9/25/23, 8:00 PM G.R. No. 86738 9/25/23, 8:00 PM G.R. No.

86738
corporation in the process of a bona fide reorganization of such corporation made in good faith and not for the
Today is Monday, September 25, 2023
purpose of avoiding the provisions of this Act, either in exchange for the securities of such security holders or
claims of such creditors or partly for cash and partly in exchange for the securities or claims of such security
holders or creditors; or the issuance of additional capital stock of a corporation sold or distributed by it among
its own stockholders exclusively, where no commission or other remuneration is paid or given directly or
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive indirectly in connection with the sale or distribution of such increased capital stock. (Emphasis supplied)
embraces "not only an increase in the authorized capital stock but also the issuance of additional shares to existing stockholders of the unissued portion of the unissued capital
stock". 3
Nestle urged that interpretation upon the following argument.

Republic of the Philippines The use of the term "increased capital stock" should be interpreted to refer to additional capital stock or equity
SUPREME COURT participation of the existing stockholders as a consequence of either an increase of the authorized capital
Manila stock or the issuance of unissued capital stock. If the intention of the pertinent legal provision [were] to limit
the exemption to subscription to proposed increases in the authorized capital stock of a corporation, we see
FIRST DIVISION no reason why the law should not have been more specific or accurate about it. It certainly should have
mentioned "increase in the authorized capital stock of the corporation" rather than merely the expression "the
G.R. No. 86738 November 13, 1991 issuance of additional capital stock 4 (Emphasis supplied)
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, Nestle expressly represented in the same letter that all the additional shares proposed to be issued would be issued
vs. only to San Miguel Corporation and Nestle S.A. and that no commission or other form of remuneration had been
COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, respondents. given, directly or indirectly, in connection with the issuance or distribution of such additional shares of stock.
Nepomuceno, Hofilena & Guingona for petitioner. In respect of its claimed exemption from the fee provided for in Section 6(c) of the Revised Securities Act, Nestle
contended that since Section 6 (a) (4) of the statute declares (in Nestle's view) the proposed issuance of 344,500
previously authorized but unissued shares of Nestle's capital stock to its existing shareholders as an exempt
FELICIANO, J.: transaction, the SEC could not collect fees for "the same transaction" twice. Nestle adverted to its payment back in
21 February 1983 of the amount of P50,000.00 as filing fees to the SEC when it applied for and eventually received
Sometime in February 1983, the authorized capital stock of petitioner Nestle Philippines Inc. ("Nestle") was approval of the increase of its authorized capital stock effected by Board and shareholder action last 16 December
increased from P300 million divided into 3 million shares with a par value of P100.00 per share, to P600 million 1983.
divided into 6 million shares with a par value of P100.00 per share. Nestle underwent the necessary procedures
involving Board and stockholders approvals and effected the necessary filings to secure the approval of the increase In a letter dated 26 June 1986, the SEC through its then Chairman Julio A. Sulit, Jr. responded adversely to
of authorized capital stock by respondent Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which approval was in fact petitioner's requests and ruled that the proposed issuance of shares did not fall under Section 6 (a) (4) of the
granted. Nestle also paid to the SEC the amount of P50,000.00 as filing fee in accordance with the Schedule of Revised Securities Act, since Section 6 (a) (4) is applicable only where there is an increase in the authorized capital
Fees and Charges being implemented by the SEC under the Corporation Code. 1 stock of a corporation. Chairman Sulit held, however, that the proposed transaction could be considered by the
Commission under the provisions of Section 6 (b) of the Revised Securities Act which reads as follows:
Nestle has only two (2) principal stockholders: San Miguel Corporation and Nestle S.A. The other stockholders, who
(b) The Commission may, from time to time and subject to such terms and conditions as it may prescribe,
are individual natural persons, own only one (1) share each, for qualifying purposes, i.e., to qualify them as
exempt transactions other than those provided in the preceding paragraph, if it finds that the enforcement of
members of the Board of Directors being elected thereto on the strength of the votes of one or the other principal
the requirements of registration under this Act with respect to such transactions is not necessary in the public
shareholder.
interest and for the protection of the investors by reason of the small amount involved or the limited character
On 16 December 1983, the Board of Directors and stockholders of Nestle approved resolutions authorizing the of the public offering.
issuance of 344,500 shares out of the previously authorized but unissued capital stock of Nestle, exclusively to San
The Commission then advised petitioner to file the appropriate request for exemption and to pay the fee required
Miguel Corporation and to Nestle S.A. San Miguel Corporation subscribed to and completely paid up 168,800
under Section 6 (c) of the statute, which provides:
shares, while Nestle S.A. subscribed to and paid up the balance of 175,700 shares of stock.
(c) A fee equivalent to one-tenth of one per centum of the maximum aggregate price or issued value of the
On 28 March 1985, petitioner Nestle filed a letter signed by its Corporate Secretary, M.L. Antonio, with the SEC
securities shall be collected by the Commission for granting a general or particular exemption from the
seeking exemption of its proposed issuance of additional shares to its existing principal shareholders, from the
registration requirements of this Act.
registration requirement of Section 4 of the Revised Securities Act and from payment of the fee referred to in
Section 6(c) of the same Act. In that letter, Nestle requested confirmation of the correctness of two (2) propositions Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the SEC ruling, without success.
submitted by it:
On 3 July 1987, petitioner sought review of the SEC ruling before this Court which, however, referred the petition to
1. That there is no need to file a petition for exemption under Section 6(b) of the Revised Securities Act with the Court of Appeals.
respect to the issuance of the said 344,600 additional shares to our existing stockholders out of our unissued
capital stock; and In a decision dated 13 January 1989, the Court of Appeals sustained the ruling of the SEC.
2. That the fee provided in Section 6(c) of [the Revised Securities] Act is not applicable to the said issuance of additional shares. 2
Dissatisfied with the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Nestle is now before this Court on a Petition for Review,
The principal, indeed the only, argument presented by Nestlewas that Section 6(a) (4) of the Revised Securities Act raising the very same issues that it had raised before the SEC and the Court of Appeals.
which provides as follows:
Examining the words actually used in Section 6 (a) (4) of the Revised Securities Act, and bearing in mind common
Sec. 6. Exempt transactions. — a) The requirement of registration under subsection (a) of Section four of this corporate usage in this jurisdiction, it will be seen that the statutory phrase "issuance of additional capital stock" is
Act shall not apply to the sale of any security in any of the following transactions: indeed infected with a certain degree of ambiguity. This phrase may refer either to: a) the issuance of capital stock
as part of and in the course of increasing the authorized capital stock of a corporation; or (b) issuance of already
xxx xxx xxx authorized but still unissued capital stock. By the same token, the phrase "increased capital stock" found at the end
of Section 6 (a) (4), may refer either: 1) to newly or contemporaneously authorized capital stock issued in the course
(4) The distribution by a corporation, actively engaged in the business authorized by its articles of of increasing the authorized capital stock of a corporation; or 2) to previously authorized but unissued capital stock.
incorporation, of securities to its stockholders or other security holders as a stock dividend or other
distribution out of surplus; or the issuance of securities to the security holder or other creditors of a
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/nov1991/gr_86738_1991.html 1/5 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/nov1991/gr_86738_1991.html 2/5
9/25/23, 8:00 PM G.R. No. 86738 9/25/23, 8:00 PM G.R. No. 86738
Under Section 38 of the Corporation Code, a corporation engaged in increasing its authorized capital stock, with the Under the reading urged by petitioner Nestle of the reach and scope of the third clause of Section 6(a) (4), the
required vote of its Board of Directors and of its stockholders, must file a sworn statement of the treasurer of the issuance of previously authorized but unissued capital stock would automatically constitute an exempt transaction,
corporation showing that at least twenty-five percent (25%) of "such increased capital stock" has been subscribed without regard to the length of time which may have intervened between the last increase in authorized capital stock
and that at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount subscribed has been paid either in actual cash or in and the proposed issuance during which time the condition of the corporation may have substantially changed, and
property transferred to the corporation. In other words, the corporation must issue at least twenty-five percent (25%) without regard to whether the existing stockholders to whom the shares are proposed to be issued are only two
of the newly or contemporaneously authorized capital stock in the course of complying with the requirements of the giant corporations as in the instant case, or are individuals numbering in the hundreds or thousands.
Corporation Code for increasing its authorized capital stock.
In contrast, under the ruling issued by the SEC, an issuance of previously authorized but still unissued capital stock
In contrast, after approval by the SEC of the increase of its authorized capital stock, and from time to time thereafter, the corporation, by a vote of its Board of Directors, and without
need of either stockholder or SEC approval, may issue and sell shares of its already authorized but still unissued capital stock to existing shareholders or to members of the general
may, in a particular instance, be held to be an exempt transaction by the SEC under Section 6(b) so long as the
public. 5 SEC finds that the requirements of registration under the Revised Securities Act are "not necessary in the public
interest and for the protection of the investors" by reason, inter alia, of the small amount of stock that is proposed to
Both the SEC and the Court of Appeals resolved the ambiguity by construing Section 6 (a) (4) as referring only to be issued or because the potential buyers are very limited in number and are in a position to protect themselves. In
the issuance of shares of stock as part of and in the course of increasing the authorized capital stock of Nestle. In fine, petitioner Nestle's proposed construction of Section 6(a) (4) would establish an inflexible rule of automatic
the case at bar, since the 344,500 shares of Nestle capital stock are proposed to be issued from already authorized exemption of issuances of additional, previously authorized but unissued, capital stock. We must reject an
but still unissued capital stock and since the present authorized capital stock of 6,000,000 shares with a par value of interpretation which may disable the SEC from rendering protection to investors, in the public interest, precisely
P100.00 per share is not proposed to be further increased, the SEC and the Court of Appeals rejected Nestle's when such protection may be most needed.
petition.
Petitioner Nestle's second claim for exemption is from payment of the fee provided for in Section 6 (c) of the
We believe and so hold that the construction thus given by the SEC and the Court of Appeals to Section 6 (a) (4) of Revised Securities Act, a claim based upon petitioner's contention that Section 6 (a) (4) covers both issuance of
the Revised Securities Act must be upheld. stock in the course of complying with the statutory requirements of increase of authorized capital stock and issuance
In the first place, it is a principle too well established to require extensive documentation that the construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the
of previously authorized and unissued capital stock. Petitioner claims that to require it now to pay one-tenth of one
interpretation and application of that statute is entitled to great respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts, unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp percent (1%) of the issued value of the 344,500 shares of stock proposed to be issued, is to require it to pay a
conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution and other laws. As long ago as 1903, this Court said in In re Allen 6
that second time for the same service on the part of the SEC. Since we have above rejected petitioner's reading of
Section 6 (a) (4), last clause, petitioner's claim about the additional fee of one-tenth of one percent (1%) of the issue
[t]he principle that the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the executive officers of the government, value of the proposed issuance of stock (amounting to P34,450 plus P344.50 for other fees or a total of P37,794.50)
whose duty is to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily control the construction of the need not detain us for long. We think it clear that the fee collected in 21 February 1983 by the SEC was assessed in
statute by the courts, is so firmly embedded in our jurisdiction that no authorities need be cited to support it. 7 connection with the examination and approval of the certificate of increase of authorized capital stock then
The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies
submitted by petitioner. The fee, upon the other hand, provided for in Section 6 (c) which petitioner will be required
for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with to pay if it does file an application for exemption under Section 6 (b), is quite different; this is a fee specifically
implementing a particular statute. 8 9
In Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs the Court stressed that authorized by the Revised Securities Act, (not the Corporation Code) in connection with the grant of an exemption
executive officials are presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the meaning from normal registration requirements imposed by that Act. We do not find such fee either unreasonable or
and purpose of the law, and to have formed an independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon. exorbitant.
The courts give much weight to contemporaneous construction because of the respect due the government agency
or officials charged with the implementation of the law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the
judgment, and the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret. 10 Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 13 January 1989 in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-13522, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
In the second place, and more importantly, consideration of the underlying statutory purpose of Section 6(a) (4)
compels us to sustain the view taken by the SEC and the Court of Appeals. The reading by the SEC of the scope of SO ORDERED.
application of Section 6(a) (4) permits greater opportunity for the SEC to implement the statutory objective of
protecting the investing public by requiring proposed issuers of capital stock to inform such public of the true Narvasa, CJ., Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
financial conditions and prospects of the corporation. By limiting the class of exempt transactions contemplated by
the last clause of Section 6(a) (4) to issuances of stock done in the course of and as part of the process of
increasing the authorized capital stock of a corporation, the SEC is enabled to examine issuances by a corporation # Footnotes
of previously authorized but theretofore unissued capital stock, on a case-to-case basis, under Section 6(b); and
thereunder, to grant or withhold exemption from the normal registration requirements depending upon the perceived 1 Section 139.
level of need for protection by the investing public in particular cases.
When capital stock is issued in the course of and in compliance with the requirements of increasing its authorized capital stock under Section 38 of the Corporation Code, the SEC
2 Record, pp. 12-13.
as a matter of course examines the financial condition of the corporation, and hence there is no real need for exercise of SEC authority under the Revised Securities Act. Thus, one
of the multiple documentation requirements under the current regulations of the SEC in respect of filing a certificate of increase of authorized capital stock, is submission of "a
financial statement duly certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) as of the latest date possible or as of the date of the meeting when stockholders approved the
3 Id., p. 11.
increase/decrease in capital stock or thereabouts. 11
When all or part of the newly authorized capital stock is proposed to be issued as
4 Id.
stock dividends, the SEC requirements are even more exacting; they require, in addition to the regular audited
financial statements, the submission by the corporation of a "detailed or Long Form Report of the certifying Auditor." 5 See e.g., SEC Ruling dated 4 November 1968 addressed to Maremco Mineral Corporation; Securities and
Moreover, since approval of an increase in authorized capital stock by the stockholders holding two-thirds (2/3) of Exchange Commission Folio, p. 354 (1960-1976).
the outstanding capital stock is required by Section 38 of the Corporation Code, at a stockholders meeting held for
that purpose, the directors and officers of the corporation may be expected to take pains to inform the shareholders 6 2 Phil. 630 (1903).
of the financial condition and prospects of the corporation and of the proposed utilization of the fresh capital sought
to be raised. 7 2 Phil. at 640.
Upon the other hand, as already noted, issuance of previously authorized but theretofore unissued capital stock by 8 E.g., Abejo, et al. v. Hon. Rafael dela Cruz, etc., et al., 149 SCRA 654, 669-670 (1987).
the corporation requires only Board of Directors approval. Neither notice to nor approval by the shareholders or the
SEC is required for such issuance. There would, accordingly, under the view taken by petitioner Nestle, no 9 29 SCRA 617 (1969).
opportunity for the SEC to see to it that shareholders (especially the small stockholders) have a reasonable
opportunity to inform themselves about the very fact of such issuance and about the condition of the corporation and 10 Id., See also Ramos v. Court of Industrial Relations, 21 SCRA 1282 (1967); Cagayan Valley Enterprises v.
the potential value of the shares of stock being offered. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 218 (1989); Santiago v. Deputy Executive Secretary, 192 SCRA 199 (1990).

11 SEC, "Basic Requirements for filing certificate of increase/decrease of authorized capital stock."
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/nov1991/gr_86738_1991.html 3/5 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/nov1991/gr_86738_1991.html 4/5
9/25/23, 8:00 PM G.R. No. 86738

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Unchecked Article

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/nov1991/gr_86738_1991.html 5/5