Title
Aurbach vs. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 75875
Decision Date
Dec 15, 1989
A 1962 joint venture between ASI and Filipino investors deteriorated, leading to a 1983 board election dispute. The Supreme Court upheld the Filipino investors' election, ruling the agreement valid and protecting national interests.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75875)

Nature of the Enterprise: Joint Venture Versus Corporation

Although the Agreement disclaimed partnership status for third-party purposes, contemporaneous and subsequent conduct—board-seat allocation, veto powers, royalty payments, technology transfer and marketing controls—demonstrated a joint-venture arrangement. Under prevailing contract‐interpretation rules (Civ. Code Arts. 1370–1374), this integrated evidence manifested the parties’ true intention to form a joint venture rather than a purely corporate entity.

Disputed Election at the 1983 Stockholders’ Meeting

At the March 8, 1983 meeting, Filipino investors nominated six directors and ASI three. Salazar and Chamsay were nominated later but ruled out of order by the chairman. The chairman equally distributed all votes among the original nine nominees, denying cumulative votes cast by ASI and proxy holders for the additional two. Excluded stockholders reconvened elsewhere, certified five directors including Salazar and Chamsay, and triggered competing petitions before the SEC.

SEC Proceedings and Intermediate Appellate Decision

Consolidated SEC petitions (No. 2417 injunction; No. 2718 quo warranto) yielded a hearing officer’s ruling upholding the Filipino group’s election. The SEC En Banc affirmed. The Intermediate Appellate Court then remanded for a new meeting under Commission supervision. Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals amended its decision to limit ASI to three nominees and to allow intra-group cumulative voting for Filipino shareholders selecting six nominees.

Issues on Contract Enforcement and Voting Rights

Petitioners contended that the Agreement’s nomination‐designation scheme unlawfully restricted statutory cumulative voting (Corp. Code Sec. 24) and infringed property rights without due process. They argued that only nine slots should be filled by consensus among all stockholders and that ASI must be allowed to cumulate all its votes for any nominee.

Interpretation of Shareholder Voting Agreements

Under Corp. Code Sec. 100(2), written voting agreements among stockholders are valid beyond close corporations. The Supreme Court recognized that joint-venture corporations regularly modify statutory voting rules by contract. The Agreement’s Sec. 5(a) on designation and Sec. 3(a)(1) on cumulative voting must be read together to give effect both to the agreed board‐seat allocation and to cumulative voting within each group.

Board Composition and Cumulative Voting Framework

The Court held that ASI may designate only three directors as contractually fixed, preserving its minority position and complying with nationalization and Anti-Dummy Act ratios. Filipino shareholders may exercise cumulative voting among themselves to select six directors, without ASI’s interference. This dual approach respects the contractual division of seats and protects each group’s voting ri

...continue reading

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