[G.R. No. 108905. October 23, 1997.

GRACE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS,

GRACE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., ALEJANDRO G. BELTRAN, and ERNESTO
L. GO, Respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

The question for decision in this case is the right of petitioner’s representative to sit in
the board of directors of respondent Grace Village Association, Inc. as a permanent
member thereof. For fifteen years — from 1975 until 1989 — petitioner’s representative
had been recognized as a "permanent director" of the association. But on February 13,
1990, petitioner received notice from the association’s committee on election that the
latter was "reexamining" (actually, reconsidering) the right of petitioner’s
representative to continue as an unelected member of the board. As the board denied
petitioner’s request to be allowed representation without election, petitioner brought an
action for mandamus in the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation. Its action was
dismissed by the hearing officer whose decision was subsequently affirmed by the
appeals board. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in turn upheld the
decision of the HIGC’s appeals board. Hence this petition for review based on the
following contentions: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The Petitioner herein has already acquired a vested right to a permanent seat in the
Board of Directors of Grace Village Association;

2. The amended By-laws of the Association drafted and promulgated by a Committee

on December 20, 1975 is valid and binding; and

3. The Practice of tolerating the automatic inclusion of petitioner as a permanent

member of the Board of Directors of the Association without the benefit of election is
allowed under the law. 1

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner Grace Christian High School is an educational institution offering preparatory,

kindergarten and secondary courses at the Grace Village in Quezon City. Private
respondent Grace Village Association, Inc., on the other hand, is an organization of lot
and/or building owners, lessees and residents at Grace Village, while private
respondents Alejandro G. Beltran and Ernesto L. Go were its president and chairman of
the committee on election, respectively, in 1990, when this suit was brought.

As adopted in 1968, the by-laws of the association provided in Article IV, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The annual meeting of the members of the Association shall be held on the first Sunday
of January in each calendar year at the principal office of the Association at 2:00 P.M.
where they shall elect by plurality vote and by secret balloting, the Board of Directors,
composed of eleven (11) members to serve for one year until their successors are duly
elected and have qualified. 2

It appears, that on December 20, 1975, a committee of the board of directors prepared
a draft of an amendment to the by-laws, reading as follows: 3

VI. ANNUAL MEETING

The Annual Meeting of the members of the Association shall be held on the second
Thursday of January of each year. Each Charter or Associate Member of the Association
is entitled to vote. He shall be entitled to as many votes as he has acquired thru his
monthly membership fees only computed on a ratio of TEN (P10.00) PESOS for one
vote.

The Charter and Associate Members shall elect the Directors of the Association. The
candidates receiving the first fourteen (14) highest number of votes shall be declared
and proclaimed elected until their successors are elected and qualified. GRACE
CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL representative is a permanent Director of the ASSOCIATION.

This draft was never presented to the general membership for approval. Nevertheless,
from 1975, after it was presumably submitted to the board, up to 1990, petitioner was
given a permanent seat in the board of directors of the association. On February 13,
1990, the association’s committee on election in a letter informed James Tan,
principal of the school, that "it was the sentiment that all directors should be
elected by members of the association" because "to make a person or entity a
permanent Director would deprive the right of voters to vote for fifteen (15)
members of the Board," and "it is undemocratic for a person or entity to hold
office in perpetuity." 4 For this reason, Tan was told that "the proposal to make the
Grace Christian High School representative as a permanent director of the association,
although previously tolerated in the past elections should be reexamined." Following
this advice, notices were sent to the members of the association that the provision on
election of directors of the 1968 by-laws of the association would be observed.

Petitioner requested the chairman of the election committee to change the notice of
election by following the procedure in previous elections, claiming that the notice issued
for the 1990 elections ran "counter to the practice in previous years" and was "in
violation of the by-laws (of 1975)" and "unlawfully deprive[d] Grace Christian High
School of its vested right [to] a permanent seat in the board." 5

As the association denied its request, the school brought suit for mandamus in the
Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation to compel the board of directors of the
association to recognize its right to a permanent seat in the board. Petitioner based its
claim on the following portion of the proposed amendment which, it contended, had
become part of the by-laws of the association as Article VI, paragraph 2, thereof: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Charter and Associate Members shall elect the Directors of the Association. The
candidates receiving the first fourteen (14) highest number of votes shall be declared
and proclaimed elected until their successors are elected and qualified. GRACE
CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL representative is a permanent Director of the ASSOCIATION.
It appears that the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the validity
of this provision was sought by the association and that in reply to the query, the SEC
rendered an opinion to the effect that the practice of allowing unelected members in the
board was contrary to the existing by-laws of the association and to §92 of the
Corporation Code (B.P. Blg. 68).

Private respondent association cited the SEC opinion in its answer. Additionally, the
association contended that the basis of the petition for mandamus was merely "a
proposed by-laws which has not yet been approved by competent authority nor
registered with the SEC or HIGC." It argued that "the by-laws which was registered
with the SEC on January 16, 1969 should be the prevailing by-laws of the association
and not the proposed amended by-laws." 6

In reply, petitioner maintained that the "amended by-laws is valid and binding" and
that the association was estopped from questioning the by-laws. 7

A preliminary conference was held on March 29, 1990 but nothing substantial was
agreed upon. The parties merely agreed that the board of directors of the association
should meet on April 17, 1990 and April 24, 1990 for the purpose of discussing the
amendment of the by-laws and a possible amicable settlement of the case. A meeting
was held on April 17, 1990, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. Instead, the
board adopted a resolution declaring the 1975 provision null and void for lack of
approval by members of the association and the 1968 by-laws to be effective. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On June 20, 1990, the hearing officer of the HIGC rendered a decision dismissing
petitioner’s action. The hearing officer held that the amended by-laws, upon which
petitioner based its claim," [was] merely a proposed by-laws which, although
implemented in the past, had not yet been ratified by the members of the association
nor approved by competent authority" ; that, on the contrary, in the meeting held on
April 17, 1990, the directors of the association declared ‘the proposed by-law dated
December 20, 1975 prepared by the committee on by-laws . . . null and void" and the
by-laws of December 17, 1968 as the "prevailing by-laws under which the association is
to operate until such time that the proposed amendments to the by-laws are approved
and ratified by a majority of the members of the association and duly filed and
approved by the pertinent government agency." The hearing officer rejected petitioner’s
contention that it had acquired a vested right to a permanent seat in the board of
directors. He held that past practice in election of directors could not give rise to a
vested right and that departure from such practice was justified because it deprived
members of association of their right to elect or to be voted in office, not to say that
"allowing the automatic inclusion of a member representative of petitioner as
permanent director [was] contrary to law and the registered by-laws of respondent
association." 8

The appeals board of the HIGC affirmed the decision of the hearing officer in its
resolution dated September 13, 1990. It cited the opinion of the SEC based on §92 of
the Corporation Code which reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

§92. Election and term of trustees. — Unless otherwise provided in the articles of
incorporation or the by-laws, the board of trustees of non-stock corporations, which
may be more than fifteen (15) in number as may be fixed in their articles of
incorporation or by-laws, shall, as soon as organized, so classify themselves that the
term of office of one-third (1/3) of the number shall expire every year; and subsequent
elections of trustees comprising one-third (1/3) of the board of trustees shall be held
annually and trustees so elected shall have a term of three (3) years. Trustees
thereafter elected to fill vacancies occurring before the expiration of a particular term
shall hold office only for the unexpired period.

The HIGC appeals board denied claims that the school" [was] being deprived of its right
to be a member of the Board of Directors of respondent association," because the fact
was that "it may nominate as many representatives to the Association’s Board as it may
deem appropriate." It said that "what is merely being upheld is the act of the
incumbent directors of the Board of correcting a long standing practice which is not
anchored upon any legal basis." 9

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but petitioner again lost as the appellate
court on February 9, 1993, affirmed the decision of the HIGC. The Court of Appeals held
that there was no valid amendment of the association’s by-laws because of failure to
comply with the requirement of its existing by-laws, prescribing the affirmative vote of
the majority of the members of the association at a regular or special meeting called for
the adoption of amendment to the by-laws. Article XIX of the by-laws provides: 10

The members of the Association by an affirmative vote of the majority at any regular or
special meeting called for the purpose, may alter, amend, change or adopt any new by-
laws.

This provision of the by-laws actually implements §22 of the Corporation Law (Act No.
1459) which provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

§22. The owners of a majority of the subscribed capital stock, or a majority of the
members if there be no capital stock, may, at a regular or special meeting duly called
for the purpose, amend or repeal any by-law or adopt new by-laws. The owners of two-
thirds of the subscribed capital stock, or two-thirds of the members if there be no
capital stock, may delegate to the board of directors the power to amend or repeal any
by-law or to adopt new by-laws: Provided, however, That any power delegated to the
board of directors to amend or repeal any by-law or adopt new by-laws shall be
considered as revoked whenever a majority of the stockholders or of the members of
the corporation shall so vote at a regular or special meeting. And provided, further,
That the Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry shall not hereafter file an
amendment to the by-laws of any bank, banking institution or building and loan
association, unless accompanied by certificate of the Bank Commissioner to the effect
that such amendments are in accordance with law.

The proposed amendment to the by-laws was never approved by the majority of the
members of the association as required by these provisions of the law and by-laws. But
petitioner contends that the members of the committee which prepared the proposed
amendment were duly authorized to do so and that because the members of the
association thereafter implemented the provision for fifteen years, the proposed
amendment for all intents and purposes should be considered to have been ratified by
them. Petitioner contends: 11
Considering, therefore, that the "agents" or committee were duly authorized to draft
the amended by-laws and the acts done by the "agents" were in accordance with such
authority, the acts of the "agents" from the very beginning were lawful and binding on
the homeowners (the principals) per se without need of any ratification or adoption.
The more has the amended by-laws become binding on the homeowners when the
homeowners followed and implemented the provisions of the amended by-laws. This is
not merely tantamount to tacit ratification of the acts done by duly authorized "agents"
but express approval and confirmation of what the "agents" did pursuant to the
authority granted to them.

Corollarily, petitioner claims that it has acquired a vested right to a permanent seat in
the board. Says petitioner: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The right of the petitioner to an automatic membership in the board of the Association
was granted by the members of the Association themselves and this grant has been
implemented by members of the board themselves all through the years. Outside the
present membership of the board, not a single member of the Association has
registered any desire to remove the right of herein petitioner to an automatic
membership in the board. If there is anybody who has the right to take away such right
of the petitioner, it would be the individual members of the Association through a
referendum and not the present board some of the members of which are motivated by
personal interest.

Petitioner disputes the ruling that the provision in question, giving petitioner’s
representative a permanent seat in the board of the association, is contrary to law.
Petitioner claims that that is not so because there is really no provision of law
prohibiting unelected members of boards of directors of corporations. Referring to §92
of the present Corporation Code, petitioner says: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It is clear that the above provision of the Corporation Code only provides for the
manner of election of the members of the board of trustees of non-stock corporations
which may be more than fifteen in number and which manner of election is even
subject to what is provided in the articles of incorporation or by-laws of the association
thus showing that the above provisions [are] not even mandatory.

Even a careful perusal of the above provision of the Corporation Code would not show
that it prohibits a non-stock corporation or association from granting one of its
members a permanent seat in its board of directors or trustees. If there is no such legal
prohibition then it is allowable provided it is so provided in the Articles of Incorporation
or in the by-laws as in the instant case.

x          x           x

If fact, the truth is that this is allowed and is being practiced by some
corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.

One example is the Pius XII Catholic Center, Inc. Under the by-laws of this
corporation, that whoever is the Archbishop of Manila is considered a member
of the board of trustees without benefit of election. And not only that. He also
automatically sits as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, again without
need of any election.

Another concrete example is the Cardinal Santos Memorial Hospital, Inc. It is

also provided in the by-laws of this corporation that whoever is the
Archbishop of Manila is considered a member of the board of trustees year
after year without benefit of any election and he also sits automatically as the
Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

It is actually §§28 and 29 of the Corporation Law — not §92 of the present law or §29
of the former one — which require members of the boards of directors of corporations
to be elected. These provisions read: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

§28. Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the corporate powers of all corporations
formed under this Act shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of
such corporations controlled and held by a board of not less than five nor more than
eleven directors to be elected from among the holders of stock or, where there is no
stock, from the members of the corporation: Provided, however, That in corporations,
other than banks, in which the United States has or may have a vested interest,
pursuant to the powers granted or delegated by the Trading with the Enemy Act, as
amended, and similar Acts of Congress of the United States relating to the same
subject, or by Executive Order No. 9095 of the President of the United States, as
heretofore or hereafter amended, or both, the directors need not be elected from
among the holders of the stock, or, where there is no stock from the members of the
corporation. (emphasis added)

§29. At the meeting for the adoption of the original by-laws, or at such subsequent
meeting as may be then determined, directors shall be elected to hold their offices for
one year and until their successors are elected and qualified. Thereafter the directors of
the corporation shall be elected annually by the stockholders if it be a stock corporation
or by the members if it be a nonstock corporation, and if no provision is made in the
by-laws for the time of election the same shall be held on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in January. Unless otherwise provided in the by-laws, two weeks’ notice of
the election of directors must be given by publication in some newspaper of general
circulation devoted to the publication of general news at the place where the principal
office of the corporation is established or located, and by written notice deposited in the
post-office, postage pre-paid, addressed to each stockholder, or, if there be no
stockholders, then to each member, at his last known place of residence. If there be no
newspaper published at the place where the principal office of the corporation is
established or located, a notice of the election of directors shall be posted for a period
of three weeks immediately preceding the election in at least three public places, in the
place where the principal office of the corporation is established or located. (Emphasis
added)

The present Corporation Code (B.P. Blg. 68), which took effect on May 1, 1980, 12
similarly provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

§23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. — Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the
corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised, all
business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the
board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or where
there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for
one (1) year and until their successors are elected and qualified. (Emphasis added)

These provisions of the former and present corporation law leave no room for doubt as
to their meaning: the board of directors of corporations must be elected from among
the stockholders or members. There may be corporations in which there are unelected
members in the board but it is clear that in the examples cited by petitioner the
unelected members sit as ex officio members, i.e., by virtue of and for as long as they
hold a particular office. But in the case of petitioner, there is no reason at all for its
representative to be given a seat in the board. Nor does petitioner claim a right to such
seat by virtue of an office held. In fact it was not given such seat in the beginning. It
was only in 1975 that a proposed amendment to the by-laws sought to give it one.

Since the provision in question is contrary to law, the fact that for fifteen years it has
not been questioned or challenged but, on the contrary, appears to have been
implemented by the members of the association cannot forestall a later challenge to its
validity. Neither can it attain validity through acquiescence because, if it is contrary to
law, it is beyond the power of the members of the association to waive its invalidity. For
that matter the members of the association may have formally adopted the provision in
question, but their action would be of no avail because no provision of the by-laws can
be adopted if it is contrary to law. 13

It is probable that, in allowing petitioner’s representative to sit on the board, the

members of the association were not aware that this was contrary to law. It should be
noted that they did not actually implement the provision in question except perhaps
insofar as it increased the number of directors from 11 to 15, but certainly not the
allowance of petitioner’s representative as an unelected member of the board of
directors. It is more accurate to say that the members merely tolerated petitioner’s
representative and tolerance cannot be considered ratification. chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Nor can petitioner claim a vested right to sit in the board on the basis of "practice."
Practice, no matter how long continued, cannot give rise to any vested right if it is
contrary to law. Even less tenable is petitioner’s claim that its right is "coterminus with
the existence of the association." 14

Finally, petitioner questions the authority of the SEC to render an opinion on the
validity of the provision in question. It contends that jurisdiction over this case is
exclusively vested in the HIGC.

But this case was not decided by the SEC but by the HIGC. The HIGC merely cited as
authority for its ruling the opinion of the SEC chairman. The HIGC could have cited any
other authority for the view that under the law members of the board of directors of a
corporation must be elected and it would be none the worse for doing so.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.