127 (1956).

5. Dissolution (Secs. 94 and 95)

XIX. FOREIGN CORPORATION

1. Definition (Sec. 123).

Avon Insurance PLC v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 312 (1997)
Times, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 (1971)

2. Statutory Concept of "Doing Business" (Art. 44, Executive Order No. 226, Omnibus
Investment Code; Sec. 3(d), R.A. No. 7042, Foreign Investment Act of 1991).
(a) Application for License (Secs. 124 and 125; also Art. 48, Omnibus Investment Code)
(b) Issuance of License (Sec. 126; Art. 49, Omnibus Investment Code)

24
 (c) Amendment of License (Sec. 131)
(d) Rationale for Requiring License to Do Business
Avon Insurance PLC v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 312 (1997).
Claude Neon Lights v. Phil. Advertising Corp., 57 Phil. 607 (1932).

3. Jurisprudential Concepts of "Doing Business":

(a) "Doing business"
Mentholatum v. Mangaliman, 72 Phil. 525 (1941)
Far East Int'l. v. Nankai Kogyo, 6 SCRA 725 (1962)
General Corp. of the Phil. v. Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd., 87 Phil. 313 (1950)
Manufacturing Life Ins. v. Meer, 89 Phil. 351 (1951).
Marubeni Nederland B.V. v. Tensuan, 190 SCRA 105 (1990)
Litton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 696 (1996).
MR. Holdings, Ltd. V. Bajar, G.R. No. 138104, 11 April 2002

(b) Unrelated or Isolated Transactions

Eastboard Navigation, Ltd. v. Juan Ysmael and Co., Inc., 102 Phil. 1 [1957]
Antam Consolidated v. CA, 143 SCRA 288 [1986]
MR. Holdings, Ltd. V. Bajar, G.R. No. 138104, 11 April 2002.

Engaged in business in the Philippines:

Dampfschieffs Rhederei Union v. La Campaia Transatlantica, 8 Phil. 766 [1907]
The Swedish East Asia Co., Ltd. v. Manila Port Service, 25 SCRA 633 [1968]);
General Garments Corp. v. Director of Patens, 41 SCRA 50 [1971]
Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 130 SCRA 104 [1988]
Bulakhidas v. Navarro, 142 SCRA 1 [1986]
Gonzales v. Raquiza, 180 SCRA 254 [1989]
Hang Lung Bak v. Saulog, 201 SCRA 137 [1991)
Columbia Pictures Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 144 (1996)

(c) The "Contract Test" of Doing Business

Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. Singson, Advanced Decision Supreme Court, April 1955 Vol.,
p. 100-A
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pacific Star Line, 80 SCRA 635 [1977]
Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, 188 SCRA 170 [1990]

(e) Transactions with Agents and Brokers

Granger Associates v. Microwave Systems, Inc., 189 SCRA 631 [1990]
La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373 [1984]
Schmid & Oberly v. RJL, 166 SCRA 493 [1988]
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mendoza, 156 SCRA 44 [1974]

3. Different Rules on Trademark and Tradenames

Western Equipment & Supply Co. v. Reyes, 51 Phil. 115 [1927]
Leviton Industries v. Salvador, 114 SCRA 420 [1982]
Converse Rubber v. Universal Rubber, 147 SCRA 154 [1987]
Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., 97 SCRA 158 [1980]
Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. CA, 130 SCRA 104 [1984]
Puma Sportschunhfabriken Rudolf Dassler, K.G. v. IAC, 158 SCRA 233 [1988]
Philips Export B.V. v. CA, 206 SCRA 457 [1992]

5. Effects of Failure to Obtain License:

(a) On the contract entered into by such foreign corporation.
Home Insurance Company v. Eastern Shipping Lines, 123 SCRA 424 (1983)
Marshall-Wells Co., v. Elser, 46 Phil. 70 (1924)

(b) Standing of such foreign corporation to sue in Philippine courts (Sec. 133)
Marshall-Wells v. Elser, 46 Phil. 71 [1924])

(c) Criminal liability under Sect. 144 of the Corporation Code.

25
 Home Insurance Company v. Eastern Shipping Lines, 123 SCRA 424 (1983)

(e) Pari Delicto Doctrine:

Top-Weld Mfg. v. ECED, 119 SCRA 118 (1985)

See also:
Communication Materials and Design, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 673 (1996)

(f) Estoppel Doctrine:

Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. CA, 211 SCRA 824 (1992)
Georg Grotjahn GMBH & C. v. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216 (1994)

(g) Proper Doctrine:

Ericks Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 567 (1997)

6. Suits Against Foreign Corporations:

(a) Jurisdiction Over the "Person" of Foreign Corporations (Sec. 14, Rule 14, Rules of
Court)
General Corp. of the Phil. v. Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd., 87 Phil. 313 [1950]
Johnlo Trading Co., v Flores, 88 Phil. 741 [1951]
Johnlo Trading Co. v. Zulueta, 88 Phil. 750 [1951]
Pacific Micronisian Line, Inc. v. Del rosario, 96 Phil. 23 [1954]
Far East International Import and Export Corp. v. Nankai Kogyo Co., Ltd., 6 SCRA 725 [1962]
Avon Insurance PLC v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 312, 327 (1997)
Hahn v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 537 (1997)
French Oil Mills Machinery Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 462 (1998)

(b) New Doctrine

Facilities Management Corp. v. De la Osa, 89 SCRA 131 [1979]
FBA Aircraft v. Zosa, 110 SCRA 1 [1981]
Royal Crown International v. NLRC, 178 SCRA 569 [1989]
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mendoza, 156 SCRA 44 [1987]

Contra:
Hyopsung Maritime Co., Ltd. v. CA, 165 SCRA 258 1988)
Signetics Corp. v. CA, 225 SCRA 737 (1993)

See: Von Insurance PLC v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 312 (1997).
(c) Stipulation on Venue
When the contract sued upon has a venue clause within the Philippines, it is
deemed a confirmation by the foreign corporation, even though not doing business in the
Philippines, to be sued in local courts. xLinger & Fisher GMBH v. IAC, 125 SCRA 522
(1983).
7. Pleading "Doing" and "Not Doing" of Business
The fact that a foreign corporation is not doing business in the Philippines must be
alleged if a foreign corporation desires to sue in Philippines courts under the "isolated
transactions rule." 4Atlantic Mutual Inc. Co. v. Cebu Stevedoring Co., 17 SCRA 1037 (1966);
xCommissioner of Customs v. K.M.K. Gani, 182 SCRA 591 (1990)
This overturned the previous doctrine in xMarshall-Wells (as well as in xIn re
Liquidation of the Mercantile Bank of China, etc., 65 Phil. 385 (1938), that the lack of
authority of foreign corporation to sue in Philippine courts for failure to obtain the license is
a matter of affirmative defense.
A complaint filed by a foreign corporation is fatally defective for failing to allege its duly
authorized representative or resident agent in Philippine jurisdiction. xNew York Marine
Managers, Inv. c. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 416 (1995)
For the purpose of having summons served on a foreign corporation in accordance
with Rule 14, Section 14, it is sufficient that it be alleged in the complaint that the foreign
corporation is doing business in the Philippines. xHahn v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 537
(1997)
8. Resident Agent (Sec. 127 and 128)

26
 (a) Concept of "residence" (State Investment House v. Citibank, 203 SCRA 9 [1991]).
(b) When a corporation has designated a person to receive service of summon pursuant to
the Corporation Code, the designation is exclusive and service of summons on any other
person is inefficacious. xH.B. Zachry Company International v. CA, 232 SCRA 329 (1994)
9. Applicable Laws to Foreign Corporations (Sec. 129; Grey v. Insular Lumber Co., 67 Phil.
139 [1938])
10. Amendment of Articles of Incorporation (Sec. 130)
11. Merger and Consolidation (Sec. 132; Art. 51, Omnibus Code)
12. Revocation of License (Secs. 134 and 135; Art. 50, Omnibus Investment Code)
14. Withdrawal of Foreign Corporation (Sec. 136)
XX. PENALTY PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
See VILLANUEVA, The Penal Provision Under Sec. 144 of the Corporation Code,
THE LAWYERS REVIEW, Vol. X, No. 2 (29 February 1996).
1. Penalty Clause for Violations of the Provisions of the Code (Sec. 144).
2. Cross-reference (Sec. 27).
3. Specific application (Sec. 74).
4. Strict Principles in Criminal Law; the issue of malice.
5. Historical background of Sec. 144 (Sec. 190 1/7 of the Corporation Law)
Government of the Philippine Islands v. El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil. 399 (1927)
Harden v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 58 Phil. 141 (1933)

6. Violation of Section 133 by Foreign Corporations

Home Insurance Company v. Eastern Shipping Lines, 123 SCRA 424 (1983) - provides the
second instance of violation of the Code (under Section 133), when the criminal penalties of
Sec. 144 are applicable.

XXI. MISCELLANEOUS
1. SEC power and supervision (Secs. 108 and 143; PD 902-A)
2. Special corporations (Sec. 4)
3. New requirements on existing corporations (Sec. 148)
4. Applicability of other provision of the old Corporation Law, (Sec. 145 and 146)

oOo

27