Thursday, 22 April 2021

Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Bitanga (362 SCRA 635 [2001]) CORPLAW CASE DIGEST by: A.J. Gomez

 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Bitanga (362 SCRA 635 [2001])



FACTS:  

(Potencianos) Dolores   Potenciano,   Max   Joseph   Potenciano,   Mercedes Potenciano,   Delfin   Yorro,   and   Maya   Industries,   Inc.,   entered   into   a   Sale   and   PurchaseAgreement, whereby they sold to BMB Property Holdings, Inc., represented by its President, Benjamin  Bitanga,   their   21,071,114  shares   of   stock   in   BLTB.  


The purchase price was   P72,076,425.00.   A   downpayment   was   made   while   the   balance   was   payable   onNovember 26, 1997. 


Furthermore, the buyer guaranteed   that   it   shall   take   over   the   management   and   operations   of   BLTB   but   shall immediately surrender the same to the sellers in case it fails to pay the balance of the purchase price on November 26, 1997.


On November 21, 1997, BLTB HELD a stockholders meeting. (Benjamin   Bitanga   and   Monina   Grace   Lim   were   elected   as   directors   of   the corporation.)


On   November   28,   1997,   another   stockholders'   meeting   was   held. (NEW Directors were elected and officers)  


The newly elected directors of BLTB scheduled the annual stockholders' meeting on May 19, 1998, BUT Michael   Potenciano   wrote   Benjamin   Bitanga,   requesting   for   a   postponement   of   the stockholders' meeting due to the absence of a thirty-day advance notice. NO RESPONSE.


On the scheduled date of the meeting, the  Potenciano   group   was   re-elected   to   the   Board   ofDirectors, and a new set of officers was thereafter elected. 


The Bitanga group filed with the SEC a Complaint for Damages and Injunction. DENIED.


The   Bitanga   group   filed   another   complaint   with   application   for   a   writ   of   preliminary injunction   and   prayer   for   temporary   restraining   order,   seeking   to   annul   the   May   19,   1998 stockholders' meeting.  


SEC Hearing Panel  granted   it, declared  

  1. the   May   19,   1998stockholders' meeting was void on the grounds that, first, Michael Potenciano had himself asked for its postponement due to improper notice; and, 

  2. second, there was no quorum, since BMBHoldings, Inc., represented by the Bitanga group, which then owned 50.26% of BLTB's shares having purchased the same from the Potenciano group, was not present at the said meeting.

  3. The Bitanga Board remains the legitimate Board in a hold-over capacity. 



The Potenciano group filed a petition for certiorari. The SEC En Banc set aside the June 17, 1998 Order Of the Hearing Panel. 


Bitanga group immediately filed a petition for certiorari with the CAs.


CA   reversed the assailed Orders of the SEC En Banc and reinstating the Order Of   the   Hearing   Panel   


ISSUE:  

Whether   or   not   the   stockholders'   meeting   on   May   19,   1998   was   void   since   BMBHoldings, Inc., represented by the Bitanga group was not present at the said meeting.


RULING:  


NO. IT WAS VALID. 



As stockholders of record, the Potencianos are clearly entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Until challenged in a proper proceeding, they may vote and be voted for as directors of the corporation, and the shares standing in their names may likewise be taken into account in determining whether or not there was a quorum for the conduct of corporate business.


Thus, pending the determination of the parties' rights under the Sale and Purchase Agreement, the Potencianos may rightfully sit in the BLTB Board. 


Until   registration   is   accomplished,   the   transfer,   though   valid   between the   parties, cannot be effective as against the corporation. Thus, the unrecorded transferee, the Bitangagroup in this case, cannot vote nor be voted for. 






x x x


The purpose of registration, therefore, is two-fold: 

  1. to enable the transferee to exercise all the rights of a stockholder, including the right to vote and to be voted for, and 

  2. to inform the corporation of any change in share ownership so that it can ascertain the persons entitled to the rights and subject to the liabilities of a stockholder.


Until challenged in a proper proceeding, a stockholder of record has a right to participate in anymeeting; his vote can be properly counted to determine whether a stockholders' resolution was approved, despite the claim of the alleged transferee. 


On the other hand, a person who has purchased stock, and who desires to be recognized as a stockholder for the purpose of voting,must secure such a standing by having the transfer recorded on the corporate books. Until the transfer is registered, the transferee is not a stockholder but an outsider.

No comments:

Post a Comment

PEOPLE vs. CONCEPCION, 44 Phil. 126 (Credit Transaction Case Digest)

PEOPLE vs. CONCEPCION, 44 Phil. 126 FACTS:  Venancio Concepcion, President of the PNB and a member of the Board thereof is a partner of ...