Title
Cua, Jr. vs. Tan
Case
G.R. No. 181455-56
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2009
PRCI minority stockholders filed derivative suits challenging JTH acquisition and property-for-shares exchange, dismissed due to stockholder ratification, mootness, and procedural flaws.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181455-56)

Factual Background

• PRCI, a PSE-listed franchise holder operating Sta. Ana Racetrack (Makati) and a Cavite site, amends its purposes (1999) to include real-estate development.
• 26 Sep 2006: PRCI Board approves acquisition of up to 100% of JTH shares (₱10.71/share; escrow deposit ₱20 M); designates attorneys-in-fact to vote PRCI’s acquired JTH shares and appoint JTH directors.
• 7 Nov 2006: Special PRCI stockholders’ meeting (84.42% attendance) ratifies acquisition and related arrangements.
• Year-end 2006: PRCI attains 98.19% JTH ownership; delivers consolidated audited financials.
• 11 May 2007: Board approves exchange of Makati property (zonal value ₱3.817 B) for unissued JTH shares (₱397.9 M par value); calls for stockholder ratification.

RTC Proceedings and Injunctions

• 10 Jul 2007: Minority stockholders file Civil Case No. 07-610 (derivative suit) seeking TRO/preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin PRCI Board from presenting in the 17 Jul 2007 meeting three agenda items:

  1. Approval of prior meeting minutes
  2. Ratification of Board and management acts (FY 2006)
  3. Approval of Makati property exchange
    • 16 Jul 2007: RTC grants 20-day TRO against agenda items, bond ₱100,000
    • 17 Jul 2007: Annual meeting fails for lack of quorum
    • 8 Oct 2007: RTC issues permanent injunction until case resolution
    • 18 Jun 2008: Despite injunctions, PRCI convenes and stockholders (86.52%) approve the three items
    • 7 Jul 2008–22 Aug 2008: PRCI and JTH execute and then rescind the property-for-shares transfer after BIR revokes tax-free ruling

CA Proceedings and Rulings

• CA-G.R. SP No. 99769 & 99780: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed to contest the 16 Jul and 8 Oct 2007 RTC resolutions
• 6 Sep 2007: CA dismisses petitions—finds no grave abuse, TRO did not prevent meeting, petitioners lacked quorum, TRO period expired, issues factual and premature
• 22 Jan 2008: CA denies motions for reconsideration and refuses supplemental petitions—no leave for new causes of action (permanent injunction challenge)

Issues

  1. Were there procedural infirmities in Santiago Sr.’s Rule 65 petition?
  2. Should Civil Case No. 07-610 be dismissed?
  3. Should Civil Case No. 08-458 (filed by another minority group) be dismissed?
  4. May APRI intervene as co-respondent?

Supreme Court Analysis

Procedural Infirmities

  • Forum-shopping not established (distinct parties; consolidation prevents conflict; certification not jurisdictional)
  • Rule 65 petition for CA decisions was technically wrong remedy (should be Rule 45), but rules relaxed in interest of justice

Derivative-Suit Principles

  • Board of directors controls corporate affairs; courts interfere only for breach of fiduciary duty when intracorporate remedies are futile
  • Derivative suit is in the corporation’s right; stockholder is nominal party; corporation is indispensable real party-in-interest (must be impleaded)
  • IRPICC Rule 8, Sec. 1 requires exhaustion of internal remedies and non-availability of appraisal rights for challenged acts

Dismissal of Civil Case No. 07-610

  • Acquisition of JTH ratified by 74% vote at 7 Nov 2006 stockholders’ meeting: challenge moot; majority stockholders indispensable
  • Property-for-shares exchange was subject to appraisal rights (substantially all assets), unexercised and internal remedies unexhausted; later ratified at 18 Jun 2008 meeting; transaction rescinded after BIR ruling—no live controversy
  • Inspection claim fails: demand complied with; denial by corporate secretary, not director-d

    ...continue reading

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