A, B, C, D, and Ewere members of the 2003-2004 Board of Directors of FLP Corporation. At the election for the 2004-2005 Board of Directors, not one of them was elected. They filed in court a derivative suit on behalf of FLP Corporation against the newly-elected members of the Board of Directors. They questioned the validity of the election as it was allegedly marred by lack of quorum, and prayed for the nullification of the said election. The 2004-2005 Board of Directorsmoved to dismiss the complaint because the derivative suit is not proper. Decide. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The motion to dismiss should be granted because the derivative suit is not proper. Under corporate law jurisprudence, a derivative suit enforces a corporate right or redresses an injury to the corporation itself. Where the injury directly affects individual stockholders or
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
Is an action challenging the validity of a corporate election properly filed as a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation?
An election contest enforces personal shareholder rights rather than a corporate cause of action, making a derivative suit improper.
What essential element distinguishes a derivative suit from an individual or direct suit under Philippine corporate law?
A derivative suit is distinguished by the fact that the real party in interest is the corporation itself.
Who is the directly injured party when a corporate election of directors is conducted without the required statutory quorum?
The directly injured parties are the individual stockholders whose voting rights were infringed.
Under Philippine corporate jurisprudence, what recourse should ousted directors take to challenge an invalid board election?
Choices available with full access.
Which primary statute and procedural rules govern corporate elections, derivative suits, and intra-corporate controversies in the Philippines?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Derivative Suit Concept
Under Philippine corporate law jurisprudence, a derivative suit is an action brought by one or more stockholders in the name and on behalf of the corporation to redress a wrong committed against the corporation or to enforce a corporate cause of action when the board of directors refuses to act. In a derivative suit, the real party in interest is the corporation itself, while the suing stockholder acts merely as a nominal party. Any financial recovery or relief obtained from the litigation accrues directly to the benefit of the corporate entity rather than the individual suing stockholder.
2. Corporate Election Contests
Under the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies and Philippine jurisprudence, a challenge to the validity of a corporate election constitutes an election contest rather than a derivative suit. The right to vote, run for corporate office, and participate in the election of the board of directors is a personal right belonging directly to individual stockholders. When an election is marred by irregularities or lack of quorum, the injury is sustained directly by the disenfranchised stockholders or ousted directors rather than by the corporate entity itself.
3. Propriety of Suit
To determine whether an action is a derivative suit or an individual suit, Philippine courts examine who sustained the direct injury resulting from the alleged wrongful act. Where the injury falls directly upon the corporation and affects stockholders only indirectly through a reduction in share value, the proper remedy is a derivative suit. Conversely, where the wrongful act directly violates a stockholder's personal right—such as the right to vote or hold office—the injury is personal, and the stockholder must institute a direct action or election contest in their individual capacity.