LYDIA LAO v.

YAO BIO LIM 

By its express terms, the Corporation Code allows “the shortening (or lengthening) of the period within which to
send the notice to call a special (or regular) meeting.”

In this case, the PSI’s bylaws providing only for a five (5)-day prior notice must prevail over the two (2)-week
notice under the Corporation Code. By its express terms, the Corporation Code allows “the shortening (or
lengthening) of the period within which to send the notice to call a special (or regular) meeting.” Thus, the
mailing of the Notice to respondents on March 5, 2002 calling for the annual stockholders’ meeting to be held on
March 15, 2002 is not irregular, since it complies with what was stated in PSI’s bylaws.

FACTS:

PSI was organized in 1970 with an authorized capital stock of P2,000,000.00, divided into 20,000 shares with
a par value of P100 per share. Out of this authorized capital stock, 4,600 shares were subscribed and paid up.
Ong Y. Seng, King's father, had the most number of subscribed shares, holding 1,200 shares. Before his death,
he sought, and was granted, the approval of the PSI board of directors to transfer his shares to King. Since
then, King had been consistently elected as a member of the PSI board of directors.
During the special stockholders' meeting in 1998, Yao Bio Lim was elected President and King was Vice
President.
Lao, the former president, refused to acknowledge the newly elected directors and officers as well as King's
ownership of 1,200 PSI shares. Lao issued a Secretary's Certificate stating that a board meeting was held on
the same date wherein the board of directors resolved to nullify the transfer to King of the shares owned by
his father.
Subsequently, King discovered that a stockholders' meeting was conducted in 1999, wherein Lao, William
Chua Lian, Jeffrey Ong, and Henry Sy were elected as new members of the board of directors. King filed a
petition before the Securities and Exchange Commission "to enjoin the new members from representing
themselves as officers and members of the board of directors of the Philadelphia School, Inc. and to nullify all
acts done and resolutions passed by them.
When Republic Act No. 8799 took effect, the case was transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Judge Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. rendered a decision granting King's petition.
Meanwhile, in 2002, a general stockholders' meeting was held wherein Lao, Ong, Henry Sy, Sy Tian Tin, Sy
Tian Tin, Jr. and Paul Chua were elected as members of the board of directors, with Chua Lian as chairman of
the board.
Yao Bio Lim and King filed a Petition before the RTC against the newly elected board of directors. They
sought, among others, to annul: (1) the elections held in 2002 and all corporate acts of the supposedly new
board of directors and officers; 2) the "issuance of stock dividends," and (3) the "illegal transfer of shares of
stock."  They also prayed that petitioners be ordered to account for damages and for the funds and assets of
the corporation.
Yao Bio Lim and King averred that:
1. The notice for the 2002 meeting did not state the agenda or the purpose of the meeting. Moreover,
they alleged that the Notice sent to King was still in the name of his father, while that sent to Yao Bio
Lim included the name of his deceased father;
2. the SEC and the RTC had previously ordered that the stockholders listed in the 1997 General
Information Sheet be used as basis for the 2000 and 2001 elections of PSI board of directors. Lao,
Chua Lian, Ong, and Henry Sy allegedly violated these orders when they used a different list of
stockholders during the elections held on March 15, 2002. Moreover, they had purportedly
 previously issued 300% stock dividends to some stockholders without the required approval of
stockholders representing two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock of PSI; and
3. the transfer of shares of stocks without the required prior notice to all stockholders, which allegedly
deprived them of "the opportunity to exercise their option to buy the shares”.
The RTC rendered its decision in favor of Yao Bio Lim and King.
The CA affirmed the RTC. It held that there were valid grounds to nullify the March 15, 2002 stockholders'
meeting. First, the Notice of meeting did not state the purpose of the stockholders' meeting as required by
Article VIII (5) of PSI's by-laws. Additionally, it was not sent to the stockholders at least two weeks prior to
the meeting as required under Section 50 of the Corporation Code. Finally, petitioners used a schedule of
stockholders different from the list contained in the 1997 General Information Sheet, contrary to previous
orders of the SEC and the RTC. It further found that the issuance of 300% stock dividends was not approved
by stockholders representing two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock in violation of Section 43 of
the Corporation Code.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the CA erred in considering the March 15, 2002 stockholders' meeting as a special meeting and
that the meeting was not properly called due to the failure of the notice to state the meeting’s purpose and to
meet the 2-week notice requirement.
2. Whether the CA erred in declaring the 2002 stockholders’ meeting void.
3. Whether the 300% stock dividends were validly declared by the PSI board of directors.
RULING:
1. YES.
Here, the Court of Appeals, in ruling that the Notice of the March 15, 2002 meeting sent to the stockholders
did not comply with the requirement set forth in Article VIII (5) of the PSI's by-laws, explained that in case of
a special meeting, the corporate by-laws require that the notice shall state the object and purpose for which the
meeting is called. This, however, was transgressed as there was no mention in the notice as to the purpose for
calling the March 15, 2002 stockholders' meeting.
The Court of Appeals sweepingly considered the March 15, 2002 stockholders' meeting as a special meeting
without discussing the factual bases for its conclusion. 
The Corporation Code prescribes that "regular meetings of stockholders or members shall be held annually
on a date fixed in the by-laws." Respondents do not dispute that Article VIII (3) of the PSI's by-laws fixed the
annual meeting of stockholders on the third Friday of March of every year. This Court takes judicial notice
that March 15, 2002 (the date of the meeting) was the third Friday of March 2002. Furthermore, the agenda
for the meeting, which includes the elections of the new board of directors and ratification of acts of the
incumbent board of directors and management, was the standard order of business in a regular annual
meeting of stockholders of a corporation. Thus, this Court holds that the March 15, 2002 annual stockholders'
meeting was a regular meeting. Hence, the requirement to state the object and purpose in case of a special
meeting as provided for in Article VIII (5) of the PSI’s by-laws does not apply to the Notice for the March 15,
2002 annual stockholders' meeting.
Regarding the time for serving notice of the meeting to all the stockholders, Section 50 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
68 reads in part: 
Section 50. Regular and Special Meetings of Stockholders or Members. — Regular meetings of
stockholders or members shall be held annually on a date fixed in the by-laws, or if not so fixed, on
any date in April of every year as determined by the board of directors or trustees: Provided, That
written notice of regular meetings shall be sent to all stockholders or members of record at least two
(2) weeks prior to the meeting, unless a different period is required by the by-laws.
Under PSI's by-laws, notice of every regular or special meeting must be mailed or personally delivered to each
stockholder not less than five (5) days prior to the date set for the meeting.
In this case, the PSI's by-laws providing only for a five (5)-day prior notice must prevail over the two (2)-
week notice under the Corporation Code. By its express terms, the Corporation Code allows "the shortening
(or lengthening) of the period within which to send the notice to call a special (or regular) meeting." Thus, the
mailing of the Notice to respondents on March 5, 2002 calling for the annual stockholders' meeting to be held
on March 15, 2002 is not irregular, since it complies with what was stated in PSI's by-laws.
2. NO.
Despite the foregoing circumstances, there were other grounds to nullify the 2002 annual stockholders'
meeting. Petitioners did not recognize respondents' rights as stockholders, making the proceedings and
elections during the 2002 meeting void. The Court of Appeals discussed: 
During the same meeting, petitioners made use of a schedule of stockholders which was different from the list
contained in the 1997 General Information Sheet. Obviously, they defied the previously issued Order of both
the SEC and the RTC requiring the use of the 1997 General Information Sheet, it being the last, official and
recorded submission by the Philadelphia School in keeping with its reportorial requirement with the SEC. By
so defying the Order of both the SEC and the RTC, petitioners, in effect, refused to recognize respondents'
shareholdings and their right to vote, thus, rendering void all the acts done during the meeting, particularly
the holding of the election of the officers and the declaration and issuance of the 300% stock dividend.

The foregoing disquisitions of the Court of Appeals render untenable and irrelevant petitioners' contention
that King could not be considered a legitimate stockholder of PSI during the stockholders' meeting in 2002.
This is because the validity of Ong Y. Seng's transfer of shares to his son was still at issue and King's
ownership of PSI stocks was finally resolved by this Court only on April 28, 2011.
Petitioners harp on the self-serving nature of the 1997 General Information Sheet, which they assert was
prepared by Yao Bio Lim. Furthermore, they insist that the issue of King's rightful ownership of the stocks
was resolved with finality only on April 28, 2011. 
This Court is not persuaded. 
Petitioners cannot unilaterally disobey or disregard the Orders of the SEC and of the RTC despite their own
views of the correctness or propriety thereof. In Republic Commodities Corporation v. Oca, the president and
general manager of Republic Commodities Corporation were held in contempt for their refusal to comply
with the order of the trial court, then Court of First Instance, to redeliver the seized air-conditioning units to
Salustiano Oca.
While it may be true that SEC Case No. 05-99-6297 and Civil Case No. Q-01-42972 were finally resolved only
on April 28, 2011, the Orders mentioned in the Court of Appeals Decision were issued before the 2002 annual
stockholders' meeting. Hence, petitioners were obliged to use the list of stockholders indicated in the 1997
General Information Sheet in compliance with the Orders dated March 13, 2000 and March 23, 2001 issued
by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by the Regional Trial Court, respectively. 
3. NO.
The CA held that the handwritten minutes of the 1997 meeting offered by petitioners as proof that the
declaration and issuance of stock dividends were valid was questionable because "it [did] not even indicate
the number of stock dividends to be declared." This Court agrees with the Court of Appeals. 
The minutes did not provide any other detail that would convincingly show that the 300% stock, dividends
distributed in 2002 were the same stock dividends that were ratified by the stockholders in 1997.  
Furthermore, while the minutes contain the names and signatures of stockholders who were present at the
meeting, the shares held by each were not indicated. On its face, the minutes did not readily confirm how
many shares were represented and voted at the meeting, particularly on the stock dividends declaration. 
This Court finds no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals in nullifying the 300% stock
dividends, a declaration on the basis of the following findings of the Regional Trial Court that the act/s of the
petitioners violated Section 43 of the Corporation Code which provides that ". . . no stock dividend shall be
issued without the approval of stockholders representing not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the capital stock.”