Title
Calatagan Golf Club, Inc. vs. Clemente, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 165443
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2009
Clemente's share was wrongfully auctioned due to unpaid dues; Calatagan failed proper notice. SC ruled in his favor, awarding damages for bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165443)

Background of the Case

Sixto Clemente, Jr. applied for membership and purchased one share of stock in Calatagan Golf Club, Inc. on May 2, 1990, paying the full price of ₱120,000.00 for his share. His membership required payment of monthly dues as stipulated in the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the club, which were also printed on the back of the stock certificate. At the time of Clemente’s membership, monthly dues were ₱400.00. Clemente made partial payments but ceased paying dues, accruing a balance of ₱400.00 by December 1991.

Dues and Delinquency Procedures

The Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws explicitly provided that monthly dues were mandatory and constituted a first lien on shares, allowing the club to foreclose and sell shares of delinquent members to satisfy unpaid obligations. The relevant By-Laws mandated that delinquent members for more than 60 days would be reported to the Board of Directors, who could then order the sale of the members’ shares at a public auction. Specific procedural safeguards included mailing notices to the delinquent member, posting notices on the club’s bulletin board, and allowing the member to pay overdue accounts before sale to prevent foreclosure.

Notice Attempts and Foreclosure

Calatagan sent three demand letters to Clemente’s mailing address as provided in his application, all of which were returned marked “address closed.” Despite this, Calatagan proceeded with the foreclosure process. On December 1, 1992, the Board of Directors authorized the auction of shares of delinquent members, including Clemente’s. The final demand letter was sent on December 7, 1992, warning of impending sale, again to the closed address. The auction was held on January 15, 1993, where Clemente’s share was sold for ₱64,000.

Clemente’s Claim and Initial SEC Decision

Clemente discovered the sale only in November 1997 and filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking restoration of his share and damages. The SEC dismissed the complaint on November 15, 2000, ruling that the six-month prescriptive period under Section 69 of the Corporation Code, governing actions to recover delinquent shares sold, barred Clemente’s claim. The SEC also held that Calatagan complied with notice requirements and that Clemente acted in bad faith by assuming his share would become inactive, not forfeited.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On June 1, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the SEC decision. It held that Section 69 of the Corporation Code, which applies to unpaid capital stock subscriptions, did not govern unpaid monthly dues in a non-stock corporation setting, where the share was fully paid. It determined that the appropriate prescriptive period was eight years under Article 1140 of the Civil Code, as the action involved recovery of a movable (the stock certificate). Therefore, the claim was not time-barred.

The appellate court further found that Calatagan failed to comply with its own By-Laws’ notice requirement. Despite knowing that the address used for prior demand letters was closed, Calatagan’s Corporate Secretary sent the final demand letter to the same invalid address without using Clemente’s residential address or telephone numbers, which were available in club records. The court emphasized the importance of due notice given the imminent loss of property rights through auction sale. As such, Calatagan acted in bad faith by knowingly sending a crucial demand letter to an unreachable address.

Legal Analysis on the Applicability of Section 69 and Civil Code Provisions

The Court distinguished between sales under Section 68-69 of the Corporation Code, which deal with unpaid subscriptions for stock, and the case at bar where the stock was fully paid and the sale was due to unpaid membership dues constituting a lien. Since Clemente had fully paid the stock subscription, these provisions were not applicable. The Court referred to several Civil Code provisions:

  • Article 1140, prescribing an eight-year period for recovery of movables;
  • Article 1146 and 1149, argued by Calatagan, were found inapplicable;
  • Articles 19, 20, and 21, imposing obligations to act in good faith and pay damages for injury arising from bad faith acts.

These supported the conclusion that Calatagan’s action was unjustified and harmful.

By-Laws Compliance and Due Process Requirements

Calatagan’s Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws explicitly required:

  • The Club must notify members within ten days after authorization of sale;
  • Notices to be posted and communicated properly to ensure opportunity to prevent sale;
  • Pending sale, members may settle accounts to stop foreclosure;
  • Proceeds after sale must cover unpaid dues, with any excess returned to former member; and
  • Cancellation of unreturned stock certificates must be recorded and publicly announced.

The Court of Appeals found Calatagan failed to properly notify Clemente as mandated, especially given the availability of alternative contact information. This lack of proper notice deprived Clemente of due process, invalidating the foreclosure sale despite having observed formal steps.

Bad Faith and Consequences

Calatagan’s persistence in sending the final warning letter to a closed address, despite knowledge thereof, de

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.