CASES:
1. WPM International Trading vs. Labayen (GR 182770, September 2014)
2. Nuccio Saverio and NS International, Inc. vs. Alfonso G. Puyat (GR
186433, November 2013)
3. Union Bank versus Spouses Alfredo and Susansa Ong and Jackson Lee
(GR 152347, June 2006)
4. Litonjua versus Eternit Corporation (GR 144805, June 2006)
5. Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corp. vs. Sandiganbayan (GR
174462, February 2016).
6. General Credit Corporation vs. Alsons Development and Investment
Corporation
(GR 154975; January 29, 2007)
7. Liddle & Co., Inc. vs. CIR (GR L-9687; June 1961)
8. Francisco Motors vs. Court of Appeals (GR 100812; June 1999)
9. I/AME vs. Litton and Company (GR 191525; December 2017)
10. Tan Boon Bee & Co. vs. Jarencio (GR L-41337; June 1988)
11. Kukan International Corporation vs. Hon. Amor Reyes (GR 182729;
September 2010)
12. Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corporation vs. Redmont
Consolidated Mines (GR 195580; April 2014 and January 2015)
13. MIAA vs. Court of Appeals (GR 155650; July 2006)
14. BASECO vs. PCGG (GR L-75885; May 1987)
15. Pedro R. Palting vs. San Jose Petroleum, Inc. (G.R. L-14441; 12/17/66)
16. Uchuan vs. Lozada (GR 172671; April 16, 2009)
17. Gamboa vs. Teves (GR 176579; October 9, 2012)
18. Concept Builders, Inc. vs. NLRC (GR 108734; 29 May 1996)
19. Marc II Marketing vs. Joson (GR 171993, 12 December 2011)
20. Lim vs. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (GR 136448, 3 November
1999)
21. Grace Christian High School vs. Court of Appeals (GR 108905, 23
October 1997)
CORPORATE POWERS:
Power to sue and be sued:
Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar (350 SCRA 475 [2001])
Power to sue is a business discretion of the BOD
Exception – derivative suit filed by a relator-stockholder
Power to receive summons – “corporate agents” can no longer receive
summons / term “agent” no longer found in the 1997 Rules of Procedure
(Section 11, Rule 14). This is the ruling in EB Villarosa & Partners Co.,
Ltd v. Benito.
In South Cotabato Communications Corporation vs. Sto. Tomas –
President can sign verification even without Board resolution since he is
among the enumerated corporate officers authorized to receive
summons on behalf of the corporation
Power to sell, lease dispose, or encumber assets
Firme vs. Bukal Enterprises and Development Corporation (414
SCRA 190 [2003])
Although agents may be appointed, the final say is with the
BOD
Re Power to Invest – see SEC Opinion dated 21 August 1995
Investments cannot be legally disposed of by mere
endorsement of the President
Power to enter into loans
China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (270 SCRA 503;
[1997])
Needs approval of the BOD; cannot be treated simply as “in
accordance with the ordinary course of business usages and
practices”
Power to make donations
Pirovano v. De la Rama Steamship Co. (40 Phil. 335 [1954])
Hair-splitting; donation given to minor children of its late
president;
Grant of proceeds of insurance to them was ruled not ultra-
vires because it was approved by the stockholders.
Premium White Cement Corp. v. IAC (220 SCRA 103 [1993])
Main obligation of the Board – maximum profits
Doctrine of Maximization Shareholder Value