HENRY FLEISCHER v. BOTICA NOLASCO CO., INC. G.R. No. L-23241, March 14, 1925

HENRY FLEISCHER v. BOTICA NOLASCO CO., INC.

G.R. No. L-23241, March 14, 1925

Corporation Law Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (15 March 2016)

(Topic: Consideration for Stocks and Transfer)

FACTS:

On November 15, 1923, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Botica Nolasco, Inc., alleging that he became the owner of five shares of stock of said corporation, by purchase from their original owner, one Manuel Gonzalez; that the said shares were fully paid; and that the defendant refused to register said shares in his name in the books of the corporation in spite of repeated demands to that effect made by him upon said corporation, which refusal caused him damages amounting to P500.

The defendant again filed a demurrer on the ground that the amended complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that said amended complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible, uncertain, which demurrer was overruled by the court.

The defendant answered the amended complaint denying generally and specifically each and every one of the material allegations thereof, and, as a special defense, alleged that the defendant, pursuant to article 12 of its by-laws, had preferential right to buy from the plaintiff said shares at the par value of P100 a share, plus P90 as dividends corresponding to the year 1922, and that said offer was refused by the plaintiff. The defendant prayed for a judgment absolving it from all liability under the complaint and directing the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant the five shares of stock in question, and to pay damages in the sum of P500, and the costs.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Article 12 of the by-laws of the Botica Nolasco, Inc.,  constitutes a by-law or regulation adopted by the Botica Nolasco, Inc., governing the transfer of shares of stock of said corporation?

RULING:

No.

As a general rule, the by-laws of a corporation are valid if they are reasonable and calculated to carry into effect the objects of the corporation, and are not contradictory to the general policy of the laws of the land.

Under a statute authorizing by- laws for the transfer of stock, a corporation can do no more than prescribe a general mode of transfer on the corporate books and cannot justify an unreasonable restriction upon the right of sale.

The only restraint imposed by the Corporation Law upon transfer of shares is found in section 35 of Act No. 1459, quoted above, as follows: "No transfer, however, shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is entered and noted upon the books of the corporation so as to show the names of the parties to the transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the certificate, and the number of shares transferred." This restriction is necessary in order that the officers of the corporation may know who are the stockholders, which is essential in conducting elections of officers, in calling meeting of stockholders, and for other purposes. but any restriction of the nature of that imposed in the by-law now in question, is ultra vires, violative of the property rights of shareholders, and in restraint of trade.