Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
COLLEGE OF LAW
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS
May 6, 2020
2. Explain the new rule on Founder’s Shares under the Revised Corporation
Code (RCC).
4. Explain the changes on the rule of Corporate Name under the New Code.
6. Mr. Den Yu incorporated DDS Co. in Davao City on April 2010. DDS Co.
was incorporated to engage in the fuel industry in Davao City. However, years
passed the business operations remained stale and inoperative. The buildings
were used as a storage facility of the Mr. Den Yu’s business in Metro Manila.
Today, ABS Co. questioned DDS Co.’s incorporation and asked the SEC to
investigate thereon. ABS Co. posits that the certificate of incorporation of
DDS Co. shall be revoked on the ground of Non-use of Corporate Charter and
Continuous Inoperations under the Revised Corporation Code. On the other
hand, Mr. Den Yu contends that DDS Co. serves as his storage facility for his
businesses in Metro Manila and should not be considered as non-use of
corporate charter of DDS Co. Is the contention of Mr. Den Yu tenable?
9. Enumerate the three (3) new corporate powers of every corporation under the
RCC.
10. Explain the concept of the Right of Appraisal. Enumerate the instances that it
may be exercised under the RCC.
11. In May 2018, ABC Corp. entered into a merchandising contract which terms
and conditions were totally lopsided in favor of the counterparty, XYZ, Inc.
As a result, ABC Corp. suffered tremendous financial losses.
12. In 2016, X Corp. obtained a loan worth ₱50,000,000.00 from J Bank, which
was secured by a third-party mortgage executed by Y, Inc. in favor of X Corp.
Since X Corp. was not able to settle its loan obligation to J Bank when it fell
due, and despite numerous demands, J Bank foreclosed the mortgaged
properties. The properties were sold in a foreclosure sale for ₱35,000,000.00,
thereby leaving a ₱15,000,000.00 deficiency. For failure of X Corp. to pay
said deficiency, J Bank filed a complaint for sum of money against X Corp.,
its President, Mr. P, and Y, Inc.
With respect to Mr. P, J Bank argued that he should be held solidarily liable
together with X Corp. because he signed the loan document on behalf of X
Corp. in his capacity as President. On the other hand, J Bank contended that
Y, Inc. should also be held solidarily liable because the shareholdings of both
corporations are identically owned and their operations are controlled by the
same people; hence, Y, Inc. is a mere alter ego of X Corp.
13. Mr. Y filed a case captioned as "Injunction with Prayer for Status Quo Order,
Temporary Restraining Order and Damages" against Z Company to prohibit
the latter from selling shares which Mr. Y purportedly bought from Z
Company. Mr. Y alleged that the subscription for the said shares was already
partly paid by him, but the subject shares were nonetheless being offered for
sale by Z Company to the corporation's other stockholders.
14. The principal office of Sta. Rosa Developers is in Pasig City. It decided to
hold a Board meeting at the office of one of its stockholders located in Hong
Kong, and a shareholders’ meeting at a hotel in BGC Taguig City. In deciding
to hold these meetings in the said venues, is there any violation of the
Corporation Code? Explain and state your legal basis.
17. SMC, Inc, issued a purchase order for 1,500 pairs of shoes of various designs
and materials from Havanas Company (HC), which the buyer of SMC
believed to be a corporation, for a total price of Php 400,000. HC completed
its delivery to SMC, but the latter withheld payment of the shoes. HC filed a
collection case against SM which raised as a defenses that its supplier
guidelines clearly stated that a supplier of at least Php250,000 worth of goods
must be duly incorporated under Philippine Law, that HC signed a
confirmation that it was qualified to be a supplier under the SMC guidelines
but in fact was merely an ostensible corporation and therefore SMC was not
liable to HC because of its misrepresentation. Was SMC correct? Explain.
18. Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Cruz (jointly “principals”) each own 20% of the
outstanding shares of ABC Land Corporation, which has a 5-man board. The
principals agreed to pool their shares and to vote for common nominees to be
chosen by them by mutual agreement. Further, before election, their nominees
must commit in writing that:
a. They will vote against any resolution to appropriate retained
earnings for any purpose;
b. They will get clearance from the principals on the election of
officers and will vote according to their instructions; and
c. They must seek approval of the principals before voiting on any
transaction that will require an expenditure by ABC of over Php
1 million.
Roberto, who was not a director but owned 10% of GSH’s outstanding shares,
wrote to the board of GSH demanding that the corporation should have
independent directors.
To appease Roberto, the board of GSH elected a 6th director, who was not a
stockholder but was Roberto’s brother, Diego. Leonardo, another GSH
stockholder, asks you for legal advice on whether the action of the board is
legal and whether GSH should have an independent director.