This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to shareholders' rights:
1) A voting trust agreement separates voting rights from other shareholder rights like receiving dividends or inspecting books. However, voting trusts cannot be used for fraudulent purposes or illegal monopolies.
2) In one case, a creditor acquired company shares not as a trustee but through foreclosure, allowing them to appoint board members and a comptroller under a financing agreement.
3) Directors have the right to inspect corporate books and records at reasonable times, while shareholders cannot demand certified copies of minutes until approved. There are limits to inspections involving secret corporate processes.
4) A corporation cannot wholly deprive shareholders of
This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to shareholders' rights:
1) A voting trust agreement separates voting rights from other shareholder rights like receiving dividends or inspecting books. However, voting trusts cannot be used for fraudulent purposes or illegal monopolies.
2) In one case, a creditor acquired company shares not as a trustee but through foreclosure, allowing them to appoint board members and a comptroller under a financing agreement.
3) Directors have the right to inspect corporate books and records at reasonable times, while shareholders cannot demand certified copies of minutes until approved. There are limits to inspections involving secret corporate processes.
4) A corporation cannot wholly deprive shareholders of
This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to shareholders' rights:
1) A voting trust agreement separates voting rights from other shareholder rights like receiving dividends or inspecting books. However, voting trusts cannot be used for fraudulent purposes or illegal monopolies.
2) In one case, a creditor acquired company shares not as a trustee but through foreclosure, allowing them to appoint board members and a comptroller under a financing agreement.
3) Directors have the right to inspect corporate books and records at reasonable times, while shareholders cannot demand certified copies of minutes until approved. There are limits to inspections involving secret corporate processes.
4) A corporation cannot wholly deprive shareholders of
This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to shareholders' rights:
1) A voting trust agreement separates voting rights from other shareholder rights like receiving dividends or inspecting books. However, voting trusts cannot be used for fraudulent purposes or illegal monopolies.
2) In one case, a creditor acquired company shares not as a trustee but through foreclosure, allowing them to appoint board members and a comptroller under a financing agreement.
3) Directors have the right to inspect corporate books and records at reasonable times, while shareholders cannot demand certified copies of minutes until approved. There are limits to inspections involving secret corporate processes.
4) A corporation cannot wholly deprive shareholders of
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Lee vs.
Court of Appeals (205 SCRA 752)
The right to vote and other rights pertaining to the shares are transferred and registered to the trustee by virtue of a voting trust agreement provided that it is not used for purposes of fraud or circumventing the law against monopolies and illegal combinations in restraint of trade. By its very nature, a voting trust agreement results in the separation of the voting rights of a stockholder from his other rights such as the right to receive dividends, the right to inspect the books of the corporation, the right to sell certain interests in the assets of the corporation and other rights to which a stockholder may be entitled until the liquidation of the corporation.
NIDC vs. Aquino (163 SCRA 153)
This is an exception to the rule that trustee must return certificates to shareholder after expiration of the voting trust agreement. The acquisition in the present case by PNB-NIDC of the properties in question was not made or effected under the capacity of a trustee but as a foreclosing creditor for the purpose of receiving on a just and valid obligation of the bank. In this case, a part of the conditions mandated in the Financial Agreement entered into by the borrowing corporation with the PNB and the NIDC, a VTA was executed over 60% of the outstanding and paid up capital stock of the borrowing corporation. The execution of the VTA also facilitated implementation of the condition in the Financing Agreement that allowed PNBNIDC to appoint members in the 7-man board of the corporation, and the appointment of a comptroller by PNB-NIDC to supervise the financial management of the corporation.
Veraguth vs. Isabela Sugar (57 SCRA 266)
The court held that directors of a corporation have the unqualified right to inspect the books and records of the corporation at all reasonable times. Pretexts may not be put forward by the officers of the corporation to keep a director or stockholder from inspecting books and minutes of the corporation, and the right of inspection cannot be denied on the grounds that the director or stockholder is on unfriendly terms with the officers of the corporation whose records are sought to be so inspected. Nevertheless, the Court also held that a director or stockholder has no absolute right to secure certified copies of the minutes of a corporation until these minutes have been written up and approved by the directors.
Philpots vs. Phil Manufacturing (40 PHIL 471)
There are limitations to the stockholder’s right to inspect since there are things which a corporation may have keep secret, as in the case where the corporation is engaged in the business of manufacture and has acquired a formula or process not generally known. The corporation or its Board of Directors may properly adopt measures for the protection of such process from publicity.
Pardo vs. Hercules (46 PHIL 964)
It is true that a corporation may deny inspection when sought at unusual hours or under other improper conditions, however, the executive officers or the board of directors have no power to deprive a stockholder of the right altogether. The general right given by the statute may not be lawfully abridged by a by-law unduly restricting the right of inspection based on its skewed interpretation of "at reasonable hours." The right may be exercised on reasonable hours on business days throughout the year, and not merely during some arbitrary period of a few days chosen by the directors, and the motive of the stockholder exercising the right is immaterial.
Gonzales vs. PNB (122 SCRA 489)
Stockholder must not have been guilty of using improperly any information secured thru a prior examination and that the person asking for such examination must be acting in GF and for a legitimate purpose in making his demand. He must also setforth the reasons and purposes for which he desires such inspection.