Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
217
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
218
219
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
REYES, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the Decision2 dated
April
_______________
220
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
The Facts
This case has its origin in G.R. No. 1297774 entitled TCL
Sales Corporation and Anna Teng v. Hon. Court of Appeals
and Ting Ping Lay. Herein respondent Ting Ping
purchased 480 shares of TCL Sales Corporation (TCL) from
Peter Chiu (Chiu) on February 2, 1979; 1,400 shares on
September 22, 1985 from his brother Teng Ching Lay (Teng
Ching), who was also the president and operations
manager of TCL; and 1,440 shares from Ismaelita Maluto
(Maluto) on September 2, 1989.5
Upon Teng Ching’s death in 1989, his son Henry Teng
(Henry) took over the management of TCL. To protect his
shareholdings with TCL, Ting Ping on August 31, 1989
requested TCL’s Corporate Secretary, herein petitioner
Teng, to enter the transfer in the Stock and Transfer Book
of TCL for the proper recording of his acquisition. He also
demanded the issuance of new certificates of stock in his
favor. TCL and Teng, however, refused despite repeated
demands. Because of their refusal, Ting Ping filed a
petition for mandamus with the SEC against TCL and
Teng, docketed as SEC Case No. 3990.6
_______________
221
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
_______________
222
_______________
223
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
_______________
224
_______________
225
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
_______________
226
_______________
227
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
228
_______________
40 Rural Bank of Lipa City, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 418 Phil. 461,
472; 366 SCRA 188, 197 (2001).
41 Id.; Bitong v. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division), 354 Phil. 516, 541;
292 SCRA 503, 528 (1998).
42 710 Phil. 831; 698 SCRA 272 (2013).
43 Id., at pp. 835-836; p. 277, citing Raquel-Santos v. Court of Appeals,
609 Phil. 630, 657; 592 SCRA 169, 197-198 (2009).
44 See Monserrat v. Ceron, 58 Phil. 469 (1933).
45 Razon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74306, March 16,
1992, 207 SCRA 234, 240, citing Embassy Farms, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
266 Phil. 549, 557; 188 SCRA 492, 498 (1990). See also Lao v. Lao, supra
note 34.
229
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
230
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
231
_______________
53 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 450 Phil. 98, 129; 402 SCRA 84, 107
(2003), citing Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Inc. v. Bitanga,
415 Phil. 43, 57; 362 SCRA 635, 649 (2001). See also De Erquiaga v. Court
of Appeals, 258 Phil. 626, 637; 178 SCRA 1, 11 (1989).
54 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, id., at pp. 129-130; p. 107.
55 Escaño v. Filipinas Mining Corp., 74 Phil. 711, 716 (1944).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/20
3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 784
232
The surrender of the original certificate of stock is
necessary before the issuance of a new one so that the old
certificate may be cancelled. A corporation is not bound and
cannot
_______________
233
_______________
234
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001624605564d3660c45f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/20