Yujuico vs. Quiambao

2/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME724
G.R. No. 180416. June 2, 2014.*

ADERITO Z. YUJUICO and BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA,
petitioners, vs. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO and ERIC C.
PILAPIL, respondents.
Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Prosecution of Offenses

Corporations A criminal action based on the violation of a
stockholders right to examine or inspect the corporate records and
the stock and transfer book of a corporation under the second and
fourth paragraphs of Section 74 of the Corporation Code can only
be maintained against corporate officers or any other persons
acting on behalf of such corporation.A criminal action based on
the violation of a stockholders right to examine or inspect the
corporate records and the stock and transfer book of a corporation
under the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74 of the
Corporation Code such as Criminal Case No. 89724 can only
be maintained against corporate officers or any other persons
acting on behalf of such corporation. The submissions of the
petitioners during the preliminary investigation, however, clearly
suggest that respondents are neither in relation to STRADEC.
Corporations Section 144 already purports to penalize
violations of any provision of the Corporation Code not
otherwise specifically penalized therein.While Section 74 of the
Corporation Code expressly mentions the application of Section
144 only in relation to the act of refus[ing] to allow any director,
trustees, stockholder or member of the corporation to examine and
copy excerpts from [the corporations] records or minutes, the
same does not mean that the latter section no longer applies to
any other possible violations of the former section. It must be
emphasized that Section 144 already purports to penalize
[v]iolations of any provision of the Corporation Code not
otherwise specifically penalized therein. Hence, we find
inconsequential the fact that Section 74 expressly mentions the
application of Section 144 only to a specific act, but not with
respect to the other possible violations of the former section.
Indeed, we find no cogent reason why Section 144 of the
Corporation
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a137af495c1a19ff8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
263
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 263
Yujuico vs. Quiambao
Code cannot be made to apply to violations of the right of a

stockholder to inspect the stock and transfer book of a corporation
under Section 74(4) given the already unequivocal intent of the
legislature to penalize violations of a parallel right, i.e., the right
of a stockholder or member to examine the other records and
minutes of a corporation under Section 74(2). Certainly, all the
rights guaranteed to corporators under Section 74 of the
Corporation Code are mandatory for the corporation to respect.
All such rights are just the same underpinned by the same policy
consideration of keeping public confidence in the corporate vehicle
thru an assurance of transparency in the corporations operations.
Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Prosecution of Offenses
Corporations Violations of the second and fourth paragraphs of
Section 74 contemplates a situation wherein a corporation, acting
thru one of its officers or agents, denies the right of any of its
stockholders to inspect the records, minutes and the stock and
transfer book of such corporation.A perusal of the second and
fourth paragraphs of Section 74, as well as the first paragraph of
the same section, reveal that they are provisions that obligates a
corporation: they prescribe what books or records a
corporation is required to keep where the corporation shall
keep them and what are the other obligations of the
corporation to its stockholders or members in relation to such
books and records. Hence, by parity of reasoning, the second and
fourth paragraphs of Section 74, including the first paragraph of
the same section, can only be violated by a corporation. It is
clear then that a criminal action based on the violation of the
second or fourth paragraphs of Section 74 can only be maintained
against corporate officers or such other persons that are acting on
behalf of the corporation. Violations of the second and fourth
paragraphs of Section 74 contemplates a situation wherein a
corporation, acting thru one of its officers or agents,
denies the right of any of its stockholders to inspect the
records, minutes and the stock and transfer book of such
corporation.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the

Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br. 154.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Tan, Acut & Lopez Law Offices for respondents.
264
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEREZ, J.:
This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] from

the Orders[2] dated 4 June 2007 and 5 November 2007 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 154, of Pasig City
in S.C.A. No. 3047.
The facts:
Background
Strategic Alliance Development Corporation

(STRADEC) is a domestic corporation operating as a
business development and investment company.
On 1 March 2004, during the annual stockholders
meeting of STRADEC, petitioner Aderito Z. Yujuico
(Yujuico) was elected as president and chairman of the
company.[3] Yujuico replaced respondent Cezar T.
Quiambao (Quiambao), who had been the president and
chairman of STRADEC since 1994.[4]
With Yujuico at the helm, STRADEC appointed
petitioner Bonifacio C. Sumbilla (Sumbilla) as treasurer
and one Joselito John G. Blando (Blando) as corporate
secretary.[5] Blando replaced respondent Eric C. Pilapil
(Pilapil), the previous corporate secretary of STRADEC.[6]
The Criminal Complaint
On 12 August 2005, petitioners filed a criminal

complaint[7] against respondents and one Giovanni T.
Casanova (Casa
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 1065. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] The Orders were penned by Judge Abraham B. Borreta. Id., at pp.
6684.
[3] Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasig City, dated 6
June 2006. Id., at p. 90.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id., at p. 91.
[7] Id., at pp. 100104.
265
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 265

nova) before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of

Pasig City. The complaint was docketed in the OCP as I.S.
No. PSG 050807465.
The complaint accuses respondents and Casanova of
violating Section 74 in relation to Section 144 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 68 or the Corporation Code. The petitioners
premise such accusation on the following factual
allegations:[8]
1. During the stockholders meeting on 1 March 2004,
Yujuico as newly elected president and chairman
of STRADEC demanded Quiambao for the
turnover of the corporate records of the company,
particularly the accounting files, ledgers, journals
and other records of the corporations business.
Quiambao refused.
2. As it turns out, the corporate records of STRADEC
were in the possession of Casanova the
accountant of STRADEC. Casanova was keeping
custody of the said records on behalf of Quiambao,
who allegedly needed the same as part of his defense
in a pending case in court.
3. After the 1 March 2004 stockholders meeting,
Quiambao and Casanova caused the removal of the
corporate records of STRADEC from the companys
offices in Pasig City.
4. Upon his appointment as corporate secretary on 21
June 2004, Blando likewise demanded Pilapil for the
turnover of the stock and transfer book of
STRADEC. Pilapil refused.
5. Instead, on 25 June 2004, Pilapil proposed to Blando
to have the stock and transfer book deposited in a
safety deposit box with EquitablePCI Bank, Kamias
Road, Quezon City. Blando acceded to the proposal
and the stock and transfer book was deposited in a
safety deposit box with the bank identified. It was
_______________
[8] Id.
266
agreed that the safety deposit box may only be opened in

the presence of both Quiambao and Blando.
6. On 30 June 2004, however, Quiambao and Pilapil
withdrew the stock and transfer book from the safety
deposit box and brought it to the offices of the
Stradcom Corporation (STRADCOM) in Quezon
City. Quiambao thereafter asked Blando to proceed
to the STRADCOM offices. Upon arriving thereat,
Quiambao pressured Blando to make certain entries
in the stock and transfer books. After making such
entries, Blando again demanded that he be given
possession of the stock and transfer book. Quiambao
refused.
7. On 1 July 2004, Blando received an order dated 30
June 2004 issued by the RTC, Branch 71, of Pasig
City in Civil Case No. 70027, which directed him to
cancel the entries he made in the stock and transfer
book. Hence, on even date, Blando wrote letters to
Quiambao and Pilapil once again demanding for the
turnover of the stock and transfer book. Pilapil
replied thru a letter dated 2 July 2004 where he
appeared to agree to Blandos demand.
8. However, upon meeting with Pilapil and Quiambao,
the latter still refused to turnover the stock and
transfer book to Blando. Instead, Blando was once
again constrained to agree to a proposal by Pilapil to
have the stock and transfer book deposited with the
RTC, Branch 155, of Pasig City. The said court,
however, refused to accept such deposit on the
ground that it had no place for safekeeping.
9. Since Quiambao and Pilapil still refused to turnover
the stock and transfer book, Blando again acceded to
have the book deposited in a safety deposit box, this
time, with the Export and Industry Bank in San
Miguel Avenue, Pasig City.
267
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 267

Petitioners theorize that the refusal by the respondents

and Casanova to turnover STRADECs corporate records
and stock and transfer book violates their right, as
stockholders, directors and officers of the corporation, to
inspect such records and book under Section 74 of the

Corporation Code. For such violation, petitioners conclude,
respondents may be held criminally liable pursuant to
Section 144 of the Corporation Code.
Preliminary investigation thereafter ensued.
Resolution of the OCP and the Informations
After receiving the counteraffidavits of the respondents
and Casanova, as well as the other documentary
submissions[9] by the parties, the OCP issued a
Resolution[10] dated 6 January 2006 in I.S. No. PSG 05
0807465. In the said resolution, the OCP absolved
Casanova but found probable cause to hail respondents to
court on two (2) offenses: (1) for removing the stock and
transfer book of STRADEC from its principal office and (2)
for refusing access to, and examination of, the corporate
records and the stock and transfer book of STRADEC at its
principal office.
Pursuant to the resolution, two (2) informations[11] were
filed against the respondents before the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC) of Pasig City. The informations were
docketed as Criminal Case No. 89723 and Criminal Case
No. 89724 and were raffled to Branch 69.
Criminal Case No. 89723 is for the offense of removing
the stock and transfer book of STRADEC from its principal
office. The information reads:[12]
_______________
[9] Id., at pp. 172187, 136152, 154159.
[10] Id., at pp. 8998.
[11] Id., at pp. 8588.
[12] Id., at p. 85.
268

On and/or about the period between March 1 and June 25,

2004, inclusive, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above accused, being then members of the
Board of Directors and/or officers, as the case maybe, of Strategic
Alliance Development Corporation (STRADEC, for short),
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and
aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, remove the stock and transfer book of the said
STRADEC at its principal office at the 24th Floor, One
Magnificent MileCITRA City Bldg., San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas
Center, Pasig City, where they should all be kept, in violation of

the aforesaid law, and to the prejudice of the said complainants.
Criminal Case No. 89724, on the other hand, covers the

offense of refusing access to, and examination of, the
corporate records and the stock and transfer book of
STRADEC at its principal office. The information reads:[13]
On and/or about the period between March 1 and June 25,

2004, inclusive, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above accused, being then members of the
Board of Directors and/or officers, as the case maybe, of Strategic
Alliance Development Corporation (STRADEC, for short),
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and
aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, refuse to allow complainants Bonifacio C. Sumbilla
and Aderito Z. Yujuico, being then stockholders and/or directors of
STRADEC, access to, and examination of, the corporate records,
including the stock and transfer book, of STRADEC at its
principal office at the 24th Floor, One Magnificent MileCITRA
Bldg., San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, where they
should all be kept, in violation of the aforesaid law, and to the
prejudice of the said complainants.
_______________
[13] Id., at p. 87.
269
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 269

Urgent Omnibus Motion and the Dismissal

of Criminal Case No. 89723
On 18 January 2006, respondents filed before the MeTC
an Urgent Omnibus Motion for Judicial Determination of
Probable Cause and To Defer Issuance of Warrants of
Arrest (Urgent Omnibus Motion).[14]
On 8 May 2006, the MeTC issued an order[15] partially
granting the Urgent Omnibus Motion. The MeTC
dismissed Criminal Case No. 89723 but ordered the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against respondents in
Criminal Case No. 89724.
In dismissing Criminal Case No. 89723, the MeTC held
that Section 74, in relation to Section 144, of the
Corporation Code only penalizes the act of refus[ing] to
allow any director, trustee, stockholder or member of the
corporation to examine and copy excerpts from the records
or minutes of the corporation[16] and that act is already

the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 89724. Hence, the
MeTC opined, Criminal Case No. 89723 which seeks to
try respondents for merely removing the stock and transfer
book of STRADEC from its principal office actually
charges no offense and, therefore, cannot be sustained.[17]
Anent directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest in
Criminal Case No. 89724, the MeTC found probable cause
to do so given the failure of the respondents to present any
evidence during the preliminary investigation showing that
they do not have possession of the corporate records of
STRADEC or that they allowed petitioners to inspect the
STRADEC.[18]
_______________
[14] Id., at pp. 667685.
[15] Id., at pp. 295301.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
270

Unsatisfied, the respondents filed a motion for partial

reconsideration[19] of the 8 May 2006 order of the MeTC
insofar as the disposition in Criminal Case No. 89724 is
concerned. The MeTC, however, denied such motion on 16
August 2006.[20]
Certiorari Petition and the Dismissal
of Criminal Case No. 89724
After their motion for partial reconsideration was
denied, respondents filed a certiorari petition,[21] with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO), before the RTC of Pasig City on 27 September 2006.
The petition was docketed as S.C.A. No. 3047.
On 16 November 2006, the RTC issued a TRO enjoining
the MeTC from conducting further proceedings in Criminal
Case No. 89724 for twenty (20) days.[22]
On 4 June 2007, the RTC issued an Order[23] granting
respondents certiorari petition and directing the dismissal
of Criminal Case No. 89724. According to the RTC, the
MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a
warrant of arrest against respondents in Criminal Case No.

89724.
The RTC found that the finding of probable cause
against the respondents in Criminal Case No. 89724 was
not supported by the evidence presented during the
preliminary investigation but was, in fact, contradicted by
them:[24]
1. The RTC noted that, aside from the complaint itself,
no evidence was ever submitted by petitioners to
prove that they demanded and was refused access to
the corporate records of STRADEC between 1 March
_______________
[19] Id., at pp. 725732.
[20] Id., at pp. 302304.
[21] Id., at pp. 761796.
[22] Id., at pp. 803804.
[23] Id., at pp. 6682.
[24] Id.
271
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 271

to 25 June 2004. What petitioners merely submitted is

their letter dated 6 September 2004 demanding from
respondents access to the corporate records of
STRADEC.
2. The allegations of petitioners in their complaint, as
well as 6 September 2004 letter abovementioned,
however, are contradicted by the sworn statement
dated 1 July 2004 of Blando[25] wherein he attested
that as early as 25 June 2004, Pilapil already turned
over to him two binders containing the minutes,
board resolutions, articles of incorporation, copies of
contracts, correspondences and other papers of the
corporation, except the stock certificate book and the
stock and transfer book.
3. The RTC also took exception to the reason provided
by the MeTC in supporting its finding of probable
cause against the respondents. The RTC held that it
was not incumbent upon the respondents to provide
evidence proving their innocence. Hence, the failure
of the respondents to submit evidence showing that
they do not have possession of the corporate records
of STRADEC or that they have allowed inspection of
the same cannot be taken against them much less

support a finding of probable cause against them.
The RTC further pointed out that, at most, the evidence
on record only supports probable cause that the
respondents were withholding the stock and transfer book
of STRADEC. The RTC, however, opined that refusing to
allow inspection of the stock and transfer book, as opposed
to refusing examination of other corporate records, is not
punishable as an offense under the Corporation Code.[26]
Hence, the directive of the RTC dismissing Criminal Case
No. 89724.
_______________
[25] Id., at pp. 131132.
[26] Id., at pp. 6682.
272

The petitioners moved for reconsideration,[27] but the

RTC remained steadfast.[28]
Hence, this petition by petitioners.
The Instant Petition
In their petition, petitioners claim that Criminal Case
No. 89724 may still be sustained against the respondents
insofar as the charge of refusing to allow access to the stock
and transfer book of STRADEC is concerned. They argue
that the RTC made a legal blunder when it held that the
refusal to allow inspection of the stock and transfer book of
a corporation is not a punishable offense under the
Corporation Code. Petitioners contend that such a refusal
still amounts to a violation of Section 74 of the Corporation
Code, for which Section 144 of the same code prescribes a
penalty.
Our Ruling
The RTC indeed made an inaccurate pronouncement
when it held that the act of refusing to allow inspection of
the stock and transfer book of a corporation is not a
punishable offense under the Corporation Code. Such
refusal, when done in violation of Section 74(4) of the
Corporation Code, properly falls within the purview of
Section 144 of the same code and thus may be penalized as
an offense.
The foregoing gaffe nonetheless, We still sustain the
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 89724 as against the
respondents.
A criminal action based on the violation of a
stockholders right to examine or inspect the corporate
records and the stock and transfer book of a corporation
under the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74 of
the Corporation Code
_______________
[27] Id., at pp. 903925.
[28] Id., at pp. 8384.
273
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 273

such as Criminal Case No. 89724 can only be

maintained against corporate officers or any other persons
acting on behalf of such corporation. The submissions of the
petitioners during the preliminary investigation, however,
clearly suggest that respondents are neither in relation to
STRADEC.
Hence, we deny the petition.
The act of refusing to allow inspec
tion ofthe stock and transfer book
of a corporation, when done in
violation of Section 74(4) of the
Corporation Code, is punishable
as an offense under Section 144 of
the same code.
We first address the inaccurate pronouncement of the
RTC.
Section 74 is the provision of the Corporation Code that
deals with the books a corporation is required to keep. It
reads:
Section 74. Books to be kept stock transfer agent.Every

corporation shall keep and carefully preserve at its principal office
a record of all business transactions and minutes of all meetings
of stockholders or members, or of the board of directors or
trustees, in which shall be set forth in detail the time and place of
holding the meeting, how authorized, the notice given, whether
the meeting was regular or special, if special its object, those
present and absent, and every act done or ordered done at the
meeting. Upon the demand of any director, trustee, stockholder or
member, the time when any director, trustee, stockholder or
member entered or left the meeting must be noted in the minutes
and on a similar demand, the yeas and nays must be taken on any
motion or proposition, and a record thereof carefully made. The

protest of any director, trustee, stockholder or member on any
action or proposed action must be recorded in full on his demand.
274

The records of all business transactions of the corporation

and the minutes of any meetings shall be open to
inspection by any director, trustee, stockholder or member
of the corporation at reasonable hours on business days
and he may demand, in writing, for a copy of excerpts
from said records or minutes, at his expense.
Any officer or agent of the corporation who shall refuse to
allow any director, trustees, stockholder or member of the
corporation to examine and copy excerpts from its records
or minutes, in accordance with the provisions of this Code,
shall be liable to such director, trustee, stockholder or
member for damages, and in addition, shall be guilty of an
offense which shall be punishable under Section 144 of
this Code: Provided, That if such refusal is made pursuant
to a resolution or order of the board of directors or
trustees, the liability under this section for such action
shall be imposed upon the directors or trustees who voted
for such refusal: and Provided, further, That it shall be a
defense to any action under this section that the person
demanding to examine and copy excerpts from the
corporations records and minutes has improperly used
any information secured through any prior examination of
the records or minutes of such corporation or of any other
corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for a
legitimate purpose in making his demand.
Stock corporations must also keep a book to be known as the
stock and transfer book, in which must be kept a record of all
stocks in the names of the stockholders alphabetically arranged
the installments paid and unpaid on all stock for which
subscription has been made, and the date of payment of any
installment a statement of every alienation, sale or transfer of
stock made, the date thereof, and by and to whom made and such
other entries as the bylaws may prescribe. The stock and
transfer book shall be kept in the principal office of the
corporation or in the office of its stock
275
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 275
transfer agent and shall be open for inspection by any

director or stockholder of the corporation at reasonable
hours on business days.
No stock transfer agent or one engaged principally in the business
of registering transfers of stocks in behalf of a stock corporation
shall be allowed to operate in the Philippines unless he secures a
license from the Securities and Exchange Commission and pays a
fee as may be fixed by the Commission, which shall be renewable
annually: Provided, That a stock corporation is not precluded
from performing or making transfer of its own stocks, in which
case all the rules and regulations imposed on stock transfer
agents, except the payment of a license fee herein provided, shall
be applicable. (51a and 32a P.B. No. 268) (Emphasis supplied)
Section 144 of the Corporation Code, on the other hand,

is the general penal provision of the Corporation Code. It
reads:
Section 144. Violations of the Code.Violations of any of the

provisions of this Code or its amendments not otherwise
specifically penalized therein shall be punished by a fine of
not less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos but not more than
ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos or by imprisonment for not less
than thirty (30) days but not more than five (5) years, or both, in
the discretion of the court. If the violation is committed by a
corporation, the same may, after notice and hearing, be dissolved
in appropriate proceedings before the Securities and Exchange
Commission: Provided, That such dissolution shall not preclude
the institution of appropriate action against the director, trustee
or officer of the corporation responsible for said violation:
Provided, further, That nothing in this section shall be construed
to repeal the other causes for dissolution of a corporation provided
in this Code. (190 1/2a) (Emphasis supplied)
In the assailed Orders, the RTC expressed its opinion

that the act of refusing to allow inspection of the stock and
transfer book, even though it may be a violation of Section
74(4), is
276

not punishable as an offense under the Corporation Code.

[29] In justifying this conclusion, the RTC seemingly relied
on the fact that, under Section 74 of the Corporation Code,

the application of Section 144 is expressly mentioned only
in relation to the act of refus[ing] to allow any director,
trustees, stockholder or member of the corporation to
examine and copy excerpts from [the corporations] records
or minutes that excludes its stock and transfer book.
We do not agree.
While Section 74 of the Corporation Code expressly
mentions the application of Section 144 only in relation to
the act of refus[ing] to allow any director, trustees,
stockholder or member of the corporation to examine and
copy excerpts from [the corporations] records or minutes,
the same does not mean that the latter section no longer
applies to any other possible violations of the former
section.
It must be emphasized that Section 144 already
purports to penalize [v]iolations of any provision of the
Corporation Code not otherwise specifically penalized
therein. Hence, we find inconsequential the fact that
Section 74 expressly mentions the application of Section
144 only to a specific act, but not with respect to the other
possible violations of the former section.
Indeed, we find no cogent reason why Section 144 of the
Corporation Code cannot be made to apply to violations of
the right of a stockholder to inspect the stock and transfer
book of a corporation under Section 74(4) given the already
unequivocal intent of the legislature to penalize violations
of a parallel right, i.e., the right of a stockholder or member
to examine the other records and minutes of a corporation
under Section 74(2). Certainly, all the rights guaranteed to
corporators under Section 74 of the Corporation Code are
mandatory for the corporation to respect. All such rights
are just the same un
_______________
[29] Id., at pp. 6682.
277
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 277

derpinned by the same policy consideration of keeping

public confidence in the corporate vehicle thru an
assurance of transparency in the corporations operations.
Verily, we find inaccurate the pronouncement of the
RTC that the act of refusing to allow inspection of the stock
and transfer book is not a punishable offense under the

Corporation Code. Such refusal, when done in violation of
Section 74(4) of the Corporation Code, properly falls within
the purview of Section 144 of the same code and thus may
be penalized as an offense.
A criminal action based on the viola
tion of a stockholders right to exam
ine or inspect the corporate records
and the stock and transfer book of a
corporation under the second and
fourth paragraphs of Section 74 of
the Corporation Code can only be
maintained against corporate offi
cers or any other persons acting on
behalf of such corporation.
The foregoing notwithstanding, and independently of
the reasons provided therefor by the RTC, we sustain the
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 89724.
Criminal Case No. 89724 accuses respondents of
denying petitioners right to examine or inspect the
STRADEC. It is thus a criminal action that is based on the
violation of the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74
of the Corporation Code.
A perusal of the second and fourth paragraphs of Section
74, as well as the first paragraph of the same section,
reveal that they are provisions that obligates a
corporation: they prescribe what books or records a
corporation is required to keep where the corporation
shall keep them and what are the other obligations of the
corporation to its stockholders
278

or members in relation to such books and records. Hence,

by parity of reasoning, the second and fourth paragraphs of
Section 74, including the first paragraph of the same
section, can only be violated by a corporation.
It is clear then that a criminal action based on the
violation of the second or fourth paragraphs of Section 74
can only be maintained against corporate officers or such
other persons that are acting on behalf of the corporation.
Violations of the second and fourth paragraphs of Section
74 contemplates a situation wherein a corporation,
acting thru one of its officers or agents, denies the
right of any of its stockholders to inspect the

records, minutes and the stock and transfer book of
such corporation.
The problem with the petitioners complaint and the
evidence that they submitted during preliminary
investigation is that they do not establish that respondents
were acting on behalf of STRADEC. Quite the contrary, the
scenario painted by the complaint is that the respondents
are merely outgoing officers of STRADEC who, for some
reason, withheld and refused to turn over the company
records of STRADEC that it is the petitioners who are
actually acting on behalf of STRADEC and that STRADEC
is actually merely trying to recover custody of the withheld
records.
In other words, petitioners are not actually invoking
their right to inspect the records and the stock and transfer
book of STRADEC under the second and fourth paragraphs
of Section 74. What they seek to enforce is the
proprietary right of STRADEC to be in possession of
such records and book. Such right, though certainly
legally enforceable by other means, cannot be enforced by a
criminal prosecution based on a violation of the second and
fourth paragraphs of Section 74. That is simply not the
situation contemplated by the second and fourth
paragraphs of Section 74 of the Corporation Code.
For this reason, we affirm the dismissal of Criminal
Case No. 89724 for lack of probable cause.
279
VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 279

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

hereby DENIED. The Orders dated 4 June 2007 and 5
November 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 154, of
Pasig City in S.C.A. No. 3047, insofar as said orders
effectively dismissed Criminal Case No. 89724 pending
before Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, of Pasig City,
are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Peralta** and Perlas

Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, orders dated June 4, 2007 and

November 5, 2007 affirmed.
Notes.A President of a corporation, among other

enumerated corporate officers and employees, can sign the
verification and certification against of nonforum shopping
in behalf of the said corporation without the benefit of a
board resolution. (South Cotabato Communications
Corporation vs. Sto. Tomas, 638 SCRA 566 [2010])
Corporate Officers in the context of Presidential Decree
No. 902A are those officers of the corporation who are
given that character by the Corporation Code or by the
corporations bylaws A corporation may have such other
officers as may be provided for by its bylaws like, but not
limited to, the vice president, cashier, auditor or general
manager. (Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc., 640 SCRA 67
[2011])
o0o
_______________
** Per Raffle dated 30 May 2014.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Yujuico vs. Quiambao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yujuico vs. Quiambao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yujuico vs. Quiambao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME724

G.R. No. 180416. June 2, 2014.*

Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Prosecution of Offenses

VOL. 724, JUNE 2, 2014 263