06 DIGEST G R No 178523 MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, INC Vs CECILE H CHENG

Makati Sports Club, Inc. vs.
Cheng 621 SCRA 103 , June 16, 2010 Facts:
On October 20, 1994, Makati Sports Club (MSCI) through its BOD adopted a resolution authorizing
the sale of 19 unissued shares of Class A and Class B.
Defendant Cheng was the Corporate treasurer and Director.
On July 7, 1995, Hodreal expressed his interest to buy a share and requested that his name be
included in the waiting list.
Sometime in November 1995, McFoods Inc. expressed its interest in acquiring a share. McFood was
able to buy the Class A shares from petitioner in the amount P1,800,000. Payment for the share was
made on November 28, 1995. The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on December 15, 1995 and
the stock certificate was issued on January 5, 1996.
By December 27, 1995, McFood sent a notice to petitioner that it was o ffering to resell the stock for P
2,800,000.
It appear that while the sale between petitioner and McFood was under negotiation, there was also an
ongoing negotiation between McFoods and Hodreal.
On November 24, 1995, Hondreal paid McFoods P1,400,000 and another payment in the amount of
P1,400,00 was made on December 27, 1995.On January 29, 1996, McFoods and Hodreal executed a
Deed of Sale for the same share of stock.
Only on February 7, 1996 was petitioner was advised of the sale between McFoods and Hodreal. A
new certificate of stock was issued upon request.
However, Cheng had been accused of profiteering from the said transaction upon an investigation
conducted. Petitioner alleged that Cheng and McFoods confabulated with one another at the expense
of MSCI.
Thus, petitioner filed against Cheng and demanded to pay P1,000,000 as amount allegedly defrauded
with damages.
RTC: dismissed the complaint
CA: affirmed RTC decision
Petiitoner: Cheng in collaboration with McFoods committed fraud in transacting the transfers involving
Stock Certificate No. A 2243. Cheng is alleged to provide insiders information as to the status of the
shares and facilitated the transfer by doctoring the books to give a semblance of regularity to the
transfer. McFoods never intended to become a legitimate holder of Class A shares but did so for the
purpose of realising a profit in the amount of P1,000,000 at the expense of the petitioner.
Issue: Whether McFoods can validly sold his MSCI share prior to the issuance of the certificate of sale
Held: Yes
Assuming the intention of McFoods was to speculate on the price of the share of stock when it
tendered payment on November 28, 1995, it had all the right to negotiate and transact, at least on the
anticipated and expected ownership of the share, with Hodreal.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that the first payment/installment made by Hodreal to McFoods
preceded or came earlier than the payment made McFoods to MSCI for the same share of stocks
because eventually McFoods became the owner of Class A share covered in Certificate A2243.
Upon the payment by McFoods of P1,800,000 to MSCI and the execution of the Deed of Absolute
Sale on December 15, 1995, McFoods then had the right to demand the delivery of stock certificate in
his name. The right of a transferee to have the stocks transferred to its name is an inherent right
flowing from its ownership.
Petitioner’s stance that McFoods violated its By-Laws on its pre-emptive right is not correct as
McFoods offered to sell the shares to MSCI on December 27, 1995 for the latter to exercise his right
of first refusal. It had legally have the right to do so by virtue of the payment made by McFoods and
the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale even if the certificate was issued on January 1996.
The certificate of stock is the paper representative or tangible evidence of the stock itself and of the
various interests therein. The certificate is not a stock in the corporation but is merely evidence of the
holder’s interest and stars in the corporation , his ownership of the share represented thereby. It is not
in law, the equivalent of such ownership. It expresses the contract between the corporation and the
stockholder, but is not essential to the existence of a share of stock or the nature of the relation of the
shareholder tot he corporation.
Therefore, McFoods properly complied with the requirement of Sec30(e) of the Amended ByLaws on
MSCI’s pre-emptive right. Petitioner failed to purchase the share within 30 days from receipt of notice.
It was only on January 29,1996 or 32 days after December 28, 1994 when McFoods and Hodreal
executed the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Registration of McFoods as owner is not essential as it is only a ministerial upon the buyer’s
acquisition of ownership. The corporation cannot create restrictions in stock transfers.
Petitioner’s allegation of Cheng’s fraudulent act was not supported by evidence. The mere fact of
receiving payment from Hodreal in behalf of McFoods or claiming the certificate do not show badges
of fraud.

06 DIGEST G R No 178523 MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, INC Vs CECILE H CHENG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 DIGEST G R No 178523 MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, INC Vs CECILE H CHENG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

06 DIGEST G R No 178523 MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, INC Vs CECILE H CHENG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Makati Sports Club, Inc. vs.

Cheng 621 SCRA 103 , June 16, 2010 Facts:

Defendant Cheng was the Corporate treasurer and Director.

RTC: dismissed the complaint

CA: aﬃrmed RTC decision

You might also like