Significance of A Board Resolution in Corporations
Significance of A Board Resolution in Corporations
Significance of A Board Resolution in Corporations
in Corporations
This article defines a Board Resolution. Corporate powers are exercised by the Board of
Directors. A Board Resolution is a formal document which serves as evidence of the actions
and matters taken by the directors of the corporation in the meeting duly held.
A Board Resolution is a formal document which serves as evidence of the actions and
matters taken by the directors of the corporation in the meeting duly held.
Republic Act No. 11232, otherwise known as the Revised Corporation Code of the
Philippines, defines a corporation as an artificial being created by operation of law, having
the right of succession and the powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by
law or incidental to its existence. Since a corporation’s existence is only by fiction of law, it
can only exercise its rights and powers through its directors, officers, or agents, who are all
natural persons (Lanuza, Jr. v. BF Corporation, G.R.
The Board Resolution is duly signed by the directors present in the meeting. There is no
requirement that a Board Resolution be notarized. However, when Board Resolutions are
used as evidence in court trials, notarization gives more credence to the document.
==
COLUMNISTS
In the corporate world, decisions are made and actions are taken through
formal processes to ensure transparency and legality. A corporation
operates through its board of directors or trustees, which exercises
corporate powers and controls all its business and properties.
The rule is, it is always good practice to require the presentation of board
resolutions and secretary’s certificates when transacting with
representatives of corporations, to ensure that the representative is
properly authorized.
Notwithstanding the same, there are instances when the board resolution
or secretary’s certificate, for various reasons, are not provided. This
article explores various scenarios where such documents may not be
strictly required and delves into recognized exceptions and practices.
The following have been found to have the authority to sign for the
corporation without need of a board resolution:
There are two kinds of unauthorized acts, the first are those that are void
and, the second are those that are merely ultra vires.
Corporate acts or contracts which are void from the beginning and may
not be ratified are those illegal acts which are contrary to law, morals, or
public order, or contravene some rules of public policy or public duty.
Ultra vires acts are those acts that are merely beyond the powers of the
corporation or done without the proper authorization. Since these acts
are not illegal and void they are merely voidable and may become
binding and enforceable when ratified by the corporation. Notably, when
ratified by the corporation, the approval relates back to the time of the
act or contract ratified, and is equivalent to original authority.
3. Apparent Authority
The Supreme Court has also recognized presumed or apparent authority
which have been considered to bind corporate representatives in
instances when the corporation, through its silence or other acts of
recognition, allowed others to believe that persons, through their usual
exercise of corporate powers, were conferred with authority to deal on
the corporation’s behalf.
The doctrine of apparent authority does not go into the question of the
corporation’s competence or power to do a particular act. It involves the
question of whether the officer has the power or is clothed with the
appearance of having the power to act for the corporation. A finding that
there is apparent authority is not the same as a finding that the corporate
act in question is within the corporation’s limited powers.
Since the by-laws had expressly given the president the power to borrow
money, execute contracts, and sign and indorse checks and promissory
notes, in the name and on behalf of the Corporation, the president need
not anymore secure a resolution from the company’s board of directors.
(Cebu Mactan Members Center Inc. v. Masahiro Tsukahara, G.R. No.
159624, July 17, 2009)
(The author, Atty. John Philip C. Siao, is a practicing lawyer and founding partner of
Tiongco Siao Bello & Associates Law Offices, an Arbitrator of the Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission of the Philippines, and teaches law at the De La Salle
University Tañada-Diokno School of Law. He may be contacted at
[email protected]. The views expressed in this article belong to the author
alone.)