Corpo (Paper 5)
Corpo (Paper 5)
Corpo (Paper 5)
Under the Corporation Code, a corporation, being an artificial being, has powers
expressly authorized by the law and all those incidental thereto. In some cases, the
implied powers are also acknowledged as a valid source of power of a corporation.
Hence, a corporation validly created under or by law has three powers, to wit: 1.)
Express, 2.) Implied and 3.) Incidental.
Express powers are those which are explicitly provided by the Corporation Code.
These powers are those which are expressly provided or mentioned by the law,
articles of incorporation or by-laws. Some of these powers are those mentioned
under Section 36 of the Corporation Code. Section 36 provides:
Sec. 36. Corporate powers and capacity. - Every corporation incorporated under this
Code has the power and capacity:
Sec. 45. Ultra vires acts of corporations. - No corporation under this Code shall
possess or exercise any corporate powers except those conferred by this Code or by
its articles of incorporation and except such as are necessary or incidental to the
exercise of the powers so conferred. (n)
In the case of Republic vs Acoje Mining Corporation (G.R. No. L-18062, February 28,
1963), an ultra vires act is defined as one committed outside the object for which a
corporation is created defined by the law of its organization and therefore beyond the
powers conferred to it. It does not, however, necessarily follows that all express
powers under the law, by-laws or articles of incorporation may not amount to an ultra
vires act. Jurisprudence provides that when a law is declared illegal and a
corporation performs an act based on it, the act is still considered as an ultra vires
act. In addition, in the case of Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000), the Supreme Court held that, in defining an ultra
vires, an ultra vires act is not similar to illegal act. An ultra vires act may be legal but
void because the said act is not prohibited by law, or is not punishable but is not
allowed or granted by law. On the other hand, an illegal act is one which is expressly
santioned or prohibited by the law.
Any stockholder may bring an individual or derivative suit to enjoin a threatened ultra
vires act or contract. If the act or contract has already been performed, a derivative
suit for damages against the directors maybe filed, but their liability will depend on
whether they acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence in entering into the
contracts. When the suit against the injured party who had no knowledge that the
corporation was engaging in an act not included expressly or impliedly in its purposes
clause.
Ultra vires acts may become binding by the ratification of all the stockholders, unless
third parties are prejudiced thereby, or unless the acts are illegal.
The state attorney general may assert the doctrine in a proceeding to dissolve the
corporation or to enjoin it from transacting unauthorized business.
In sum, the effects of ultra vires acts corporation can be summarized as follows:
When the contract is fully executed on both sides, the contract is effective and will
stand as a foundation of rights acquired under it. When both contracts are wholly
executoryon both sides, neither party can maintain an action. The rule is justified
since the only injustice that will be caused is loss of prospective profits but the
protection of the stockholders may be a sufficient ground to enjoin the performance
of an act. When both contracts are wholly ececutoryon both sides, neither party can
maintain an action. The rule is justified only since the only injustice that will be
caused is loss of prospective profits but the protection of the stockholders may be a
sufficient ground to enjoin the performance of the act.
1. Shareholders may bring suits against the corporation to enjoin it from acting
beyond its powers.
2. The corporation itself, through receivers, trustees, or shareholders, may sue
incumbent or former officers or directors for causing the corporation to act
ultra vires.
In the recent case of Universidad of Mindanao vs Banko Sentral (G.R. No. 194964-
65, January 11, 2016), the Supreme Court held that personal liabilities may be
incurred by directors who assented to such unauthorized act and by the person who
contracted in excess of the limits of his or her authority without the corporation’s
knowledge. Unauthorized acts that are merely beyond the powers of the corporation
under its articles of incorporation are not void ab initio.
In the case of Gamboa vs Victoriano (G.R. No. L-40620, May 5, 1979), the Supreme
Court held that ultra vires acts entered into by the board of directors binds the
corporation and the courts will not interfere unless terms are oppressive and
unconscionable.
In Pirovano, et al. vs CIR (G.R. No. L-19865, July 31, 1965), the Supreme Court
explained that corporate acts may be ultra vires but not void. Corporate acts may be
capable of ratification:
A distinction should be made between corporate acts or contracts which are illegal
and those which are merely ultra vires. The former contemplates the doing of an act
which is contrary to law, morals, or public order, or contravene some rules of public
policy or public duty, and are, like similar transactions between individuals, void.
They cannot serve as basis of a court action, nor acquire validity by performance,
ratification, or estoppel. Mere ultra vires acts, on the other hand, or those which are
not illegal and void ab initio, but are not merely within the scope of the articles of
incorporation, are merely voidable and may become binding and enforceable when
ratified by the stockholders.
In the case of Gamboa vs Victoriano (G.R. No. L-40620, May 5, 1979), the Supreme
Court held that ultra vires acts entered into by the board of directors binds the
corporation and the courts will not interfere unless terms are oppressive and
unconscionable.