Title
Valle Verde Country Club, Inc. vs. Africa
Case
G.R. No. 151969
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2009
Corporate governance dispute: VVCC board's holdover directors invalidly filled vacancies post-term expiration, violating Corporation Code provisions.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 151969)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Initial Election and Hold-Over
    • On February 27, 1996, during the Annual Stockholders’ Meeting of Valle Verde Country Club, Inc. (VVCC), nine directors were elected: Ernesto Villaluna, Jaime C. Dinglasan, Eduardo Makalintal, Francisco Ortigas III, Victor Salta, Amado M. Santiago, Jr., Fortunato Dee, Augusto Sunico, and Ray Gamboa.
    • From 1997 to 2001, stockholders’ meetings lacked a quorum, resulting in the above-named directors continuing in a hold-over capacity.
  • Resignations and Board Elections
    • On September 1, 1998, Dinglasan resigned. On October 6, 1998, the remaining directors, constituting a quorum, elected Eric Roxas to fill the vacancy.
    • On November 10, 1998, Makalintal resigned. On March 6, 2001, the remaining directors, still a quorum, elected Jose Ramirez to fill that vacancy.
  • Proceedings Before SEC and RTC
    • Victor Africa, a VVCC member, challenged Roxas’s election before the SEC (SEC Case No. 01-99-6177) and Ramirez’s election before the Regional Trial Court (RTC Civil Case No. 68726), invoking Sections 23 and 29 of the Corporation Code.
    • The SEC, on June 3, 2003, nullified Roxas’s appointment; the RTC, on January 23, 2002, nullified Ramirez’s appointment. VVCC did not appeal the SEC decision.
  • Petition for Review
    • VVCC filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising the purely legal question of whether hold-over directors can elect replacements for vacancies caused by resignations.
    • VVCC contended that under Section 23, terms last until successors are elected and qualified, so no term expiration had occurred before the board elections; and that Section 29 permits the board to fill such vacancies.

Issues:

  • Whether the remaining directors, constituting a quorum, may elect a new director to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of a hold-over director.
  • Whether the hold-over period extends a director’s one-year term for purposes of Section 29’s “unexpired term” requirement.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.