8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

*
G.R. No. 153468. August 17, 2006.

PAUL LEE TAN, ANDREW LIUSON, ESTHER WONG,

STEPHEN CO, JAMES TAN, JUDITH TAN, ERNESTO
TANCHI, JR., EDWIN NGO, VIRGINIA KHOO, SABINO
PADILLA, JR., EDUARDO P. LIZARES and GRACE
CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, petitioners, vs. PAUL
SYCIP and MERRITTO LIM, respondents.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Forum Shopping; The need

for proper verification and certification against forum shopping
are aimed at assuring the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the Petition and at discouraging forum shopping.—
The Petition before the CA was initially flawed, because the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping were
signed by only one, not by all, of the petitioners; further, it failed
to show proof that the signatory was authorized to sign on behalf
of all of them. Subsequently, however, petitioners submitted a
Special Power of Attorney, at-testing that Atty. Padilla was
authorized to file the action on their behalf. In the interest of
substantial justice, this initial procedural lapse may be excused.
There appears to be no intention to circumvent the need for
proper verification and certification, which are aimed at assuring
the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the Petition
for Review and at discouraging forum shopping. More important,
the substantial merits of petitioners’ case and the purely legal
question involved in the Petition should be considered special
circumstances or compelling reasons that justify an exception to
the strict requirements of the verification and the certification of
non-forum shopping.

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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

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 stockhold-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

217

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 217

Tan vs. Sycip

ers 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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

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

218

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

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.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

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

219

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 219

Tan vs. Sycip

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

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 corpora-tion.—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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.

220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Rowena G. Madrid for petitioners.
Antonio C. Pacis and Ma. Resa S. Celis for
respondents.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

PANGANIBAN, C.J.:

For stock corporations, the “quorum” referred to in Section

52 of the Corporation Code is based on the number of
outstanding voting stocks. For nonstock corporations, only
those who are actual, living members with voting rights
shall be counted in determining the existence of a quorum
during members’ meetings. Dead members shall not be
counted.

The Case
1
The present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
452 of the Rules of Court
3
seeks the reversal of the January
23 and May 7, 2002, Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 68202. The first assailed
Resolution dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners with
the CA. Allegedly, without the proper authorization of the
other petitioners, the Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping were signed by only one of them—Atty.
Sabino Padilla Jr. The second Resolution denied
reconsideration.

The Facts

Petitioner Grace Christian High School (GCHS) is a

nonstock, nonprofit educational corporation with fifteen
(15) regular
4
members, who also constitute the board of
trustees. During the annual members’

_______________

1 Dated June 25, 2002; Rollo, pp. 10-24.

2 Annex “A” of the Petition; Rollo, p. 35. Penned by Justice B.A. Ade-
fuin-De la Cruz (Division chair) and concurred in by Justices Wenceslao I.
Agnir Jr. and Josefina Guevara-Salonga.
3 Annex “B” of the Petition; Rollo, p. 37.
4 Art. II (1), Amended By-Laws of GCHS, provides:

221

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 221

Tan vs. Sycip

5
meeting held on April 6, 1998, there were only eleven (11)
living member-trustees,
6
as four (4) had already died. Out of
the eleven, seven (7) attended the meeting through their

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

respective proxies. The meeting was convened and chaired

by Atty. Sabino Padilla, Jr. over the objection of Atty.7
Antonio C. Pacis, who argued that there was no quorum.
In the meeting, Petitioners Ernesto Tanchi, Edwin Ngo,
Virginia Khoo, and Judith Tan were voted to replace the
four deceased member-trustees.
When the controversy reached the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), petitioners maintained that
the deceased member-trustees should not be counted in the
computation of the quorum because, upon their death,
members automatically lost all their rights (including the
right to vote) and interests in the corporation.
SEC Hearing Officer Malthie G. Militar declared the
April 6, 1998 meeting null and void for lack of quorum. She
held that the basis for determining the quorum in a
meeting of members should be their number as specified in
the articles of 8incorporation, not simply the number of
living members. She explained 9that the qualifying phrase
“entitled to vote” in Section 24 of the Corporation Code,
which pro-

_______________

“1. Number—The regular members of the Corporation shall be fifteen (15) in

number and they shall constitute the Board of Trustees. Associate, non-voting
members may be admitted upon such terms as the Board of Trustees may
determine.” (Memorandum for petitioners, p. 2; Rollo, p. 92.)

5 Petitioners James Tan, Paul Lee Tan, Andrew Liuson, Esther Wong,
Stephen Co; Respondents Paul Sycip and Merritto Lim and four others not
parties in this Petition—John Tan, Claro Ben Lim, Wang Ta Peng and
Anita So. (Memorandum for petitioners, p. 2; Rollo, p. 92.)
6 Wang Ta Peng, Esther Wong, Stephen Co and James L. Tan,
represented by Atty. Sabino Padilla; Paul Lee Tan and Andrew Liuson,
represented by Atty. Eduardo P. Lizares; and Anita So, represented by
Atty. Anto-nio C. Pacis. (Id.; id., at pp. 92-93)
7 See Decision dated June 21, 2000, SEC Case No. 08-98-6065, p. 2;
Rollo, p. 40.
8 Id., at pp. 4-6; id., at pp. 42-43.
9 “Section 24. Election of directors or trustees.—At all elections of di-
rectors or trustees, there must be present, either in person or by
representa-

222

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

vided the basis for determining a quorum for the election of

directors
10
or trustees, should be read together with Section
89. 11
The hearing officer also opined that Article III (2) of the
By-Laws of GCHS, insofar as it prescribed the mode of
filling vacancies in the board of trustees, 12must be
interpreted in conjunction with Section 29 of the
Corporation Code. The SEC en banc denied the appeal of
petitioners
13
and affirmed the Decision of the hearing officer
in toto. It

_______________

tive authorized to act by written proxy, the owners of a majority of the outstanding
capital stock, or if there be no capital stock, a majority of the members entitled to
vote. x x x. Any meeting of the stockholders or members called for an election may
adjourn from day to day or from time to time but not sine die or indefinitely if, for
any reason, no election is held, or if there are not present or represented by proxy,
at the meeting, the owners of a majority of the outstanding capital stock, or if
there be no capital stock, a majority of the member entitled to vote.” (Italics
supplied)

10 “Section 89. Right to vote.—The right of the members of any class or

classes to vote may be limited, broadened or denied to the extent specified
in the articles of incorporation or the by-laws. Unless so limited,
broadened or denied, each member, regardless of class, shall be entitled to
one vote.”
“Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or the
bylaws, a member may vote by proxy in accordance with the provisions of
this Code.
“Voting by mail or other similar means by members of non-stock
corporations may be authorized by the by-laws of non-stock corporations
with the approval of, and under such conditions which may be prescribed
by, the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
11 “Article III (2). Vacancies—Any vacancy in the Board of Trustees
shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the Board.”
(Cited in Decision, SEC Case No. 08-98-6065, p. 6; Rollo, p. 43.)
12 “Section 29. Vacancies in the office of director or trustee.—Any
vacancy occurring in the board of directors or trustees other than by
removal by the stockholders or members or by expiration of term, may be
filled by the vote of at least a majority of the remaining directors or
trustees, if still constituting a quorum; otherwise, said vacancies must be
filled by the stockholders in a regular or special meeting called for that
purpose. x x x.” (Italics supplied)
13 See SEC Order dated July 6, 2001, Annex “D” of Petition; Rollo, pp.
46-51.

223

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 223

Tan vs. Sycip

found to be untenable their contention

14
that the word
“members,” as used in Section 52 of the Corporation Code,
referred only15
to the living members of a nonstock
corporation.
As earlier stated, the CA dismissed the appeal of
petitioners, because the Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping had been signed only by Atty. Sabino
Padilla Jr. No Special Power of Attorney had been attached
to show his authority to16sign for the rest of the petitioners.
Hence, this Petition.

Issues

Petitioners state the issues as follows:

“Petitioners principally pray for the resolution of the legal

question of whether or not in NON-STOCK corporations, dead
members should still be counted in determination of quorum for
purposed of conducting the Annual Members’ Meeting.
“Petitioners have maintained before the courts below that the
DEAD members should no longer be counted in computing
quorum primarily on the ground that members’ rights are
‘personal and non-transferable’ as provided in Sections 90 and 91
of the Corporation Code of the Philippines.
“The SEC ruled against the petitioners solely on the basis of a
1989 SEC Opinion that did not even involve a non-stock
corporation as petitioner GCHS.
“The Honorable Court of Appeals on the other hand simply
refused to resolve this question and instead dismissed the petition
for review on a tech-

_______________

14 “Section 52. Quorum in meetings.—Unless otherwise provided for in this

Code or in the by-laws, a quorum shall consist of the stockholders representing a
majority of the outstanding capital stock or a majority of the members in the case
of non-stock corporations.” (Italics supplied)
15 SEC Order dated July 6, 2001, p. 3; Rollo, p. 48.
16 To resolve old cases, the Court created the Committee on Zero Backlog of
Cases on January 26, 2006. Consequently, the Court resolved to prioritize the
adjudication of long-pending cases by redistributing them among all the justices.
This case was recently re-raffled and assigned to the under-signed ponente for
study and report.

224

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

nicality—the failure to timely submit an SPA from the petitioners

authorizing their co-petitioner Padilla, their counsel and also a
petitioner before the Court of Appeals, to sign the petition on
behalf of the rest of the petitioners.
“Petitioners humbly submit that the action of both the SEC
and the Court of Appeals are not in accord with law particularly
the pronouncements of this Honorable Court in Escorpizo v.
University of Baguio (306 SCRA 497), Robern Development
Corporation v. Quitain (315 SCRA 150,) and MC Engineering, Inc.
v. NLRC, (360 SCRA 183). Due course should have been given the
petition
17
below and the merits of the case decided in petitioners’
favor.”

In sum, the issues may be stated simply in this wise: 1)

whether the CA erred in denying the Petition below, on the
basis of a defective Verification and Certification; and 2)
whether dead members should still be counted in the
determination of the quorum, for purposes of conducting
the annual members’ meeting.

The Court’s Ruling

The present Petition is partly meritorious.

Procedural Issue:
Verification and Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping

The Petition before the CA was initially flawed, because

the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
were signed by only one, not by all, of the petitioners;
further, it failed to show proof that the signatory was
authorized to sign on behalf of all of them. Subsequently,
however, petitioners submitted a Special Power of
Attorney, attesting that Atty.
18
Padilla was authorized to file
the action on their behalf.

_______________

17 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 96-97.

18 Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo, 458 SCRA 325, May 9, 2005;
Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance
Corporation, 456 SCRA 588, April 22, 2005; Alternative Center for
Organizational Reforms and Development, Inc. (ACORD) v. Zamora, 459
SCRA 578, June 8, 2005.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

225

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 225

Tan vs. Sycip

In the interest of substantial

19
justice, this initial procedural
lapse may be excused. There appears to be no intention to
circumvent the need for proper verification and
certification, which are aimed at assuring the truthfulness
and correctness of the allegations in the
20
Petition for Review
and at discouraging forum shopping. More important, the
substantial merits of petitioners’ case and the purely legal
question involved in 21the Petition should be considered
special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify
an exception to the strict requirements of 22the verification
and the certification of non-forum shopping.

Main Issue:
Basis for Quorum

Generally, stockholders’ or members’ meetings are 23called

for the purpose of electing directors or trustees and
transacting some other business calling for or requiring
24
the
action or consent of the shareholders or members, such as
the amendment of the articles of incorporation and bylaws,
sale or disposition of all or substantially all

_______________

19 Estares v. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 604, June 8, 2005; Torres v.

Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, 433 SCRA 455, July 6,
2004; National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 656; 388 SCRA
85; August 29, 2002; Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 442; 345 SCRA
673, November 23, 2000.
20 Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. John Bordman Ltd. of
Iloilo, Inc., G.R. No. 159831, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 151
21 In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court has allowed the
relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification of non-forum
shopping. LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, G.R. No. 159653, January 25,
2006; 480 SCRA 137, citing Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 336 SCRA
419, July 24, 2000, Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 264
SCRA 696, November 21, 1996, and Loyola v. Court of Appeals, et al., 245
SCRA 477, June 29, 1995; Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo, 458
SCRA 325, May 9, 2005.
22 Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, supra.
23 CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 24.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

24 See CORPORATION CODE, Secs. 6, 16, 24, 28-30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42-
44, 46, 48, 77, 118-120.

226

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

corporate assets, consolidation and merger and the like, or

any other business that may properly come before the
meeting.
Under the Corporation Code, stockholders or members
periodically elect the board of directors or trustees, who
25
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
26
and
agents—the board of di-rectors 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,
27
but must seek approval of
the stockholders or members.
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
28
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 non-stock corporation can have a say on how
the purposes and goals of the

_______________

25 CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 23.

“Sec. 23. The board of directors or trustees.—Unless otherwise provided in this

Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be
exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled
and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders
of stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation x
x x.”

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

26 J. CAMPOS, JR. AND M.C. CAMPOS, THE CORPORATION CODE

341, Vol. I (1990); see also Ramirez v. Orientalist Co., 38 Phil. 634 (1918).
27 J. CAMPOS, JR. AND M.C. CAMPOS, supra at p. 490.
28 5 FLETCHER CYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW OF PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS 116 (1976).

227

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 227

Tan vs. Sycip

29
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.
In the absence of an express charter or statutory
provision to the contrary, the general rule is that every
member of a nonstock corporation, and every legal owner of
shares in a stock corporation, has a right to be present and
to vote in all corporate meetings. Conversely, those 30who are
not stockholders or members have no right to vote. Voting
may be expressed personally, or through
31
proxies who vote
in their representative capacities. Generally, the right to
be present and to vote in a meeting32
is determined by the
time in which the meeting is held.
Section 52 of the Corporation Code states:

“Section 52. Quorum in Meetings.—Unless otherwise provided for

in this Code or in the by-laws, a quorum shall consist of the
stockholders representing a majority of the outstanding capital
stock or a majority of the members in the case of non-stock
corporations.”

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:

“SECTION 137. Outstanding capital stock defined.—The term

‘out-standing 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.” (Italics supplied)

_______________

29 J. CAMPOS, JR. AND M.C. CAMPOS, supra note 26 at p. 436.

30 5 FLETCHER CYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW OF PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS 127 (1976).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

31 Id.
32 Id.

228

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

The Right to Vote in

Stock Corporations
The right to vote is inherent 33
in and incidental to the
ownership of corporate stocks. It is settled that unissued
stocks may not be voted or considered in determining
whether a quorum is present in a stock-holders’ meeting, or
whether a requisite proportion of the stock of the
corporation is voted to adopt a certain measure or act. Only 34
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 35
in the
articles of incorporation or declared delin-quent 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 36
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 that37 have passed from the
corporation, and that may be voted.
Section 6 of the Corporation Code, in part, provides:

“Section 6. Classification of shares.—The shares of stock of stock

corporations may be divided into classes or series of shares, or
both, any of which classes or series of shares may have such
rights, privileges or restric-

_______________

33 R. LOPEZ, THE CORPORATION CODE OF THE PHILS. 396, Vol. I (1994).

34 5 FLETCHER CYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS
77 (1976).
35 “Section 71. Effect of delinquency.—No delinquent stock shall be voted for or
be entitled to vote or to representation at any stockholders’ meeting. x x x.”
36 “Section 9. Treasury shares.—Treasury shares are shares of stock which have
been issued and fully paid for but subsequently reacquired by the issuing
corporation by purchase, redemption, donation or through some other lawful
means. x x x.”

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

“Section 57. Voting right for treasury shares.—Treasury shares shall have no
voting right as long as such stock remains in the Treasury.”
37 90 ALR 316.

229

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 229

Tan vs. Sycip

tions as may be stated in the articles of incorporation: Provided,

That no share may be deprived of voting rights except those
classified and issued as “preferred” or “redeemable” shares, unless
otherwise provided in this Code: Provided, further, that there
shall always be a class or series of shares which have complete
voting rights.
xxx xxx xxx
“Where the articles of incorporation provide for non-voting
shares in the cases allowed by this Code, the holders of such
shares shall nevertheless be entitled to vote on the following
matters:

1. Amendment of the articles of incorporation;

2. Adoption and amendment of by-laws;
3. Sale, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge or other
disposition of all or substantially all of the corporation
property;
4. Incurring, creating or increasing bonded indebtedness;
5. Increase or decrease of capital stock;
6. Merger or consolidation of the corporation with another
corporation or other corporations;
7. Investment of corporate funds in another corporation or
business in accordance with this Code; and
8. Dissolution of the corporation.

“Except as provided in the immediately preceding paragraph,

the vote necessary to approve a particular corporate act as
provided in this Code shall be deemed to refer only to stocks with
voting rights.”

Taken in conjunction with Section 137, the last paragraph

of Section 6 shows that the intention of the lawmakers was
to base the quorum mentioned 38
in Section 52 on the number
of outstanding voting stocks.

The Right to Vote in

Nonstock Corporations

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

In nonstock 39 corporations, the voting rights attach to

membership. Members vote as persons, in accordance
with the law and the bylaws

_______________

38 J. CAMPOS, JR. AND M.C. CAMPOS, supra note 26 at p. 423.

39 R. LOPEZ, supra note 33 at p. 965.

230

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

of the corporation. Each member shall be entitled to one

vote unless so limited, broadened,
40
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 nonstock 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 41 in the articles of incorporation,
constitutes the quorum. 42
The March 3, 1986 SEC Opinion cited by the hearing
officer uses the phrase “majority vote of the members”;
likewise Section 48 of the Corporation Code refers to 50
percent of 94 (the number of registered members of the
association mentioned therein) plus one. The best evidence
of who are the present members of the corporation is the
“membership book”; in the 43case of stock corporations, it is
the stock and transfer book.

_______________

40 CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 89.

41 In Noremac, Inc. v. Centre Hill Court, Inc., (178 SE 877, March 14,
1935) the management and control of the corporation were vested in lot
owners who were members of the corporation, by virtue of their
ownership; and the bylaws provided that a quorum should consist of
members representing a majority of the lots, numbered from 1 to 30,
inclusive; but the number of lots was later reduced to 29 so the Court said
that the majority of members representing actual number of lots was a
quorum.
The landmark case Avelino v. Cuenca (83 Phil. 17, March 4, 1949) can
be used by analogy. In that case, the Supreme Court said that “[t]here is a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

difference between a majority of “all the members of the House” and a

majority of “the House,” which requires less number than the first.
In this case, the law refers to the “majority of the members” and not the
“majority of all the members.” Thus, we can use the same reasoning that
the “majority of the members” requires a lesser number than the “majority
of all the members.”
42 See the Decision dated June 21, 2000, SEC Case No. 08-98-6065, pp.
3-4; Rollo, pp. 41-42.
43 R. LOPEZ, supra note 33 at p. 973.

231

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 231

Tan vs. Sycip

Section 25 of the Code specifically provides that a majority

of the directors or trustees, as fixed in the articles of
incorporation,shall constitute a quorum for the transaction
of corporate business (unless the articles of incorporation or
the bylaws provide for a greater majority). If the intention
of the lawmakers was to base the quorum in the meetings
of stockholders or members on their absolute number as
fixed in the articles of incorporation, it would have
expressly specified so. Otherwise, the only logical
conclusion is that the legislature did not have that
intention.

Effect of the Death

of a Member or Shareholder
Having thus determined that the quorum in a members’
meeting is to be reckoned as the actual number of members
of the corporation, the next question to resolve is what
happens in the event of the death of one of them.
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 the44
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
45
or the
bylaws of the corporation provide oth-erwise. In other
words, the determination of whether or not “dead
members” are entitled to exercise their voting rights

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

(through their executor or administrator), depends on those

articles of incorporation or bylaws.

_______________

44 SEC Letter-Opinion to Ms. Rosevelinda E. Calingasan, et al., (R. Lo-

pez) May 14, 1993; CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 55.
45 CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 90.

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Sycip

Under the By-Laws of GCHS, membership in the

corporation shall, among
46
others, be terminated by the
death of the member. Section 91 of the Corporation Code
further provides that termination extin-guishes 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,
47
the annual members’
meeting, conducted with six members present, was valid.

Vacancy in the
Board of Trustees
As regards the filling of vacancies in the board of trustees,
Section 29 of the Corporation Code provides:

“SECTION 29. Vacancies in the office of director or trustee.—Any

vacancy occurring in the board of directors or trustees other than
by removal by the stockholders or members or by expiration of
term, may be filled by the vote of at least a majority of the
remaining directors or trustees, if still constituting a quorum;
otherwise, said vacancies must be filled by the stockholders in a
regular or special meeting called for that purpose. A director or
trus-tee so elected to fill a vacancy shall be elected only for the
unexpired term of his predecessor in office.”

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

filling of vacancies in the board by the remaining directors

or trustees constituting a quorum is merely

_______________

46 See Petition, p. 11 (citing Art. III, Amended By-Laws of GCHS on

Termination of Membership); Rollo, p. 20.
47 Excluding Atty. Antonio C. Pacis (proxy for Anita So), who left the
meeting in protest of the alleged lack of quorum.

233

VOL. 499, AUGUST 17, 2006 233

Tan vs. Sycip

48
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
49
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 50a majority vote of the remaining members of the
board.
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.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED. The
assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The remaining members
of the board of trustees of Grace Christian High School
(GCHS) may convene and fill up the vacancies in the board,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/20
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 499

in accordance with this Decision. No pronouncement as to

costs in this instance.

_______________

48 SEC Letter-Opinion to Mr. Noe S. Andaya (R. Lopez) September 20,

1990.
49 J. CAMPOS, JR. AND M.C. CAMPOS, supra note 26 at p. 465.
50 Article III (2), By-laws of GCHS (cited in the Decision dated June 21,
2000, SEC Case No. 08-98-6065, p. 6); Rollo, p. 43.

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Martinez vs. Mendoza

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition partly granted, assailed resolutions reversed and

set aside.

Notes.—A minority stockholder and member of the

board of direc-tors has no power or authority to sue on
behalf of the corporation. (Tam Wing Tak vs. Makasiar, 350
SCRA 475 [2001])
Mere 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 personality. (Francisco
v. Mejia, 362 SCRA 738 [2001])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dac57a3d0770dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/20