Title
Supreme Court
Lim vs. Lim-Yu
Case
G.R. No. 138343
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2001
Dispute over share issuance in LIMPAN; minority stockholder Patricia Lim-Yu sued, claiming preemptive rights violation. Supreme Court upheld her capacity to sue, affirming her personal action was valid, not barred by TRO.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 138343)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Corporate Resolution and Share Issuance
    • On 07 October 1994, a special meeting of the Board of Directors of Limpan Investment Corporation (LIMPAN) approved a resolution to make a partial payment for legal services rendered by Gilda C. Lim in the handling of various cases.
    • The approved resolution stipulated payment equivalent to P1,551,500.00 in the form of 15,515 shares of the corporation’s stock due to the absence of available funds.
    • The resolution authorized the Corporate Secretary to secure the legal requirements necessary for the issuance of said shares.
  • SEC Exemption and Capital Stock Subscription
    • On 18 October 1994, the Corporate Secretary, Jaime G. Manzano, filed a request with the SEC’s Corporate and Legal Affairs Department for an exemption of the 15,515 shares from the registration requirements under the Revised Securities Act.
    • The request was granted via a SEC Resolution dated 14 November 1994.
    • The issuance of the unsubscribed shares in favor of petitioner Gilda C. Lim resulted in full subscription of LIMPAN’s authorized capital stock, with Lim controlling 62.5% of the shares.
  • The SEC Complaint and Preemptive Rights Dispute
    • In July 1996, respondent Patricia Lim-Yu, a minority stockholder and sister of petitioner Lim, filed a complaint before the SEC (docketed as SEC Case No. 07-95-5114) against certain members of LIMPAN’s Board of Directors who approved the resolution.
    • Defendants (including Bundang, Velez, and Manzano) raised affirmative defenses arguing lack of capacity to sue and that the issuance of shares was bona fide and valid under law and the corporation’s by-laws.
    • Petitioners (Lim, Joven, and Lerios) filed a Motion to Dismiss, primarily on grounds of lack of legal capacity for respondent to sue, based on an existing guardianship order and the nature of the suit as allegedly derivative.
  • Guardianship Proceedings and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
    • Prior to the SEC complaint, petitioner Lim had filed for guardianship for respondent Lim-Yu, which resulted in an order by the Regional Trial Court enjoining Lim-Yu from entering into or binding transactions on her behalf or that of others.
    • On appeal, the Supreme Court in a related guardianship case issued a TRO defining the scope: while Lim-Yu (and her representatives) could act solely on her own behalf, they were barred from entering into agreements that would bind or affect the interests of her family members and the corporation.
  • SEC Hearing and Motions for Reconsideration
    • Acting on the Motion to Dismiss, SEC hearing officer Attorney Manuel Perea issued an order (05 January 1996) holding the resolution in abeyance pending clarification of the TRO by the parties, thereby questioning Lim-Yu’s capacity to file the suit.
    • Lim-Yu filed subsequent motions for reconsideration (first on 08 April 1996, then a second motion on 02 July 1996), all of which were denied on procedural grounds.
    • Following these denials, Lim-Yu petitioned for certiorari before the SEC En Banc seeking to set aside the prior order, which eventually led to the present petition for review.
  • Distinction of the Nature of the Suit
    • Petitioners argued that Lim-Yu’s suit was a derivative action that should have been barred by the TRO, as she was purported to be suing on behalf of the corporation rather than in her own interest.
    • Lim-Yu, on the other hand, contended that her action was intended solely to enforce her preemptive rights under Section 39 of the Corporation Code, not a derivative action meant to redress wrongs against the corporation.

Issues:

  • Legal Capacity to Sue
    • Whether the respondent, Patricia Lim-Yu, had the legal capacity to file the complaint, given that she was under a guardianship order which limited her actions to those purely on her own behalf.
    • Whether the enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibited her from instituting the suit, particularly in light of its dual components.
  • Nature of the Suit
    • Whether the suit filed by the respondent constituted a derivative suit (in which the corporation is the real party in interest) or a suit to enforce her preemptive rights as a shareholder.
    • The implications of characterizing the suit as derivative on the respondent’s capacity to sue.
  • Authority to Clarify TRO and Regulatory Actions
    • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its reliance solely on the first part of the Supreme Court’s TRO without considering its entire scope.
    • Whether the SEC hearing officer was correct in not seeking further clarification of the TRO, thereby assuming that the TRO’s application was self-evident.
  • Allegations of Conflicting SEC Positions and Laches
    • Whether the Court of Appeals wrongly allowed the SEC’s seemingly contradictory positions on similar matters, as underscored by reference to another SEC case.
    • Whether the respondent’s delayed filing of her motions (and alleged laches) should bar her from enforcing her preemptive rights.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.