This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Indisputably, one of the rights of a stockholder is the right to participate in the control or management of the corporation.[43] This is exercised through his vote in the election of directors because it is the board of directors that controls or manages the corporation.[44] In the absence of provisions in the articles of incorporation denying voting rights to preferred shares, preferred shares have the same voting rights as common shares. However, preferred shareholders are often excluded from any control, that is, deprived of the right to vote in the election of directors and on other matters, on the theory that the preferred shareholders are merely investors in the corporation for income in the same manner as bondholders.[45] In fact, under the Corporation Code only preferred or redeemable shares can be deprived of the right to vote.[46] Common shares cannot be deprived of the right to vote in any corporate meeting, and any provision in the articles of incorporation restricting the right of common shareholders to vote is invalid.[47] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In light of these premises, no final ruling can be had on the validity of the extrajudicial settlement. While we wish to abide by the mandate on speedy disposition of cases, we cannot render a premature judgment on the merits. To do so could result in a possible violation of due process. The inclusion of Pedro is necessary for the effective and complete resolution of the case and in order to accord all parties the benefit of due process and fair play.[31] | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In any event, the trial and appellate courts committed reversible error when they summarily dismissed the case, after both parties had rested their cases following a protracted trial commencing in 1974, on the sole ground of failure to implead indispensable parties. The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just. If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff's/petitioner's failure to comply therewith.[16] | |||||