LEE v. CA

LEE v.
CA On January 1989, the petitioners filed a 2nd MR, reiterating their stand, and this time,
G.R. No. 93695 attached a copy of the VTA between all the stockholders of ALFA (petitioners
February 4, 1992 included), on the one hand, and the DBP, on the other hand, whereby
management and control of ALFA became vested upon the DBP.
Petitioners: Ramon C. Lee & Antonio DM. Lacdao
Respondents: CA, Sacoba Manufacturing Corp., Pablo Gonzales, Jr., & Thomas Trial Court reversed itself and declared that service upon the petitioners who were no
Gonzales longer corporate officers of ALFA cannot be considered as proper service of summons
on ALFA.
FACTS: CA: set aside the trial court decision.

The principal issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not there was proper
service of summons on Alfa Integrated Textile Mills (ALFA) through the petitioners Petitioner now contends:
as president and vice president, allegedly, of the subject corporation after the execution (1) That the execution of the VTA by a stockholder whereby all his shares to the
of a voting trust agreement (VTA) between ALFA and the Development Bank of the corporation have been transferred to the trustee deprives the stockholder of
Philippines (DBP). his position as director of the corporation; to rule otherwise, would be
violative of Sec. 23 of the Corp. Code.
On November 1985, a complaint for sum of money was filed by the International Corp. (2) That the petitioners were no longer acting or holding any of the positions
Bank, Inc. (ICBI), against the private respondents who, in turn, filed a third-party provided under Rule 14, Sec. 13 of the ROC authorized to receive service of
complaint against ALFA and the petitioners. On July 1988, the trial court issued an summons for and in behalf of the private domestic corporation so that the
order requiring the issuance of an alias summons upon ALFA THROUGH the DBP service of summons on ALFA effected through the petitioners is not valid
as a consequence of the petitioner’s letter informing the court that the summons for and ineffective.
ALFA was erroneously served upon them considering that the management of ALFA
had been transferred to DBP. ISSUE and RULING:
W/N petitioners were deprived of their position as directors as per the VTA.—
In a manifestation on July 1988, the DBP claimed that it was not authorized to receive
summons on behalf of ALFA since the DBP had not taken over the company which YES.
has a separate and distinct corporate personality and existence.
Voting trusts, as defined by Sec. 59 of the Corp. Code, partly reads:
On August 1988, the private respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion for the
Declaration of Proper Service of Summons which the trial court granted. Sec. 59. Voting Trusts - One or more stockholders of a stock corporation may
create a voting trust for the purpose of conferring upon a trustee or trustees
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that Rule 14, Sec. 13 of the the right to vote and other rights pertaining to the share for a period rights
ROC is not applicable since they were no longer officers of ALFA and that the private pertaining to the shares for a period not exceeding five (5) years at any one
respondents should have availed of another mode of service under Rule 14, Sec. 16 of time: Provided, that in the case of a voting trust specifically required as a
ROC, i.e., through publication to effect proper service upon ALFA. condition in a loan agreement, said voting trust may be for a period exceeding
(5) years but shall automatically expire upon full payment of the loan. A
In their comment, private respondents argued that the VTA dated March 11, 1981 did voting trust agreement must be in writing and notarized, and shall specify the
not divest the petitioners of their positions as president and executive VP of ALFA so terms and conditions thereof. A certified copy of such agreement shall be
that service of summons upon ALFA through the petitioners as corporate officers was filed with the corporation and with the Securities and Exchange Commission;
proper. *SEE NOTES otherwise, said agreement is ineffective and unenforceable. The certificate or
certificates of stock covered by the voting trust agreement shall be cancelled
In 1989, the trial court upheld the validity of the service of summons on ALFA through and new ones shall be issued in the name of the trustee or trustees stating that
the petitioners. they are issued pursuant to said agreement. In the books of the corporation, it
1
N GARCIA
shall be noted that the transfer in the name of the trustee or trustees is made stockholders as such, and thus render them ineligible as directors. But a more
pursuant to said voting trust agreement. accurate statement seems to be that for some purposes the depositing
stockholder holding voting trust certificates in lieu of his stock and being the
Section 30 of the old Code states that: beneficial owner thereof, remains and is treated as a stockholder. It seems to
be deducible from the case that he may sue as a stockholder if the suit is in
Every director must own in his own right at least one share of the capital equity or is of an equitable nature, such as, a technical stockholders' suit in
stock of the stock corporation of which he is a director, which stock shall right of the corporation.
stand in his name on the books of the corporation. A director who ceases to
be the owner of at least one share of the capital stock of a stock corporation
of which is a director shall thereby cease to be a director . . .
Under the old Corporation Code, the eligibility of a director, strictly speaking, cannot
be adversely affected by the simple act of such director being a party to a voting trust
agreement inasmuch as he remains owner.
With the omission of the phrase "in his own right" the election of trustees and other
persons who in fact are not beneficial owners of the shares registered in their names
on the books of the corporation becomes formally. HENCE, THIS IS A CLEAR
INDICATION THAT IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A DIRECTOR, WHAT
IS MATERIAL IS THE LEGAL TITLE TO, NOT BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
OF, THE STOCK AS APPEARING ON THE BOOKS OF THE
CORPORATION.
The facts of this case show that the petitioners, by virtue of the voting trust agreement
executed in 1981 disposed of all their shares through assignment and delivery in favor
of the DBP, as trustee. Consequently, the petitioners ceased to own at least one share
standing in their names on the books of ALFA as required under Section 23 of the new
Corporation Code. They also ceased to have anything to do with the management of
the enterprise. The petitioners ceased to be directors. Hence, the transfer of the
petitioners' shares to the DBP created vacancies in their respective positions as
directors of ALFA.
DECISION:
Petition GRANTED.
NOTES
Private respondents argue that the general object of voting trust is to insure
permanency of the tenure of the directors of a corporation. They cited commentaries
on the status of the transferring stockholders:
The "transferring stockholder", also called the "depositing stockholder", is

equitable owner for the stocks represented by the voting trust certificates and
the stock reversible on termination of the trust by surrender. It is said that the
voting trust agreement does not destroy the status of the transferring
2
N GARCIA

LEE v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEE v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

LEE v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEE v.

FACTS: CA: set aside the trial court decision.

The "transferring stockholder", also called the "depositing stockholder", is

You might also like