Title
Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas
Case
G.R. No. 113032
Decision Date
Aug 21, 1997
Minority shareholders of WIT sued majority board members for estafa and falsification over retroactive compensation. SC denied civil liability post-acquittal, ruling compensation lawful and case not a derivative suit.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113032)

Criminal complaints — charges, factual allegations, and amounts claimed

On March 13, 1991, petitioners filed an affidavit-complaint leading to two informations: (1) falsification of a public document (Art. 171 RPC) — alleged submission to the SEC of an income statement for fiscal year 1985–1986 falsely representing that Resolution No. 48 was passed on March 30, 1986 (within that fiscal year) when it was allegedly passed on June 1, 1986; and (2) estafa (Art. 315(1)(b) RPC) — alleging wrongful disbursement of P186,470.70 as retroactive salaries and continued unauthorized salary payments totaling P1,453,970.79 as of November 15, 1991, plus periodic P19,500 disbursements every 15th and 30th.

Procedural history — consolidation, trial, RTC decision, and petition for certiorari

The two criminal cases were consolidated for trial in RTC Branch 33. After full hearing, the trial court acquitted the accused on both counts (September 6, 1993) and did not impose civil liability. Petitioners moved for reconsideration solely as to civil liability; the motion was denied (November 23, 1993). Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the civil aspect of the RTC decision. WIT later sought and obtained leave to intervene in this Court, disclaiming authority of the counsel who filed the petition and praying for dismissal.

Issue presented

Whether the private respondents, by adopting and acting pursuant to Resolution No. 48 (granting retroactive and continuing compensation), violated Section 30 of the Corporation Code so as to incur criminal and civil liability (falsification of public document, estafa) and whether petitioners may pursue corporate recovery through the present judicial route or must proceed via SEC derivative action.

Legal framework on director compensation (Section 30, Corporation Code)

Section 30 bars directors from receiving compensation "as such directors" except reasonable per diems, unless (a) the by-laws fix their compensation or (b) the stockholders representing a majority of outstanding capital stock approve at a regular or special stockholders’ meeting. The provision also caps total yearly compensation of directors, as such, at ten percent of net income before income tax of the preceding year. The statutory phrase "as such directors" limits the prohibition to compensation for services performed purely in the capacity of director; it does not preclude compensation payable to a trustee who concurrently serves in a separate corporate officer capacity.

Court’s interpretation — officers versus directors/trustees

The Court emphasized that Section 30’s proscription concerns compensation for services “as such directors,” and that directors/trustees may be compensated when they render services in a capacity distinct from their board role — i.e., as corporate officers. Resolution No. 48 granted compensation expressly to the officers of the corporation (Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Corporate Treasurer, Corporate Secretary) for services rendered and not to the respondents solely in their capacity as trustees; therefore, Section 30’s bar on director compensation “as such” did not apply.

Authority under articles and by-laws; RTC’s factual findings on timing of adoption

The RTC found, based on the complete minutes and incorporated corporate instruments, that the grant of compensation was authorized by the Articles of Incorporation and the Amended By-Laws (specifically by-law provisions allowing officers to receive compensation fixed by the Board). The trial court also found that the evidence established the resolution was part of the March 30, 1986 minutes rather than being exclusively a product of a June 1 special meeting, undermining the prosecution’s claim of falsification. These factual findings were upheld as amply supported by the record.

Falsification and estafa claims — RTC’s reasoning and legal effect

On falsification (Art. 171), the RTC concluded the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resolution was not passed on March 30, 1986 and that the income statement submitted to the SEC was knowingly falsified. On estafa (Art. 315(1)(b)), the court found no abuse of confidence or misappropriation because the salaries disbursed were paid pursuant to a Board resolution authorized by the corporate charter and by-laws; the funds received "belong to them" insofar as the compensation was legitimately granted. Thus criminal culpability was not established.

Derivative suit argument and SEC jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes

Petitioners argued they were pursuing a derivative action on behalf of WIT to annul Resolution No. 48. The Court rejected that characterization: the present proceeding was an appeal on the civil aspect of criminal cases, not a properly pleaded derivative suit. The Court reiterated that a derivative suit must be clearly alleged and filed in the proper tribunal; PD No. 902-A (and implementing circulars/rules) vests original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies, including derivative actions, with the SEC. A derivative action filed in the regular courts instead of the SEC is improperly filed and jurisdictionally defective; the SEC’s decision, if appealed, proceeds to the Court of Appeals and thereafter b

...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.