Title
Salido, Jr. vs. Aramaywan Metals Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 233857
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2021
Intra-corporate dispute over share reduction; Supreme Court invalidated reduction due to lack of consideration, violation of corporate law, and non-compliance with procedures.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164820)

Emergence of Intra-corporate Dispute and Board Actions

At the first board meeting (Nov 25–26, 2005) the Salido faction alleged San Juan had only delivered P932,209.16 in cash and had not timely performed other obligations (e.g., registration of Narra Mining). The Salido faction proposed reducing San Juan’s shares from 55% to 15%. A February 5, 2006 special board meeting (convened by Atty. Roland Pay) allegedly adopted multiple resolutions: (1) confirming reduction of San Juan’s shares to 15%; (2) changing corporate address; (3) cancelling shares of Corazon and Cristina Marie by virtue of the reduction; (4) abandoning incorporation of Narra Mining; (5) authorizing Salido to transact for the corporation; (6) appointing Atty. Pay as corporate secretary; and (7) appointing a new treasurer. Both factions subsequently held rival meetings and filed conflicting General Information Sheets with the SEC.

RTC Ruling (February 14, 2012)

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint of the San Juan faction and rendered judgment validating: (a) the alleged agreement converting 10,000 shares of San Juan into treasury shares and cancelling the shares of Corazon and Cristina Marie; (b) the appointment of Atty. Roland Pay as corporate secretary; (c) the special board meeting of February 5, 2006 and subsequent meetings called by the Salido group; (d) Resolution Nos. 1–4, 6–7 (except Resolution No. 5 which it declared invalid but subject to ratification); and (e) the issuance of original unissued shares and treasury shares. The RTC concluded San Juan had voluntarily agreed to the reduction in exchange for release from his remaining monetary obligation and from the commitment to incorporate Narra Mining.

Court of Appeals Initial Decision and Amended Decision

The CA initially affirmed the RTC’s validation of the reduction and conversion into treasury shares, accepting that San Juan agreed to reduce his shares and that the corporation’s acquisition was justified as consideration for termination of San Juan’s remaining monetary obligation. On reconsideration the CA issued an Amended Decision (Jan. 31, 2017) reversing its prior affirmation: it found (a) the minutes did not show San Juan’s consent to the reduction; (b) evidence (the bank certificate and corporate filings) established that San Juan had advanced the full P2,500,000 in trust for Aramaywan and thus had fulfilled his Aramaywan-related obligation; (c) the reduction and conversion into treasury shares were invalid because the corporation lacked the necessary unrestricted retained earnings and no return of investment to San Juan occurred; and (d) failure to incorporate Narra Mining did not justify reduction of his Aramaywan shares. The CA nonetheless affirmed the validity of certain resolutions (e.g., abandonment of Narra incorporation, Atty. Pay’s appointment), but set aside the purported transfer of principal office (Taguig to Palawan) because that required stockholder assent and SEC approval.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its Amended Decision holding that San Juan’s shares were not validly reduced and converted into treasury shares.

Procedural Considerations under Rule 45

The Supreme Court emphasized Rule 45’s limitation to questions of law and the general bar on re-evaluation of factual findings. The petitioner (Salido) relied heavily on factual assertions (e.g., alleged agreement to reduce shares) and failed to attach critical portions of the record (notably, pertinent minutes) as required by Rule 45 Section 4. The petitioner also failed to file a reply pursuant to the Court’s order. These procedural deficiencies alone would warrant dismissal of the petition; nevertheless, the Court proceeded to examine substantive issues in the interest of substantial justice.

Legal Framework for Treasury Shares and Reacquisition

The Court examined Section 9 of the Corporation Code (definition of treasury shares) and the requirement that a corporation have unrestricted retained earnings to purchase or acquire its own shares (Section 41 of the Corporation Code; equivalent provisions in the Revised Corporation Code). Where reacquisition is sought due to unpaid subscriptions, the Code prescribes a delinquency sale procedure. The Court reiterated the trust fund doctrine: subscribed capital constitutes a trust fund for corporate creditors and cannot be returned or used inconsistent with statutory protections. Any reduction of capital or release of unpaid subscriptions must comply with statutory formalities (including SEC approval) and cannot be effected by unilateral board action absent compliance.

Application of Law to the Facts — Trust Fund, Payment, and Treasury Conversion

The Court found no evidence Aramaywan possessed unrestricted retained earnings at the time of the alleged conversion; Aramaywan had only recently been formed and had not conducted mining operations. San Juan’s payment was evidenced by the bank certificate indicating P2,500,000 held by him “in trust” for Aramaywan; this demonstrated that the subscription for Aramaywan had been fully paid and deposited for the corporation’s benefit, and the Articles of Incorporation and SEC incorporation certificate corroborated that P2,500,000 had been paid. Given that San Juan had already paid his Aramaywan subscription, the corporation could not validly reduce his shares without a corresponding return of investment or compliance with statutory mechanisms. The record contained no evidence of return or of unrestricted earnings to fund any reacquisition. If San Juan had unpaid subscriptions (which the Court found unproven), the statutory delinquency-sale procedure would have been the prescribed remedy, not an agreement at a board meeting to waive payments.

Consideration, Consent, and Cause

Even assuming arguendo that San Juan consented to reduce his shares, the Court held such agreement lacked lawful consideration. The RTC had characterized the termination of San Juan’s alleged unpaid obligation and the nonpursuit of Narra incorporation as the consideration for reduction. The Supreme Court rejected this: San Juan had no unpaid obligation to Aramaywan; his alleged obligation concerning Narra Mining (to “assure the payment” of Narra’s subscription) was not established in the record as a breach amounting to consideration for share reduction; and the parties’ Agreement did not clearly impose a fixed-time obligation to incorporate Narra. Under Article 1352 of the Civil Code, contracts without cause or consideration are void; thus, any purported agreement effecting reduction without adequate consideration or in violation of statutory protections is void.

Validity of Other Board Resolutions

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s disposition that certain board resolutions were validly adopted in the ordinary course of corporate business. Specifically, the abandonment of Narra’s incorporation (Resolution No. 04-2006), the reiteration/appointment regarding the corporate secretary (Resolution No. 06-2006), and the appointment of a treasurer (Resolution No. 07-2006) were valid where they concerned ordinary corporate business and were adopted by a quorum of directors as permitted in the by-laws and the Corporation Code. By contrast, the purported transfer of the corporation’s principal place of business (Resolution No. 02-2006) implicated an amendment of the articles of incorporation and therefore required (1) majority vote of the board, (2) written ass

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.