G.R. No.

178511 December 4, 2008

MA. BELEN FLORDELIZA C. ANG-ABAYA, FRANCIS JASON A. ANG, HANNAH ZORAYDA A.

ANG, and VICENTE G. GENATO, petitioners,
vs.
EDUARDO G. ANG, respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS.

Prior to the instant controversy, VMC, Genato, and Oriana Manufacturing Corporation (Oriana)
filed a case for damages with prayer for issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction against
Eduardo, twith Michael Edward Chi Ang and some other persons for allegedly conniving to
fraudulently wrest control/management of the corporations. Eduardo allegedly borrowed
substantial amounts of money from the said corporations without any intention to repay; that he
repeatedly demanded for increases in his monthly allowance and for more cash advances contrary to
existing corporate policies; that he harassed petitioner Flordeliza to transfer and/or sell certain
corporate and personal properties in order to pay off his personal obligations; that he attempted to
forcibly evict petitioner Jason from his office and claim it as his own; that he interfered with and
disrupted the daily business operations of the corporations; that Michael was placed on preventive
suspension due to prolonged absence without leave and commission of acts of disloyalty such as
carrying out orders of Eduardo which were detrimental to their business, using privileged information
and confidential documents/data obtained in his capacity as Vice President of the corporations, and
admitting to have sabotaged their distribution system and operations.

During the pendency of the civil case, Eduardo sought permission to inspect the corporate books
of VMC and Genato on account of petitioners’ alleged failure and/or refusal to update him on
the financial and business activities of these family corporations. Petitioners denied the request
claiming that Eduardo would use the information obtained from said inspection for purposes inimical
to the corporations’ interests, considering that: "a) he is harassing and/or bullying the Corporation[s]
into writing off P165,071,586.55 worth of personal advances which he had unlawfully obtained in the
past; b) he is unjustly demanding that he be given the office currently occupied by Mr. Francis Jason
Ang, the Vice-President for Finance and Corporate Secretary; c) he is usurping the rights belonging
exclusively to the Corporation; and d) he is coercing and/or trying to inveigle the Directors and/or
Officers of the Corporation to give in to his baseless demands involving specific corporate assets."

Because of petitioners’ refusal to grant his request to inspect the corporate books of VMC and Genato,
Eduardo filed an Affidavit-Complaint against petitioners Flordeliza and Jason, charging them with 2
counts violation of Section 74, in relation to Section 144, of the Corporation Code of the
Philippines. Ma. Belinda G. Sandejas (Belinda), Vincent, and Hanna were subsequently impleaded for
likewise denying respondent’s request to inspect the corporate books.

Petitioners filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit praying for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of factual
and legal basis, or for the suspension of the same while Civil Case No. 4257-MC is still pending
resolution. They denied violating Section 74 of the Corporation Code. Petitioners blamed Eduardo’s
lavish lifestyle, which is funded by personal loans and cash advances from the family corporations.
They alleged that Eduardo consistently pressured petitioner Flordeliza, his daughter, to improperly
transfer ownership of the corporations’ V.A.G. Building to him; to disregard the company policy
prohibiting advances by shareholders; to unduly increase his corporate monthly allowance; and to sell
her Wack-Wack Golf proprietary share and use the proceeds thereof to pay his personal financial
obligations. When the proposed transfer of the V.A.G. Building did not materialize, petitioners claim
that Eduardo instituted an action to compel the donation of said property to him. Furthermore, they
claim that Eduardo attempted to forcibly evict petitioner Jason from his office at VMC so he can occupy
the same; that Eduardo and his cohorts constantly created trouble by intervening in the daily
operations of the corporations without the knowledge or consent of the board of directors.

Meanwhile, in civil case, the trial court rendered a Decision granting the permanent injunction applied
for by the corporations. However, the Court of Appeals subsequently rendered a Decision declaring
that Eduardo, his son Michael, and the other persons were imprudently declared in default by the trial
court. The appellate court thus annulled the permanent injunction issued by the trial court and
remanded the case for further proceedings.3 corporation filed MR but was denied. .

Meanwhile, the City Prosecutor’s Office issued a Resolution recommending that petitioners be
charged with two counts of violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code, but dismissed the
complaint against Belinda for lack of evidence. DOJ reversed the recommendation. The DOJ denied
Eduardo’s MR. On appeal, the CA partially granted the petition and ruled that the Secretary of Justice
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the
Resolutions of the Malabon City Prosecutor and in finding that Eduardo did not act in good faith when
he demanded for the examination of VMC and Genato’s corporate books. It further held that
Eduardo can demand said examination as a stockholder of both corporations; that Eduardo
raised legitimate questions that necessitated inspection of the corporate books and records;
and that petitioners’ refusal to allow inspection created probable cause to believe that they
have committed a violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code.

The Court of Appeals denied the Motions for Reconsideration filed by petitioners and the Secretary of
Justice. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON the corporations violated Section 74 of the Corporation Code.

HELD

In reversing the Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice directing the withdrawal of the information filed
against petitioners for lack of probable cause, the Court of Appeals held that it was beyond the
Secretary of Justice’s authority to determine the motives of Eduardo in seeking an inspection of the
corporations’ books and papers.

In Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, this Court explained the rationale behind
a stockholder's right to inspect corporate books, to wit:

The stockholder's right of inspection of the corporation's books and records is based upon their
ownership of the assets and property of the corporation. It is, therefore, an incident of
ownership of the corporate property, whether this ownership or interest be termed an equitable
ownership, a beneficial ownership, or a quasi-ownership. This right is predicated upon the
necessity of self-protection. It is generally held by majority of the courts that where the right is
granted by statute to the stockholder, it is given to him as such and must be exercised by him
with respect to his interest as a stockholder and for some purpose germane thereto or in the
interest of the corporation. In other words, the inspection has to be germane to the
petitioner's interest as a stockholder, and has to be proper and lawful in character and
not inimical to the interest of the corporation.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court declared that the right to inspect and/or examine the records
of a corporation under Section 74 of the Corporation Code is circumscribed by the express limitation
contained in the succeeding proviso, which states that: [I]t shall be a defense to any action under this
section that the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts from the corporation's records and
minutes has improperly used any information securedthrough any prior examination of the records
or minutes of such corporation or of any other corporation, orwas not acting in good faith or for a
legitimate purpose in making his demand.

Thus, contrary to Eduardo’s insistence, the stockholder’s right to inspect corporate books is not without
limitations. While the right of inspection was enlarged under the Corporation Code as opposed to the
old Corporation Law. It is now expressly required as a condition for such examination that the one
requesting it must not have been guilty of using improperly any information secured through a prior
examination, or that the person asking for such examination must be acting in good faith and for a
legitimate purpose in making his demand.

Thus, in a criminal complaint for violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code, the defense of
improper use or motive is in the nature of a justifying circumstance that would exonerate those who
raise and are able to prove the same. Accordingly, where the corporation denies inspection on the
ground of improper motive or purpose, the burden of proof is taken from the shareholder and placed
on the corporation. This being the case, it would be improper for the prosecutor, during preliminary
investigation, to refuse or fail to address the defense of improper use or motive, given its express
statutory recognition. In the past we have declared that if justifying circumstances are claimed as a
defense, they should have at least been raised during preliminary investigation which settles the view
that the consideration and determination of justifying circumstances as a defense is a relevant subject
of preliminary investigation.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the Secretary of
Justice exceeded his authority when he conducted an inquiry on the petitioners’ defense of improper
use and motive on Eduardo’s part. As a necessary element in the offense of refusal to honor a
stockholder/member’s right to inspect the corporate books/records, it was incumbent upon the
Secretary of Justice to determine that all the elements which constitute said offense are present, in
line with our ruling in Duterte v. Sandiganbayan.

Petitioners argue that Eduardo’s demand for an inspection of the corporations’ books is based on the
latter’s attempt in bad faith at having his more than P165 million advances from the corporations written
off; that Eduardo is unjustly demanding that he be given the office of Jason, or the Vice Presidency
for Finance and Corporate Secretary; that Eduardo is usurping rights belonging exclusively to the
corporations; and Eduardo’s attempts at coercing the corporations, their directors and officers into
giving in to his baseless demands involving specific corporate assets. Specifically, petitioners accuse
Eduardo of the following:

1. He is a spendthrift, using the family corporations’ resources to sustain his extravagant

lifestyle. During his incumbency as officer of VMC and Genato (from 1984 to 2000), he was
able to obtain massive amounts by way of cash advances from these corporations, amounting
to more than P165 million;

2. He is exercising undue pressure upon petitioners in order to acquire ownership, through the
forced execution of a deed of donation, over the VAG Building in San Juan, which building
belongs to Genato;

3. He is putting pressure on the corporations, through their directors and officers, for the latter
to disregard their respective policies which prohibit the grant of cash advances to stockholders.
 4. At one time, he coerced Flordeliza for the latter to sell her Wack-Wack Golf Proprietary
Share;

5. In May 2003, without the requisite authority, he called a "stockholders’ meeting" to demand
an increase in his P140,000.00 monthly allowance from the corporation to P250,000.00;
demand a cash advance of US$10,000; and to demand that the corporations shoulder the
medical and educational expenses of his family as well as those of the other stockholders;

6. In November 2003, he demanded that he be given an office within the corporations’

premises. In December 2003, he stormed the corporations’ common office, ordered the
employees to vacate the premises, summoned the directors to a meeting, and there he berated
them for not acting on his requests. In January 2004, he returned to the office, demanding the
transfer of the Accounting Department and for Jason to vacate his office by the end of the
month. He likewise left a letter which contained his demands. At the end of January 2004, he
returned, ordered the employees to leave the premises and demanded that Jason surrender
his office and vacate his desk. He did this no less than four (4) times. As a result, the respective
boards of directors of the corporations resolved to ban him from the corporate premises;

7. He has been interfering in the everyday operations of VMC and Genato, usurping the duties,
rights and authority of the directors and officers thereof. He attempted to lease out a
warehouse within the VMC premises without the knowledge and consent of its directors and
officers; during the wake of the former President of VMC and Genato, he issued instructions
for the employees to close down operations for the whole duration of the wake, against the
corporate officers’ instructions to attend the wake by batch, so as not to hamper business
operations; he has caused chaos and confusion in VMC and Genato as a result;41

8. He is out to sabotage the family corporations.

These serious allegations are supported by official and other documents, such as board resolutions,
treasurer’s affidavits and written communication from the respondent Eduardo himself, who appears
to have withheld his objections to these charges. His silence virtually amounts to an
acquiescence.43 Taken together, all these serve to justify petitioners’ allegation that Eduardo was not
acting in good faith and for a legitimate purpose in making his demand for inspection of the corporate
books. Otherwise stated, there is lack of probable cause to support the allegation that petitioners
violated Section 74 of the Corporation Code in refusing respondent’s request for examination of the
corporation books.