FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES INC v GO, ET AL G.R. NO. 161886, MARCH 16 2007, FIRST DIVISION (GARCIA, J) The determination of the necessity for additional offices and/or positions in a corporation, if authorized under the by-laws is a management prerogative which the courts are wont to review in the absence of any proof that such prerogative was exercised in bad faith or with malice. Similarly, the Board of Directors may create an executive committee or other board committees as part of its management prerogative provided that such board committees do not function as an executive committee as contemplated by Section 35 of the Corporation Code, in which case authority in the by-laws is required. Questions of policy or of management are left solely to the honest decision of the board as the business manager of the corporation, and the court is without authority to substitute its judgment for that of the board, and as long as it acts in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the interest of the corporation, its orders are not reviewable by the courts. Eliodoro C. Cruz (Cruz) was president of Filipinas Port Services, Inc. (Filport) since 1968. He lost his bid for re-election in 1991. A year thereafter, Cruz wrote a letter to the corporation‟s Board of Directors questioning the creation of six (6) positions and the election of certain members of the board thereto. It would seem that Cruz was unhappy with the Board‟s action or actions on the matter, for a year later he filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), joined by Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services, Inc. (Minterbro) as co-petitioner, what he calls a „derivative suit‟ supposedly in representation of Filport and its stockholders. It is Cruz‟s contention that the creation of an executive committee is not provided for in the bylaws and the increase in the emoluments of several members of the board is greatly disproportionate to the volume and character of work of said directors. Further, he questions the re-creation of the positions of Assistant Vice President for corporate planning, operations, finance and administration and additional positions where those holding said offices are not doing any work but earning compensation. These acts of mismanagement according to Cruz are detrimental to the corporation and its stockholders and so the board must account for the amounts incurred in creating these positions and made to pay damages. This intra-corporate case was in hibernation until the enactment on July 19, 2000 of the Securities Regulation Code. And so it was transferred from the SEC to the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) (sitting as a corporate court) and eventually landing in the Davao RTC. Though the RTC found that Filport‟s Board of Directors had the power to create positions not provided for in the by-laws and the increases in salaries are reasonable, nevertheless it ordered the directors holding the positions of Assistant Vice President for Corporate Planning, Special Assistant to the President and Special Assistant to the Board Chairman to refund to the corporation the salaries they have received as such officers “considering that Filipinas Port Services is not a big corporation requiring multiple executive positions” and that said positions “were just created for accommodation.” Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC decision was reversed and set aside and thus the so called derivative suit was dismissed. ISSUE: Whether the creation of an executive committee and other offices in the corporation with corresponding remunerations are within the powers of the Board of Directors.
HELD: The governing body of a corporation is its board of directors. Section 23 of the Corporation Code explicitly provides that unless otherwise provided therein, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under the Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of the corporation shall be controlled and held by a board of directors. Thus, with the exception only of some powers expressly granted by law to stockholders (or members, in case of non-stock corporations), the board of directors (or trustees, in case of non-stock corporations) has the sole authority to determine policies, enter into contracts, and conduct the ordinary business of the corporation within the scope of its charter, i.e., its articles of incorporation, by-laws and relevant provisions of law. Verily, the authority of the board of directors is restricted to the management of the regular business affairs of the corporation, unless more extensive power is expressly conferred. The raison d’etre behind the conferment of corporate powers on the board of directors is not lost on the Court. Indeed, the concentration in the board of the powers of control of corporate business and of appointment of corporate officers and managers is necessary for efficiency in any large organization. Stockholders are too numerous, scattered and unfamiliar with the business of a corporation to conduct its business directly. And so the plan of corporate organization is for the stockholders to choose the directors who shall control and supervise the conduct of corporate business. In the present case, the board‟s creation of the positions of Assistant Vice Presidents for Corporate Planning, Operations, Finance and Administration, and those of the Special Assistants to the President and the Board Chairman, was in accordance with the regular business operations of Filport as it is authorized to do so by the corporation‟s by-laws, pursuant to the Corporation Code. The election of officers of a corporation is provided for under Section 25 of the Code which reads: Sec. 25. Corporate officers, quorum. – Immediately after their election, the directors of a corporation must formally organize by the election of a president, who shall be a director, a treasurer who may or may not be a director, a secretary who shall be a resident and citizen of the Philippines, and such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws. In turn, the amended Bylaws of Filport provides the following: Officers of the corporation, as provided for by the by-laws, shall be elected by the board of directors at their first meeting after the election of Directors. xxx The officers of the corporation shall be a Chairman of the Board, President, a Vice-President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a General Manager and such other officers as the Board of Directors may from time to time provide, and these officers shall be elected to hold office until their successors are elected and qualified. Likewise, the fixing of the corresponding remuneration for the positions in question is provided for in the same by-laws of the corporation, viz:
xxx The Board of Directors shall fix the compensation of the officers and agents of the corporation. Unfortunately, the bylaws of the corporation are silent as to the creation by its board of directors of an executive committee. Under Section 35 of the Corporation Code, the creation of an executive committee must be provided for in the bylaws of the corporation. Notwithstanding the silence of Filport‟s bylaws on the matter, we cannot rule that the creation of the executive committee by the board of directors is illegal or unlawful. One reason is the absence of a showing as to the true nature and functions of said executive committee considering that the “executive committee,” referred to in Section 35 of the Corporation Code which is as powerful as the board of directors and in effect acting for the board itself, should be distinguished from other committees which are within the competency of the board to create at anytime and whose actions require ratification and confirmation by the board. Another reason is that, ratiocinated by both the two (2) courts below, the Board of Directors has the power to create positions not provided for in Filport‟s bylaws since the board is the corporation‟s governing body, clearly upholding the power of its board to exercise its prerogatives in managing the business affairs of the corporation. As well, it may not be amiss to point out that, as testified to and admitted by petitioner Cruz himself, it was during his incumbency as Filport president that the executive committee in question was created, and that he was even the one who moved for the creation of the positions of the AVPs for Operations, Finance and Administration. By his acquiescence and/or ratification of the creation of the aforesaid offices, Cruz is virtually precluded from suing to declare such acts of the board as invalid or illegal. And it makes no difference that he sues in behalf of himself and of the other stockholders. Indeed, as his voice was not heard in protest when he was still Filport‟s president, raising a hue and cry only now leads to the inevitable conclusion that he did so out of spite and resentment for his non-reelection as president of the corporation.
