View full case

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between China Banking Corporation (CBC) and Valley Golf & Country Club, Inc. (VGCCI) over a pledged stock certificate owned by Galicano Calapatia, Jr. Calapatia pledged his stock certificate to CBC in 1974. In 1983, Calapatia obtained a loan from CBC and used the pledge agreement as security. However, Calapatia failed to repay his loan and CBC filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure in 1985. CBC informed VGCCI about the foreclosure proceedings and requested the transfer of the pledged stock to its name. VGCCI refused due to Calapatia's unsettled accounts with the club. Despite VGCCI's refusal, CBC emerged as the highest bidder in the foreclosure auction and was issued a certificate of sale.

VGCCI demanded payment from Calapatia for his unpaid accounts and published a notice of auction sale of various stock certificates, including Calapatia's. VGCCI terminated Calapatia's membership due to the sale of his share of stock in the auction. CBC informed VGCCI that it was the new owner of Calapatia's stock and requested a new certificate in its name. VGCCI, however, claimed that they sold the stock in the auction due to delinquency.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed CBC's case for lack of jurisdiction, identifying it as an intra-corporate dispute. CBC then filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking nullification of the auction and issuance of a new certificate. The SEC hearing officer ruled in favor of VGCCI, but the SEC en banc reversed the decision and ordered the nullification of the auction and issuance of a new certificate in CBC's name. VGCCI sought reconsideration, but it was denied. VGCCI then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which nullified the SEC orders and dismissed CBC's original complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initially took cognizance of the case, but CBC argued that the dispute is not within the SEC's jurisdiction. CBC claimed that the controversy does not fall under any of the relationships where the SEC can exercise jurisdiction, as enumerated in Union Glass and Container Corporation vs. SEC. The SEC ruled in favor of VGCCI, but the Court of Appeals nullified and set aside the SEC's decision, stating that the controversy is not within the SEC's competence. CBC's petition for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals. CBC then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, raising issues concerning the jurisdiction of the SEC and the ownership of the stock in question.

The petitioner purchased a share or membership certificate of the VGCCI at a public auction and received a corresponding Certificate of Sale. VGCCI did not contest the transfer and even recognized the pledge agreement between the original owner and the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner became a bona fide stockholder of VGCCI. A conflict then arose between the petitioner and VGCCI regarding the prior right over the subject share, with VGCCI claiming that its corporate by-laws should prevail. The dispute centers on the interpretation and application of VGCCI's by-laws, which necessitates the expertise of the SEC. The Court emphasized the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions to promptly resolve technical or factual disputes, subject to judicial review in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has jurisdiction over the case.

  2. Whether the petitioner is estopped from denying that there is intra-corporate relations with the respondent.

  3. Whether the pledge agreement between China Banking Corp. and Calapatia is null and void for lack of consideration.

  4. Whether VGCCI had the right to sell Calapatia's pledged share due to his failure to settle delinquent accounts.

  5. Whether China Banking Corp. is bound by VGCCI's by-laws.

  6. Whether the by-law of the corporation restricting the transfer of shares is binding on a third party transferee.

  7. Whether the third party pledgee is bound by the by-law.

  8. Whether or not a pledge of a membership share in a corporation constitutes a valid security for a debt owed by the pledgor to the pledgee.

  9. Whether or not the pledgee can enforce its rights over the pledged share without complying with the restrictive provisions in the corporation's by-laws.

  10. Whether or not the pledgee can enforce its rights over the pledged share if it has notice of the corporation's claim against the pledgor.

RULING:

  1. The SEC has jurisdiction over the case. The Court recognizes the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience, and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factual matters. In this case, the SEC's expertise is necessary to analyze and interpret the corporation's by-laws and the applicable provisions of the Corporation Code.

  2. The petitioner is not estopped from denying intra-corporate relations with the respondent. The filing of a complaint with a court that has no jurisdiction does not prevent the plaintiff from filing the same complaint later with the competent court. In this case, the petitioner's prior position in another complaint before the RTC of Makati does not estop them from claiming that the case is intra-corporate and should be within the jurisdiction of the SEC.

  3. The pledge agreement between China Banking Corp. and Calapatia is not null and void for lack of consideration. The terms of the pledge explicitly state that it shall stand as security for any future advancements or renewals that Calapatia may obtain from China Banking Corp. Thus, the pledge agreement is valid.

  4. VGCCI did not have the right to sell Calapatia's pledged share. VGCCI failed to inform China Banking Corp., the recognized pledgee, of the delinquency notices and the auction sale of the pledged share. VGCCI disregarded China Banking Corp.'s rights as a pledgee, and its actuations demonstrate bad faith.

  5. China Banking Corp. is not bound by VGCCI's by-laws. While the general rule is that third persons are not bound by the by-laws of a corporation, VGCCI argues that China Banking Corp. had actual knowledge of the by-laws. However, the court ruled that the by-laws did not have any effect on China Banking Corp. as it had no knowledge of the by-laws when it acquired the pledged share in good faith and for valuable consideration.

  6. The by-law of the corporation restricting the transfer of shares is not binding on a third party transferee. The unauthorized by-law cannot operate to defeat the rights of a third person who acquired the shares in good faith and for a valuable consideration.

  7. The third party pledgee is not bound by the by-law. The pledge agreement was contracted in good faith and without knowledge of the provisions of the by-law. The pledgee's right to the pledged shares is entitled to full protection.

  8. A pledge of a membership share in a corporation constitutes a valid security for a debt owed by the pledgor to the pledgee.

  9. The pledgee can enforce its rights over the pledged share without complying with the restrictive provisions in the corporation's by-laws.

  10. The pledgee can enforce its rights over the pledged share even if it has notice of the corporation's claim against the pledgor.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The doctrine of primary jurisdiction recognizes that questions demanding the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge and experience of an administrative tribunal should be resolved by them. (Abejo v. De la Cruz)

  • The lawmaking authority prefers to vest jurisdiction in administrative bodies unless the law speaks clearly and unequivocally. (Ebon v. De Guzman)

  • The Supreme Court strives to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding to avoid further litigation and ensure expeditious administration of justice. (Heirs of Crisanta Gabriel-Almoradie v. Court of Appeals)

  • The Supreme Court has the authority to review matters, even those not raised on appeal, if their consideration is necessary for a just disposition of the case. (China Banking Corp., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.)

  • Pledge agreements may stand as security for any future advancements or renewals.

  • Rights of a pledgee must be respected, and the pledgee must be notified of any delinquency or auction sale of the pledged property.

  • Third persons are generally not bound by the by-laws of a corporation unless they have actual or constructive knowledge of the by-laws.

  • Third persons are not bound by by-laws, except when they have knowledge of the provisions either actually or constructively.

  • Third party transferees who acquire shares in good faith and for a valuable consideration are not bound by unauthorized by-laws.

  • Pledgees are entitled to retain possession of the pledged stock until the pledgor pays or tenders the amount due on the debt secured.

  • To cancel the pledged certificate and issue a new certificate to a third person would defeat the right of the pledgee.

  • The right of a pledgee to resort to the pledged collateral for the payment of the debt is not defeated by a third person who purchases the same certificate covered by the pledge (Doctrine of First in Time, First in Right).

  • A bona fide pledgee takes the pledged collateral free from any latent or secret equities or liens in favor of the corporation or third persons, if the pledgee has no notice thereof (Doctrine of Bona Fide Purchase for Value).

  • A bona fide pledgee takes the pledged collateral free of liens or claims that may subsequently arise in favor of the corporation if the pledgee has notice of the pledge (Doctrine of Priority of Pledge over Subsequent Liens).

  • A pawn ticket and a membership share are different in character, and the rules governing a pawn ticket do not apply to a pledge of a membership share.

  • The term "unpaid claim" in Sec. 63 of the Corporation Code refers to unpaid claims arising from unpaid subscriptions, not other indebtedness a subscriber or stockholder may owe the corporation (Doctrine of Unpaid Claims).