1
Title: Ching vs. Quezon City Sports Club, Inc. GR No. 200150, November 7, 2016
Parties:
Petitioners: Catherine Ching et al.
Respondents: Club
Facts:
The petitioners, members of the respondent Club, filed a complaint against the Club for
allegedly singling them out for non-payment of an assessment and subsequently suspending
their privileges without proper notice and hearing. The Club implemented the suspension based
on Board Resolutions and distributed a Memorandum listing the suspended members, including
the petitioners. The petitioners claimed bad faith and humiliation in how their names were
highlighted in the list.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners were unjustly singled out and suspended by the Club, violating their
right to due process.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Club in implementing
the suspension. The Club's actions were based on Board Resolutions and were necessary for the
proper functioning of the Club. The Court also found no malicious intent in how the names were
highlighted in the list, as it was done as part of the Club's ordinary course of business. The
petitioners failed to prove any wrongful act by the respondents, hence no damages were
awarded.
Held:
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petitioners'
complaint for lack of merit. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Therefore, the complaint was ultimately dismissed, and the petitioners were not entitled to any
damages or relief.
Explanation:
In the case described in the provided context, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a
decision based on the "Business Judgment Rule." This rule states that questions of policy and
management are typically left to the honest decision of a corporation's officers and directors.
Courts generally do not interfere with these decisions unless there is evidence of bad faith. In
this case, the RTC found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondents in adopting
Board Resolution No. 7-2001, which imposed a special assessment on club members. The court
ruled that the respondents were acting within their rights to save the club from financial
difficulties, and the assessment was deemed reasonable and fair. This shows how the Business
Judgment Rule was applied to justify the actions taken by the club's officers and directors.
1
Business Judgment Rule/Doctrine of Management Prerogative
- The decision of BOD on management matters cannot be changed by court UNLESS
1. Ultra Vires
2. Destructive of the interest
2
Title: Spouses Nolasco Fernandez and Maricris Fernandez v. Smart
Communications, Inc.
G.R. No. 212885, December 2, 2013
Parties:
Petitioners: Spouses Nolasco Fernandez and Maricris Fernandez
Respondent: Smart Communications, Inc.
Facts:
Everything Online, Inc. (EOL) engaged in negotiations with Smart Communications, Inc.
(SMART) in 2006 to obtain mobile communication services for its expansion. Petitioners
Nolasco Fernandez and Maricris Fernandez served as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and
Member of the Board of Directors of EOL, respectively.
During the negotiations, EOL entered into agreements with SMART, including a Letter
Agreement and an Undertaking, which purportedly bound EOL's officers, including the
petitioners, to be solidarily liable for charges related to the use of SMART cell phone units
acquired by EOL.
Subsequently, EOL encountered financial difficulties and failed to settle its outstanding
obligations to SMART. Consequently, SMART filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of
money against EOL, as well as its directors and officers, including the petitioners.
The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they were not the real
parties in interest and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them. The
Regional Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss, but the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision, reinstating the complaint against the petitioners.
Issue:
Whether the liability of directors and officers of a corporation can be extended to personal
capacity based on agreements entered into by the corporation.
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in reinstating the complaint against the
petitioners. It held that the agreements entered into by EOL, particularly the Undertaking,
explicitly bound the officers of the corporation, including the petitioners, to be solidarily liable
for the charges related to the use of SMART cell phone units acquired by EOL.
Explanation:
The liability of directors and officers of a corporation in this case is related to their roles and
responsibilities in managing the affairs of the corporation. As officers of EOL, the petitioners
were involved in negotiating and entering into agreements with SMART on behalf of the
corporation. The Undertaking, which they signed, explicitly stated that they would be held
solidarily liable for charges related to the use of SMART cell phone units acquired by EOL.
The rationale behind holding directors and officers personally liable in certain circumstances is
to prevent abuse of the corporate structure and to ensure accountability for corporate actions. In
this case, by signing the Undertaking, the petitioners effectively assumed personal liability for
the obligations of the corporation to SMART. Therefore, their liability in their personal capacity
is directly linked to their actions and representations as officers of EOL.
2
Liability of Directors/Officers
3
Title: Oscar vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation G.R. No. 245858
Facts:
Oscar, a seafarer, filed a claim against Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and its President,
Arnold Javier, for disability compensation and damages. Oscar sustained an injury during his
employment on the vessel, which required surgery. Despite the physician's recommendation for
surgery, Oscar had to cover the costs himself. The corporation failed to provide the required
medical attention as stipulated in the employment contract. The court found in favor of Oscar,
awarding him disability compensation equivalent to Grade 10, moral damages, and attorney's
fees.
Issue:
The main issue revolved around whether Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and its President
could be held liable for failing to provide proper medical attention to the injured seafarer.
Ruling:
The court held Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and its President, Arnold Javier, jointly and
severally liable to Oscar. The liability of corporate officers and directors is connected to the case
due to Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042, as amended. The law stipulates that if a
recruitment or placement agency is a legal entity, the corporate officers, directors, or partners
themselves shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation for claims and damages. In
this case, the failure to provide medical attention to Oscar, as required by the employment
contract, led to the imposition of liability on the corporate officers and directors.
Explanation:
The liability of directors and officers of a corporation in this case stems from the legal principle
that these individuals can be held personally liable when they are specifically made accountable
by law for their corporate actions. While corporations have a separate legal personality, the
personal liability of directors and officers can be established under certain circumstances. In
instances where the officers fail to fulfill their obligations under the law or contractual
agreements, they may be held jointly and severally liable with the corporation. In the case of
Oscar vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, the failure to provide necessary medical attention to
the injured seafarer by the corporation led to the imposition of liability on the corporate officers,
including Arnold Javier, under the provisions of RA No. 8042.
3
Liability of Directors/Officers
4
Title: Waterfront Philippines, Inc. et. al. vs. SSS G.R No. 249337
Facts:
In this case, the Social Security System (SSS) entered into a loan contract that violated Sections
3(b) and 26 of R.A. No. 8282. The loan contract was executed without the approval of the SSS
President as required by law, and it involved a transaction that was not authorized under the
same law. As a result, the contract of loan was deemed ultravires and void. The SSS argued that
the petitioners were estopped from contesting the lack of authority due to the genuineness and
due execution of the loan contract.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the contract of loan entered into by the SSS was valid
considering the violation of R.A. No. 8282 and the lack of proper authority.
Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that the contract of loan was an illegal
ultravires act. Ultravires acts are those clearly beyond the scope of one's authority and are null
and void, incapable of being given any effect. The doctrine of estoppel cannot operate to give
effect to an act that is otherwise null and void or ultravires. In this case, the SSS could not escape
the consequences of its ultravires act by claiming the petitioners were estopped from raising the
issue of authority.
Explanation:
The concept of ultra vires acts, as discussed in this case, is crucial in understanding the validity
and enforceability of contracts or actions that go beyond the legal authority granted to an entity
or individual. An ultravires act, such as the illegal loan contract in this case, is considered void
ab initio and cannot be ratified or validated by performance, estoppel, or any other means. The
violation of statutory provisions and the lack of proper authority render such acts null and void,
emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal limitations and requirements.
In the context of this case, the ultravires nature of the loan contract serves as the basis for its
invalidity and unenforceability. The Court's decision underscores the principle that actions or
contracts undertaken outside the scope of legal authority are deemed null and cannot be upheld,
even if certain parties attempt to invoke estoppel or other defenses. This case highlights the
significance of observing legal boundaries and ensuring compliance with statutory provisions to
maintain the validity and legitimacy of transactions.
4
Ultra Vires Acts
5
Title: Jennifer Enano-Bote, et. al. vs. Jose Alvarez, et. al.
Facts:
In this case, Halley was seeking to defend herself against claims by BMPI for allegedly
persuading them to break on their obligations to pay and inducing Printwell to transact with
BMPI. Halley also argued that the trust fund doctrine was inapplicable because she had fully
paid her subscriptions to BMPI's capital stock. However, the lower courts found that she failed
to prove full payment of her subscriptions, leading to the invocation of the trust fund doctrine.
The trust fund doctrine states that a corporation's property is a fund for the payment of
creditors, and stockholders' unpaid subscriptions constitute part of this fund.
Issue:
Whether the trust fund doctrine is applicable in making Halley personally and solidarily liable
for the unpaid rentals claimed by SBMA against CAIR due to her unpaid subscriptions in CAIR's
capital stock.
Ruling:
The Court partly agreed with Halley's petition. The Court affirmed the lower court's application
of the trust fund doctrine, citing the case of Halley v. Printwell, Inc. The trust fund doctrine was
utilized to hold Halley liable up to the extent of her unpaid subscription for CAIR's obligations to
SBMA. It was clarified that the trust fund doctrine extends beyond reaching the stockholder's
unpaid subscriptions and includes other property and assets regarded in equity as a trust fund
for the payment of corporate debts. The doctrine ensures that all assets held by the corporation,
even if distributed to stockholders, can be reached by creditors for satisfaction of claims.
Explanation:
The trust fund doctrine, as applied in this case, establishes that a corporation's property is
considered a trust fund for the payment of creditors. Stockholders' unpaid subscriptions form
part of this fund, and even if a stockholder claims to have fully paid, failure to prove full
payment can invoke the doctrine. The doctrine ensures that creditors can access the
corporation's assets, including those distributed to stockholders, for the settlement of debts
when the corporation becomes insolvent. In this case, the trust fund doctrine was crucial in
holding Halley personally liable for CAIR's obligations to SBMA due to her unpaid
subscriptions.
5
Trust Fund Doctrine