Case Digest (G.R. No. 254208)
Facts:
John Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. L-45911, April 11, 1979, Supreme Court En Banc, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner John Gokongwei, Jr. (stockholder of San Miguel Corporation or SMC) filed two administrative petitions with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In SEC Case No. 1375 (filed October 22, 1976) he sought a declaration nullifying amendments to SMC’s by‑laws (adopted September 18, 1976), cancellation of the certificate of filing of those amendments, injunctions and damages. He alleged the Board amended the by‑laws based on a 1961 stockholders’ resolution that could not validly authorize amendments in 1976 given the enlarged capitalization, that the 1961 delegation had already been exercised, that membership of the Board had since changed, and that the amendments were tailored to disqualify him from being nominated or elected director in order to suppress minority representation. He also asked for production and inspection of corporate documents, including minutes of the March 13, 1961 stockholders’ meeting and records of San Miguel International, Inc. (SMI), SMC’s wholly owned foreign subsidiary.
In SEC Case No. 1423 (filed January 20, 1977) petitioner alleged illegal investments by SMC (in violation of Section 17‑1/2 of the Corporation Law) and sought accounting and damages. During pendency, respondents (SMC and individual directors, incl. Andres M. Soriano, Jr. and Jose M. Soriano) opposed the petitions and sought dismissal; they defended the amendments as valid corporate self‑defense against competitors and argued petitioner’s claims were premature, harassing or moot after stockholder ratifications.
The SEC initially resolved the production motion in part by Order No. 26 (Dec. 29, 1976): it ordered production of the March 13, 1961 minutes but denied inspection of certain SMI balance sheets (on the ground petitioner was not SMI stockholder) and held other requests in abeyance. While SEC proceedings were pending the SMC Board called a special stockholders’ meeting (Feb. 10, 1977) to ratify the amendments; the SEC denied petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and the amendments were ratified. Petitioner moved for contempt and nullification before the SEC and sought summary judgment, reconsideration, and injunctive relief, which he alleged the SEC handled with undue delay or prejudice.
Petitioner brought a petition for certiorari, mandamus and injunction to the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the SEC (failure to act with deliberate dispatch on motions and incidents) and oppressive corporate acts violating his property and due process rights. This Court issued a temporary restraining order (May 6, 1977) enjoining respondents from disqualifying petitioner or enforcing the amended by‑laws until further order or until the SEC acted. Petitioner filed supplemental petitions after receiving SEC Orders Nos. 449–451 (which in various respects denied reconsideration, allowed him to run but not sit if elected until the by‑laws’ validity was decided, and denied summary judgment), and challenged the SEC’s denial of inspection of SMI records and its permitting of discussion/ratification of the alleged improper foreign investment.
The Court heard the matter en banc. The Justices were divided on the core question of the intrinsic validity of the challenged by‑law disqualifications. Ultimately the Court unanimously granted the petition insofar as it sought inspection of SMI records; on the questions attacking the validity of the amended by‑laws and the ratification of the foreign investment the Court failed to obtain the necessary majority and therefore dismissed that portion of the petition for lack of necessary votes, while prescribing procedures (new hearing by SMC Board, appeal to SEC en banc, ultimate review here) for resolving any actual disqualification of petitioner.
Several separately filed opinions accompanied the judgment: an advance separate opinion by Justice...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court decide the intrinsic validity of the amended by‑laws now or remand the matter to the SEC as agency of primary jurisdiction?
- Are the amended by‑laws of San Miguel Corporation disqualifying competitors from nomination or election to the Board of Directors valid and reasonable?
- Did the Securities and Exchange Commission gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner access to the books and records of San Miguel International, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary)?
- Did the SEC gravely abuse its discretion in permitting stockholders to ratify SMC’s foreign investments (Item 6) instead of investi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)