Title
Supreme Court
Metroplex Berhad vs. Sinophil Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 208281
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2021
Sinophil’s capital stock reduction upheld; petitioners’ claims of procedural irregularities dismissed. SEC’s approval deemed ministerial, compliant with Corporation Code. Business judgment rule applied.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 166414)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties
    • Petitioners
      • Metroplex Berhad – Malaysian corporation in liquidation
      • Paxell Investment Limited – Western Somoan corporation
    • Respondents
      • Sinophil Corporation – Philippine publicly-listed corporation
      • Belle Corporation – Philippine publicly-listed corporation
      • SEC officers – Heads and division chiefs of CRMD, CFD, CPRD, FAAD
  • Share Swap and Unwinding Agreements
    • 1998 Swap Agreement
      • Metroplex and Paxell transferred 40% of Legend International shares
      • They received 3.87 billion shares of Sinophil in exchange
      • Metroplex pledged 2 billion Sinophil shares to secure Legend’s loans
    • 2001 Unwinding Agreement
      • Parties rescinded the Swap Agreement
      • Petitioners failed to return 1.87 billion Sinophil shares; 2 billion remained pledged
  • Capital Stock Reductions and SEC Approvals
    • First Reduction
      • February 18, 2002 – Shareholders approved decrease
      • March 28, 2006 – CRMD and CFD approved 1.87 billion-share reduction
      • March 29, 2006 – Disclosure to Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE)
    • Second Reduction
      • June 21, 2007 – Shareholders approved further 1 billion-share reduction
      • June 24, 2008 – CRMD and CFD approved amendment
      • June 30, 2008 – Disclosure to PSE
  • Procedural History
    • SEC Proceedings
      • July 21, 2008 – Petition for Review Ad Cautelam filed by Yaw, Metroplex, Paxell
      • February 26, 2009 – SEC denied petition; held reduction complied with Corp. Code Sec. 38
    • Court of Appeals
      • January 29, 2013 – CA affirmed SEC in toto
      • July 17, 2013 – CA denied motion for reconsideration
    • Supreme Court
      • June 28, 2021 – Resolution of Petition for Review on Certiorari

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the SEC’s order approving the selective reduction of Sinophil’s issued capital.
  • Whether the SEC had jurisdiction to review the Operating Departments’ approval of the capital stock amendments.
  • Whether Sinophil complied with all legal and procedural requirements under Section 38 of the Corporation Code and other relevant doctrines.
  • Whether petitioners were entitled to injunctive relief (TRO and preliminary injunction) against respondents.

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.