In the November 2010 stockholders meeting of Greenville Corporation, eight (8) directors were elected to the board. The directors assumed their posts in January 20 ll. Since no stockholders’ meeting was held in November 2011, the eight directors served in a holdover capacity and thus continued discharging their powers.
In June 2012, two (2) of Greenville Corporation’s directors- Director A and Director B -resigned from the board. Relying on Section 29 of the Corporation Code, the remaining six (6) directors elected two (2) new directors to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Directors A and B.
Stockholder X questioned the election of the new directors, initially, through a letter-complaint addressed to the board, and later (when his letter-complaint went unheeded), through a derivative suit filed with the court. He claimed that the vacancy in the board should be filled up by the vote of the stockholders of Greenville Corporation. Greenville Corporation’s directors defended the legality of their action, claiming as well that Stockholder X’s derivative suit was improper.
Rule on the issues raised. (8%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The remaining directors cannot fill the vacancies, and Stockholder X's derivative suit is improper. Under Section 29 (now Section 28) of the Corporation Code, board vacancies caused by term expiration must be filled by stockholders. A holdover period
Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Who has the legal authority to fill a board vacancy created by the resignation of a director serving in a holdover capacity?
Resignation during holdover creates a vacancy due to term expiration, which can only be filled by the stockholders.
Under Section 28 of the Revised Corporation Code, when may remaining directors fill a vacancy on the board?
Remaining directors with a quorum may fill vacancies only if not caused by term expiration, removal, or board expansion.
Is the holdover period considered part of a director's statutory term of office under Philippine corporate law?
Holdover is not part of the statutory term, so resignation during holdover is treated as a vacancy by term expiration.
Why is a derivative suit improper to challenge the election of directors by remaining board members?
Choices available with full access.
Which primary statute governs corporate governance, board vacancy rules, and stockholder voting rights in the Philippines?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Board Vacancy Filling
Under Section 28 of the Revised Corporation Code (Republic Act Number 11232), board vacancies resulting from the expiration of term must be filled exclusively by the stockholders in a meeting called for the purpose. Although remaining directors generally may fill board vacancies if they still constitute a quorum, this power is strictly limited to vacancies arising from causes other than expiration of term, removal, or increase in the number of directors. Resignation during a holdover period after term expiration constitutes a vacancy by term expiration.
2. Holdover Director Status
Under Philippine corporate law jurisprudence, the holdover period is not part of a director's fixed statutory term of office. A director holds over in a temporary capacity only until a successor is elected and qualified. When a director resigns while serving in a holdover capacity after their official term has already expired, the resulting vacancy is legally attributable to the expiration of the term rather than resignation. Consequently, only the stockholders, not the remaining board of directors, possess the authority to elect replacement directors.
3. Derivative Suit Propriety
Under the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies, a derivative suit is an action brought by a stockholder in the name of the corporation to redress a wrong committed against the corporation or to enforce a corporate cause of action. Where a stockholder challenges an illegal board election or asserts their individual voting right to elect directors, the cause of action is direct and personal to the stockholder rather than corporate. Therefore, bringing a derivative suit to contest director election is procedurally improper.