Title
Teng vs. Securities and Exchange Commission
Case
G.R. No. 184332
Decision Date
Feb 17, 2016
Dispute over share transfer registration; Supreme Court ruled surrender of stock certificates not required for book registration but necessary for new issuance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184332)

Petitioner and Respondent

  • Petitioner: Anna Teng, in her capacity as corporate secretary of TCL.
  • Respondent: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ting Ping Lay.

Key Dates

  • February 2, 1979; September 22, 1985; September 2, 1989: Dates of share acquisitions by Ting Ping Lay.
  • July 20, 1994: SEC Hearing Officer’s decision granting mandamus relief.
  • June 11, 1996: SEC en banc order modifying liability for damages.
  • January 31, 1997: Court of Appeals dismissal of SEC en banc decision appeal.
  • January 5, 2001: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 129777 affirming lower court rulings.
  • August 9, 2006: SEC order granting alias writ of execution.
  • April 29, 2008; August 28, 2008: Court of Appeals decision and resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 99836 denying Teng’s petition to quash the writ.
  • February 17, 2016: Supreme Court decision in the present petition.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Corporation Code, Section 63 (manner of transferring shares and issuance of certificates)

Factual Background

Ting Ping Lay acquired shares in TCL from three transferors: 480 shares from Peter Chiu (1979), 1,400 shares from Teng Ching Lay (1985), and 1,440 shares from Ismaelita Maluto (1989). He requested the corporate secretary, Anna Teng, to record these transfers in the Stock and Transfer Book and to issue new certificates of stock. They refused, prompting Ting Ping Lay to file a petition for mandamus with the SEC.

Procedural History

  1. SEC Hearing Officer (1994): Ordered TCL and Teng to record transfers, issue new certificates, and pay moral damages and attorney’s fees.
  2. SEC en banc (1996): Affirmed with modification, holding Teng solely liable for damages.
  3. Court of Appeals (1997): Dismissed appeal for lack of timeliness.
  4. Supreme Court (2001): Denied review and affirmed CA dismissal in G.R. No. 129777.
  5. RTC interpleader (2004–2005): Proceeding on ownership dispute over the 1,400 shares; partial decision in favor of Henry Teng.
  6. SEC alias writ of execution (2006): Enforced recording and issuance of certificates covering the 480 and 1,440 shares.
  7. CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 99836 (2008): Denied Teng’s petition to quash the alias writ.
  8. Present petition for certiorari under Rule 45 (2016).

Issue

Whether surrender of the original certificates of stock is a requisite condition before registering share transfers in the corporate books and issuing new certificates under Section 63 of the Corporation Code.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It affirmed the CA’s decision and ordered:

  • Respondent Ting Ping Lay to surrender the original certificates covering Chiu’s and Maluto’s shares.
  • Petitioner Anna Teng (or the incumbent corporate secretary) to cancel those certificates and issue new ones in Ting Ping Lay’s name, including shares not previously covered by any certificate.

Reasoning

  1. Nature of Stock Certificates: Certificates are merely tangible evidence of ownership; the shares themselves are personal property.
  2. Transfer under Section 63: Valid transfer requires (a) delivery of the certificate by transferor to transferee, (b) endorsement, and (c) recording in the corporate books. Surrender to the corporation is not a precondition for recording.
  3. Ministerial Duty: Recording transfers and issuing new certificates is a purely ministerial act; refusal without legal basis may be remedied by mandamus.
  4. Precedents:
    • Fil-Estate Golf v. Vertex Sales (2013): Physical delivery to the transferee is essential.
    • Rural Bank of Salinas v. CA (1992): Corporations cannot impose restrictions on transfers beyond Section 63; secretarial duties are ministerial.
  5. Surrender for Cancellation vs. Registration: While surrender of the old certificate is necessary before issuing a new one (to effect canc

...continue reading

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