This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-09-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Upon the death of a shareholder, the heirs do not automatically become stockholders of the corporation and acquire the rights and privileges of the deceased as shareholder of the corporation. The stocks must be distributed first to the heirs in estate proceedings, and the transfer of the stocks must be recorded in the books of the corporation. Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides that no transfer shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is recorded in the books of the corporation.[16] During such interim period, the heirs stand as the equitable owners of the stocks, the executor or administrator duly appointed by the court being vested with the legal title to the stock.[17] Until a settlement and division of the estate is effected, the stocks of the decedent are held by the administrator or executor.[18] Consequently, during such time, it is the administrator or executor who is entitled to exercise the rights of the deceased as stockholder. | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We note that petitioner subsequently made up for its earlier lapse when it submitted a Secretary's Certificate[24] attesting that on August 9, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Corporation authorized Mr. Sunico "to sign the verification and/or certification of non-forum shopping of pleadings that may be filed by the corporation in the above mentioned case and in subsequent proceedings." While the authorization was submitted to the CA only after the issuance of the Resolution dismissing the petition, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, the initial procedural lapse may be excused.[25] It is well settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of substantial justice.[26] | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| We fully agree with the petitioner that it was physically impossible for the petition to have been prepared and sent to the petitioner in the United States, for him to travel from Virginia, U.S.A. to the nearest Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., in order to sign the certification before the Philippine Consul, and for him to send back the petition to the Philippines within the 15-day reglementary period. Thus, we find that petitioner has adequately explained his failure to personally sign the certification which justifies relaxation of the rule. [8] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[9] and in the recent case of Paul Lee Tan v. Paul Sycip and Merritto Lim[10] where the therein petitions before the Court of Appeals bore defective Verifications and Certifications of Non-forum Shopping, this Court excused the procedural lapse in the interest of substantial justice. | |||||