China Bank V CA 210 SCRA 503 (1997)

China Bank v CA 210 SCRA 503 (1997)
Petitioners: CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, and VALLEY GOLF and COUNTRY

CLUB, INC.
Facts:
- On 21 August 1974, Galicano Calapatia, Jr. a stockholder of private respondent

Valley Golf & Country Club, Inc. (VGCCI), pledged his Stock Certificate No.
1219 to petitioner China Banking Corporation (CBC).
- Calapatia obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from petitioner, payment of which
was secured by the pledge agreement between Calapatia and petitioner.
- Due to Calapatia's failure to pay his obligation, petitioner filed a petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure before a Notary Public, requesting the latter to
conduct a public auction sale of the pledged stock.
- On 14 May 1985, petitioner informed VGCCI of the above-mentioned
foreclosure proceedings and requested that the pledged stock be transferred
to its (petitioner's) name and the same be recorded in the corporate books.
However, on 15 July 1985, VGCCI wrote petitioner expressing its inability to
accede to petitioner's request in view of Calapatia's unsettled accounts with
the club.
- Notary Public de Vera held a public auction on 17 September 1985 and
petitioner emerged as the highest bidder at P20,000.00 for the pledged stock.
Consequently, petitioner was issued the corresponding certificate of sale.
- VGCCI sent Calapatia a notice demanding full payment of his overdue account
in the amount of P18,783.24. Said notice was followed by 2 demand letters on
2 different dates.
- VGCCI then informed Calapatia of the termination of his membership due to
the sale of his share of stock in the 10 December 1986 auction.
- On 5 May 1989, petitioner advised VGCCI that it is the new owner of
Calapatia's Stock Certificate No. 1219 by virtue of being the highest bidder in
the 17 September 1985 auction and requested that a new certificate of stock
be issued in its name.
- VGCCI replied that "for reason of delinquency" Calapatia's stock was sold at
the public auction held on 10 December 1986 for P25,000.00.
- On 9 March 1990, petitioner protested the sale by VGCCI of the subject share
of stock and thereafter filed a case with the RTC for the nullification of the 10
December 1986 auction and for the issuance of a new stock certificate in its
name.
- The Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter on the theory that it involves an intra-
corporate dispute and on 27 August 1990 denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed a complaint with SEC for the nullification of the sale of
Calapatia's stock by VGCCI; the cancellation of any new stock certificate issued
pursuant thereto; for the issuance of a new certificate in petitioner's name;
and for damages, attorney's fees and costs of litigation.
- SEC rendered a decision in favor of VGCCI, stating in the main that
"considering that the said share is delinquent, (VGCCI) had valid reason not to
transfer the share in the name of the petitioner in the books of (VGCCI) until
liquidation of delinquency." Consequently, the case was dismissed.
- Petitioner appealed to the SEC and the Commission issued an order reversing
the decision of its hearing officer.
- VGCCI sought reconsideration. However, the SEC denied the same in its
resolution dated 7 December 1993
- VGCCI appealed to CA.
- CA rendered its decision nullifying and setting aside the orders of the SEC and
its hearing officer on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and,
consequently, dismissed petitioner's original complaint. The Court of Appeals
declared that the controversy between CBC and VGCCI is not intra-corporate.
- Case was elevated to the High Court.
Issues:
WON RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN:
1. IT NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE THE DECISION DATED JUNE 04, 1993 AND
ORDER DATED DECEMBER 07, 1993 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION EN BANC, AND WHEN IT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT OF
PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENT VALLEY GOLF ALL FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE;
2. IT FAILED TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION EN BANC DATED JUNE 04, 1993 DESPITE
PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT PETITIONER IS THE LAWFUL
OWNER OF MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO. 1219 FOR ONE SHARE OF
RESPONDENT VALLEY GOLF.
Held:
Yes. The CA gravely erred.
To ascertain which tribunal has jurisdiction it must determined whether or not

petitioner is a stockholder of VGCCI and whether or not the nature of the
controversy between petitioner and private respondent corporation is intra-
corporate.
There is no question that the purchase of the subject share or membership

certificate at public auction by petitioner (and the issuance to it of the
corresponding Certificate of Sale) transferred ownership of the same to the latter
and thus entitled petitioner to have the said share registered in its name as a
member of VGCCI. It is readily observed that VGCCI did not assail the transfer
directly and has in fact, in its letter of 27 September 1974, expressly recognized
the pledge agreement executed by the original owner, Calapatia, in favor of
petitioner and has even noted said agreement in its corporate books. 25 In
addition, Calapatia, the original owner of the subject share, has not contested
the said transfer.
By virtue of the afore-mentioned sale, petitioner became a bona fide stockholder
of VGCCI and, therefore, the conflict that arose between petitioner and VGCCI
aptly exemplies an intra-corporate controversy between a corporation and its
stockholder under Sec. 5(b) of P.D. 902-A.
In this case, the need for the SEC's technical expertise cannot be over-
emphasized involving as it does the meticulous analysis and correct
interpretation of a corporation's by-laws as well as the applicable provisions of
the Corporation Code in order to determine the validity of VGCCI's claims. The
SEC, therefore, took proper cognizance of the instant case.
VGCCI assails the validity of the pledge agreement executed by Calapatia in

petitioner's favor---the pledge agreement was entered into on 21 August 1974
but the loan or promissory note which it secured was obtained by Calapatia
much later or only on 3 August 1983. However, the pledge agreement readily
reveals that the contracting parties explicitly stipulated therein that the said
pledge will also stand as security for any future advancements (or renewals
thereof) that Calapatia (the pledgor) may procure from petitioner. Hence, the
validity of the pledge agreement between petitioner and Calapatia cannot thus
be held suspect by VGCCI.
VGCCI likewise insists that due to Calapatia's failure to settle his delinquent
accounts, it had the right to sell the share in question in accordance with the
express provision found in its by-laws. However, it is significant to note that
VGCCI began sending notices of delinquency to Calapatia after it was informed
by petitioner (through its letter dated 14 May 1985) of the foreclosure
proceedings initiated against Calapatia's pledged share, although Calapatia has
been delinquent in paying his monthly dues to the club since 1975. Stranger still,
petitioner, whom VGCCI had officially recognized as the pledgee of Calapatia's
share, was neither informed nor furnished copies of these letters of overdue
accounts until VGCCI itself sold the pledged share at another public auction. By
doing so, VGCCI completely disregarded petitioner's rights as pledgee. It even
failed to give petitioner notice of said auction sale. Such actuations of VGCCI
thus belie its claim of good faith. Therefore, this contention is unmeritorious.
VGCCI likewise maintains that petitioner is bound by its by-laws.

It is the generally accepted rule that third persons are not bound by by-laws,
except when they have knowledge of the provisions either actually or
constructively. In the case of Fleisher v. Botica Nolasco, 47 Phil. 584, the
Supreme Court held that the by-law restricting the transfer of shares cannot
have any effect on the transferee of the shares in question as he "had no
knowledge of such by-law when the shares were assigned to him. He obtained
them in good faith and for a valuable consideration. He was not a privy to the
contract created by the by-law between the shareholder . . . and the Botica
Nolasco, Inc. Said by-law cannot operate to defeat his right as a purchaser.
VGCCI's contention that petitioner is duty-bound to know its by-laws because of

Art. 2099 of the Civil Code which stipulates that the creditor must take care of
the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father of a family, failed to
convince the court. The petitioner was never informed of Calapatia's unpaid
accounts and the restrictive provisions in VGCCI's by-laws.
Finally, Sec. 63 of the Corporation Code which provides that "no shares of stock
against which the corporation holds any unpaid claim shall be transferable in the
books of the corporation" cannot be utilized by VGCCI. The term "unpaid claim"
refers to "any unpaid claim arising from unpaid subscription, and not to any
indebtedness which a subscriber or stockholder may owe the corporation arising
from any other transaction." In the case at bar, the subscription for the share in
question has been fully paid as evidenced by the issuance of Membership
Certificate No. 1219. What Calapatia owed the corporation were merely the
monthly dues. Hence, the aforequoted provision does not apply.

China Bank V CA 210 SCRA 503 (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Bank V CA 210 SCRA 503 (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Bank V CA 210 SCRA 503 (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Bank v CA 210 SCRA 503 (1997)

Petitioners: CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, and VALLEY GOLF and COUNTRY

- On 21 August 1974, Galicano Calapatia, Jr. a stockholder of private respondent

WON RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN:

2. IT FAILED TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE SECURITIES AND

Yes. The CA gravely erred.

To ascertain which tribunal has jurisdiction it must determined whether or not

There is no question that the purchase of the subject share or membership

VGCCI assails the validity of the pledge agreement executed by Calapatia in

VGCCI likewise maintains that petitioner is bound by its by-laws.

VGCCI's contention that petitioner is duty-bound to know its by-laws because of

You might also like