This case involves a dispute over the removal of members from a non-profit corporation and the transfer of lots owned by the corporation to individual members. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The removal of respondent members was invalid because proper notice requirements were not followed; 2) Though individual suits were filed instead of a derivative suit, the court has jurisdiction and petitioners did not object so the suits can proceed; and 3) The transfer of lots to directors was voidable because the requirements of the Corporation Code regarding director conflicts of interest were not satisfied.
This case involves a dispute over the removal of members from a non-profit corporation and the transfer of lots owned by the corporation to individual members. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The removal of respondent members was invalid because proper notice requirements were not followed; 2) Though individual suits were filed instead of a derivative suit, the court has jurisdiction and petitioners did not object so the suits can proceed; and 3) The transfer of lots to directors was voidable because the requirements of the Corporation Code regarding director conflicts of interest were not satisfied.
This case involves a dispute over the removal of members from a non-profit corporation and the transfer of lots owned by the corporation to individual members. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The removal of respondent members was invalid because proper notice requirements were not followed; 2) Though individual suits were filed instead of a derivative suit, the court has jurisdiction and petitioners did not object so the suits can proceed; and 3) The transfer of lots to directors was voidable because the requirements of the Corporation Code regarding director conflicts of interest were not satisfied.
This case involves a dispute over the removal of members from a non-profit corporation and the transfer of lots owned by the corporation to individual members. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The removal of respondent members was invalid because proper notice requirements were not followed; 2) Though individual suits were filed instead of a derivative suit, the court has jurisdiction and petitioners did not object so the suits can proceed; and 3) The transfer of lots to directors was voidable because the requirements of the Corporation Code regarding director conflicts of interest were not satisfied.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
AGDAO LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC., ET. AL v.
ROLANDO MARAMION, ET. AL G.R. No. 188642 & 189425, OCTOBER 17, 2016
Facts:
Petitioners are Agdao Landless Residents Association, Inc. (ALRAI), a
non-stock, non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines; through its board it transferred 46 titled lots to different members and non-members of the corporation. The respondent members of the corporation were removed as members of the corporation by the board for absences in the meetings regarding the transfer of said lots. Respondents question the validity of their removal as members and the transfer of said lots through individual suits filed with the court.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the members were removed validly
2. Whether or not the individual suits are proper 3. Whether or not the transfer of the lots are valid
Held:
1. Section 91 58 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (Corporation
Code) provides that membership in a non-stock, non-profit corporation (as in petitioner ALRAI in this case) shall be terminated in the manner and for the cases provided in its articles of incorporation or the by-laws. Agdaos constitution provides that in the removal of members The Secretary shall give or cause to be given written notice of all meetings, regular or special to all members of the association at least three (3) days before the date of each meetings either by mail or personally. For failing to meet said notice requirements the removal of the respondents as members is invalid.
2. Individual suits are filed when the cause of action belongs to the stockholder personally, and not to the stockholders as a group, or to the corporation, e.g. denial of right to inspection and denial of dividends to a stockholder. If the cause of action belongs to a group of stockholders, such as when the rights violated belong to preferred stockholders, a class or representative suit may be filed to protect the stockholders in the group. A derivative suit, on the other hand, is one which is instituted by a shareholder or a member of a corporation, for and in behalf of the corporation for its protection from acts committed by directors, trustees, corporate officers, and even third persons. Even though the action should have been brought up through a derivative suit, the individual suits are treated as individual suits based on the following:
a. The RTC, where the case was originally filed, has jurisdiction over the controversy; b. Petitioners did not object to the institution of the case (on the ground that a derivative suit should have been lodged instead of an individual suit) in any of the proceedings before the court a quo or before the CA. c. a reading of the complaint shows that respondents do not pray for reliefs for their personal benefit; but in fact, for the benefit of the corporation.
3. Javonillo, as a director, signed the Board Resolutions133 confirming the
transfer of the corporate properties to himself, and to Armentano. Petitioners cannot argue that the transfer of the corporate properties to them is valid by virtue of the Resolution 134 by the general membership of Agdao confirming the transfer for tJ-iree reasons.
Sec. 32. Dealings of directors, trustees or officers with the
corporation. - A contract of the corporation with one or more of its directors or trustees or officers is voidable, at the option of such corporation, unless all of the following conditions are present:
1. That the presence of such director or trustee in the board
meeting in which the contract was approved was not necessary to constitute a quorum for such meeting; 2. That the vote of such director or trustee was not necessary for the approval of the contract; 3. That the contract is fair and reasonable under the circumstances; and 4. That in case of an officer, the contract has been previously authorized by the board of directors.
Section 32 requires that the contract should be ratified by a vote
representing at least two-thirds of the members in a meeting called for the purpose. Records of this case do not show whether the Resolution was indeed voted by the required percentage of membership. There is also no showing that there was full disclosure of the adverse interest of the directors involved when the Resolution was approved. Full disclosure is required under the aforecited Section 32 of the Corporation Code. Section 32 requires that the contract be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. As previously discussed, the transfer of the corporate properties to the individual petitioners is not fair and reasonable for ( 1) want of legitimate corporate purpose, and for (2) the breach of the fiduciary nature of the positions held by Javonillo and Armentano. Lacking any of these (full disclosure and a showing that the contract is fair and reasonable), ratification by the two-thirds vote would be of no avail.
DIGEST - Y-I LEISURE PHILIPPINES, INC., YATS INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND Y-I CLUBS AND RESORTS, INC., Petitioners, v. JAMES YU, Respondent. G.R. No. 207161, September 08, 2015
