ASG Law

Category: Corporate Governance

  • Can Private Individuals Be Charged with Corruption Under Philippine Law? The Canlas Case Explains

    Key Takeaway: Private Individuals Can Be Liable for Corruption When Conspiring with Public Officers

    Case Citation: Efren M. Canlas v. People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. Nos. 236308-09, February 17, 2020

    In a world where corruption can undermine the very foundations of public trust, the case of Efren M. Canlas sheds light on the legal boundaries that govern private individuals in their dealings with public officers. Imagine a scenario where a private company secures a lucrative government contract through dubious means. This real-world issue was at the heart of the Canlas case, where the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a pivotal question: Can a private individual be charged with corruption under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) if they conspire with public officials? This case not only clarified the legal stance but also set a precedent that impacts how private sector involvement in public contracts is scrutinized.

    The central legal question in Canlas revolved around the interpretation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which penalizes public officers for causing undue injury to any party or giving unwarranted benefits to private parties. Canlas, a private individual and representative of Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation, was implicated in a scheme involving the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The allegations suggested that Canlas conspired with public officials to manipulate the bidding process, thereby securing the contract for Hilmarc’s without proper public bidding.

    Legal Context: Understanding RA 3019 and Private Liability

    RA 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, is a cornerstone of Philippine anti-corruption law. Its primary aim is to prevent and punish acts of corruption by public officers. However, the law also extends to private individuals under certain conditions. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 states:

    "Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions."

    The term "public officer" might seem straightforward, but the law’s application to private individuals hinges on the concept of conspiracy. When a private individual conspires with a public officer to commit an act punishable under Section 3, they can be held liable as if they were a public officer themselves. This interpretation is crucial in cases involving public procurement, where private companies may engage in corrupt practices to secure government contracts.

    To illustrate, consider a private contractor who colludes with a public official to rig a bidding process for a government project. If the contractor knowingly participates in this scheme, they could be charged under RA 3019, even though they are not a public officer. This principle ensures that the law can reach beyond public servants to those in the private sector who facilitate corruption.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Efren M. Canlas

    Efren M. Canlas’s legal battle began when he was charged alongside public officials, including former Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., for violations related to the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The charges stemmed from two separate criminal cases filed in the Sandiganbayan, alleging that Canlas and his co-accused manipulated the bidding process to favor Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation.

    Canlas argued that as a private individual, he could not be charged under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which he believed applied only to public officers. He filed motions to quash the information, asserting that the charges did not specify that he induced or caused any public officer to commit the offense, a requirement under Section 4(b) of RA 3019.

    The Sandiganbayan denied Canlas’s motions, leading him to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision was clear:

    "The well-settled rule is that ‘private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.’"

    The Court further emphasized the elements of Section 3(e), noting that a private individual acting in conspiracy with a public officer could be held liable. This ruling was supported by previous cases, such as Uyboco v. People and PCGG v. Navarra-Gutierrez, where private individuals were convicted for similar offenses.

    The procedural steps in Canlas’s case included:

    • Filing of two Informations against Canlas and co-accused in the Sandiganbayan.
    • Canlas’s motions to quash the information, arguing his status as a private individual.
    • The Sandiganbayan’s denial of these motions and subsequent denial of Canlas’s motion for reconsideration.
    • Canlas’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the Sandiganbayan’s decision.

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Businesses and Individuals

    The Canlas ruling has significant implications for private individuals and companies involved in government contracts. It underscores the importance of ethical conduct and transparency in public procurement processes. Businesses must be vigilant in ensuring that their dealings with public officials are above board, as any hint of conspiracy or manipulation can lead to severe legal consequences.

    For individuals, this case serves as a reminder that the law can reach beyond public officers to those who aid or abet corrupt practices. It is crucial to understand the legal risks involved in any collaboration with government entities.

    Key Lessons:

    • Ensure transparency and adherence to legal bidding processes when dealing with government contracts.
    • Understand the potential legal liabilities that come with conspiring with public officials.
    • Seek legal counsel to navigate complex public procurement regulations and avoid inadvertent violations.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Can a private individual be charged under RA 3019?

    Yes, if they conspire with a public officer to commit an act punishable under Section 3 of RA 3019.

    What does it mean to conspire with a public officer?

    Conspiracy involves an agreement between a private individual and a public officer to commit an illegal act, such as manipulating a bidding process to favor a particular company.

    What are the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019?

    The elements include acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits to any party.

    How can businesses protect themselves from potential charges under RA 3019?

    By maintaining strict compliance with procurement laws, conducting thorough due diligence, and ensuring all dealings with public officials are transparent and documented.

    What should I do if I’m involved in a government contract and suspect wrongdoing?

    Seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and obligations and to protect yourself from potential legal action.

    ASG Law specializes in anti-corruption and government procurement law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding Employee Dismissal for Serious Misconduct: Insights from a Landmark Philippine Case

    Key Takeaway: Employers Can Dismiss Employees for Serious Misconduct, Even During Union Activities

    Gaudioso Iso, Jr. and Joel Tolentino v. Salcon Power Corporation (now SPC Power Corporation) and Dennis Villareal, G.R. No. 219059, February 12, 2020

    Imagine being dismissed from your job for speaking out during a heated union negotiation. This scenario became a reality for Gaudioso Iso, Jr. and Joel Tolentino, two union officers at SPC Power Corporation. Their case reached the Supreme Court of the Philippines, highlighting the delicate balance between employee rights and employer prerogatives. The central question was whether their dismissal for alleged libelous statements was justified, even amidst union activities. This case underscores the complexities of labor law and the importance of understanding the boundaries of free speech in the workplace.

    In this case, Iso and Tolentino, leaders of the Salcon Power Independent Union (SPIU), were dismissed after making statements during a press conference that were deemed libelous by their employer, SPC Power Corporation. The statements alleged financial misconduct by the company. The Supreme Court upheld their dismissal, ruling that their actions constituted serious misconduct, a valid ground for termination under the Labor Code.

    Legal Context: Understanding Serious Misconduct and Employee Rights

    Serious misconduct, as defined under Article 297 of the Philippine Labor Code, is a valid reason for an employer to terminate an employee’s contract. The article specifies that an employer may terminate employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders related to work, among other reasons. Serious misconduct is characterized by an improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of established rules, and a willful act with wrongful intent.

    This case touches on the tension between an employee’s right to free speech and an employer’s right to protect its reputation and business interests. The Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but this right is not absolute, especially in the workplace where it must be balanced against the company’s interests.

    The concept of management prerogative also comes into play. Employers have the right to regulate their business, including the power to dismiss employees for acts that are detrimental to the company. However, this power must be exercised fairly and in accordance with due process requirements, which include providing the employee with notice and an opportunity to be heard.

    Here is the relevant provision from the Labor Code:

    Art. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

    Case Breakdown: The Journey from Union Negotiation to Supreme Court

    The conflict began when Iso and Tolentino, as union leaders, engaged in collective bargaining with SPC Power Corporation. The company had refused to recognize their union, leading to a certification election in which SPIU won. Despite this, the company continued to resist bargaining, prompting the union to file a notice of strike.

    In May 2009, Iso and Tolentino held a press conference to address what they believed were unfair labor practices by SPC Power Corporation. They claimed the company had profited excessively at the expense of consumers, a statement that was later published in a newspaper. SPC Power Corporation responded by filing a criminal complaint for libel against them.

    Subsequently, the company issued show-cause notices to Iso and Tolentino, charging them with serious misconduct, dishonesty, breach of trust, and disobedience. After hearings, the company found them guilty and dismissed them from service. The employees then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was denied by the Labor Arbiter and later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

    The case reached the Court of Appeals (CA), which also upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the following:

    “Accusatory and inflammatory language used by an employee towards his employer or superior can be a ground for dismissal or termination,” more so in this case where petitioners’ utterance of accusatory statements came out in the news item dated May 29, 2009 authored by Baquero of Sun Star Cebu.

    “The longer the employees stay in the service of the company, the greater is their responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline in the company.”

    The Supreme Court found that Iso and Tolentino, as supervisory employees, were in positions of trust and confidence. Their statements, deemed libelous, were seen as a betrayal of this trust, justifying their dismissal.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Workplace Speech and Dismissal

    This ruling reaffirms the employer’s right to dismiss employees for serious misconduct, even if the misconduct occurs during union activities. It serves as a reminder to employees that while they have the right to engage in union activities, they must be cautious about making statements that could harm their employer’s reputation.

    For businesses, this case underscores the importance of having clear policies on employee conduct and communication, especially during labor disputes. Employers should ensure they follow due process when dismissing employees, including providing written notices and opportunities for the employee to respond.

    Key Lessons:

    • Employees should be aware that freedom of expression in the workplace has limits, particularly when it involves statements that could be considered libelous.
    • Employers must balance their management prerogatives with respect for employee rights, ensuring that any dismissal is justified and follows due process.
    • Both parties should seek to resolve disputes through dialogue and negotiation before resorting to public statements that could escalate tensions.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What constitutes serious misconduct in the workplace?
    Serious misconduct involves improper or wrongful conduct that is willful and shows a disregard for established rules or duties. It must be related to the employee’s work and performed with wrongful intent.

    Can an employee be dismissed for statements made during union activities?
    Yes, if the statements constitute serious misconduct, such as libelous statements that harm the employer’s reputation, an employee can be dismissed, provided the employer follows due process.

    What is the role of due process in employee dismissal?
    Due process requires the employer to provide the employee with written notices of the charges and the decision to dismiss, as well as an opportunity to be heard. This ensures fairness in the termination process.

    How can employees protect their rights during labor disputes?
    Employees should engage in constructive dialogue with their employer, seek legal advice, and ensure they understand their rights under labor laws. Documenting interactions and following established grievance procedures can also be beneficial.

    What steps should employers take before dismissing an employee?
    Employers should issue a show-cause notice detailing the allegations, conduct a fair investigation, provide the employee an opportunity to respond, and issue a notice of dismissal if the charges are substantiated.

    ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Unlocking the Right to Minimum Salary Upon Regularization: A Landmark Decision for Philippine Workers

    Regularization Entitles Employees to Minimum Salary: A Key Ruling for Philippine Labor Rights

    Del Monte Fresh Produce (Philippines), Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Supervisors Union, G.R. No. 225115, January 27, 2020

    Imagine starting a new job with the hope of a stable income, only to find out that upon becoming a regular employee, you’re still not receiving the minimum salary promised by company policy. This was the reality for 18 supervisors at Del Monte Fresh Produce (Philippines), Inc., sparking a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether regularization automatically entitles employees to the minimum salary rate as stipulated in company policies. This case, resolved in favor of the workers, underscores the importance of clear and enforceable company policies in protecting employee rights.

    The Del Monte case revolved around the company’s Local and Global Policies on Salary Administration. These policies outlined the minimum salary rates for different job levels, known as Hay Levels. The supervisors argued that upon regularization, they should have been paid at these minimum rates, which they were not. The Supreme Court’s decision clarified the legal standing of such policies and their impact on employment contracts.

    Legal Context: Understanding Company Policies and Employment Contracts

    In the Philippines, company policies play a crucial role in shaping the terms of employment. These policies, once officially issued, become part of the employment contract, binding both the employer and the employee. The Labor Code of the Philippines and the Civil Code provide the legal framework for interpreting these policies and contracts.

    Article 1702 of the Civil Code states, “In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.” This principle was pivotal in the Del Monte case, as the Court had to interpret the company’s policies in favor of the employees when ambiguity arose.

    Key terms in this context include:

    • Regularization: The process by which a probationary employee becomes a regular employee, typically after a probationary period.
    • Hay Level: A job evaluation system used to determine salary scales based on job complexity and responsibility.
    • Management Prerogative: The right of employers to formulate and implement business policies, including those affecting employees.

    The Del Monte case highlighted how these principles apply in real-world scenarios. For instance, if a company policy states that a regular employee at a certain Hay Level should receive a minimum salary, this becomes an enforceable obligation upon regularization, not subject to discretionary adjustments by management.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey to Justice for Del Monte Supervisors

    The story of the Del Monte supervisors began with their hiring at various Hay Levels, ranging from 5 to 8. Despite the company’s Local Policy stating that upon regularization, employees should receive the minimum salary for their level, the supervisors were paid less. This discrepancy led to a complaint filed by the Del Monte Fresh Supervisors Union on behalf of the affected employees.

    The complaint was initially dismissed by the Voluntary Arbitrator, who argued that the supervisors had accepted their salaries willingly. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) overturned this decision, ruling that the company must pay the salary differentials from the date of regularization. The CA’s decision was based on the interpretation that the Local Policy’s use of the word “shall” indicated a mandatory obligation to pay the minimum rate upon regularization.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the binding nature of company policies. Justice Reyes, Jr., in the Court’s decision, stated, “There is no question that employers enjoy management prerogative when it comes to the formulation of business policies, including those that affect their employees. However, company policies that are an outcome of an exercise of management prerogative can implicate the rights and obligations of employees, and to that extent they become part of the employment contract.”

    The procedural journey included:

    1. Filing of the complaint with the Voluntary Arbitrator.
    2. Appeal to the Court of Appeals after the initial dismissal.
    3. Final appeal to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the CA’s decision.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling was clear: “Once the employee is regularized, management prerogative must give way and be subject to the limitations composed by law, the collective bargaining agreement and general principles of fair play and justice.”

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Employers and Employees

    This landmark decision has significant implications for both employers and employees in the Philippines. For employees, it reinforces the right to receive the minimum salary stipulated in company policies upon regularization, ensuring fair compensation and job security.

    For employers, the ruling underscores the need to review and ensure compliance with their own policies. It highlights that once policies are officially issued, they become enforceable and cannot be disregarded at the discretion of management. Employers must carefully draft policies to avoid ambiguity and ensure they align with legal standards.

    Key Lessons:

    • Employees should be aware of their rights under company policies and seek enforcement if necessary.
    • Employers must ensure that their policies are clear, fair, and in compliance with labor laws.
    • Both parties should understand that company policies become part of the employment contract and are legally binding.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is regularization in the context of employment?
    Regularization refers to the transition of a probationary employee to a regular employee status, typically after a probationary period, granting them additional job security and benefits.

    Can company policies be enforced like a contract?
    Yes, once officially issued, company policies become part of the employment contract and are enforceable, as demonstrated in the Del Monte case.

    What should employees do if they believe they are not receiving the correct salary?
    Employees should review their company’s policies, document any discrepancies, and consider seeking legal advice or union representation to address the issue.

    How can employers ensure compliance with their own policies?
    Employers should regularly review their policies, ensure they are clear and unambiguous, and train HR and management on proper implementation.

    Does this ruling apply to all industries in the Philippines?
    Yes, the principles established in the Del Monte case apply broadly to all employers and employees in the Philippines, as they are based on general labor laws and principles of fairness.

    ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your rights are protected.

  • SEC Jurisdiction Over Corporations: Ensuring Corporate Governance and Compliance

    Navigating SEC Jurisdiction: Why Corporate Form Matters, Even for Government-Linked Entities

    n

    The Philippine Supreme Court clarifies that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) holds jurisdiction over corporations formed under the Corporation Code, irrespective of government ownership. This landmark case underscores that corporate structure, not ownership, dictates regulatory oversight, ensuring adherence to corporate governance principles and protecting shareholder rights. This means even companies with significant government stakes must comply with SEC regulations, including holding regular stockholders’ meetings to elect directors.

    nn

    G.R. No. 131715, December 08, 1999

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine a corporation where directors hold their positions indefinitely, not through shareholder election, but by presidential appointment. This scenario, seemingly defying basic corporate governance, was at the heart of a legal battle involving the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). For twelve long years, no stockholders’ meeting was held, raising serious questions about corporate accountability and the rights of shareholders. This case highlights a crucial aspect of Philippine corporate law: the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over corporations, particularly those with government connections.

    n

    At the core of the dispute was a simple yet fundamental question: Can the SEC order PNCC, a corporation with majority government ownership, to hold a stockholders’ meeting to elect its board of directors? PNCC argued it was a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) under Administrative Order (AO) No. 59, exempting it from SEC’s directive and placing board appointments under presidential prerogative. However, minority stockholders Ernesto Pabion and Louella Ramiro challenged this, asserting PNCC’s obligations under the Corporation Code to hold regular elections.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: SEC’s Mandate and Corporate Classifications

    n

    The SEC’s authority stems from Presidential Decree No. 902-A, granting it original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. This power is further reinforced by the Corporation Code of the Philippines, which empowers the SEC to regulate corporations formed under it, ensuring corporate governance and protecting shareholder interests. Section 50 of the Corporation Code explicitly mandates regular stockholders’ meetings for electing directors. It also empowers the SEC to order such meetings when corporate officers fail to do so.

    n

    However, the legal landscape becomes nuanced with government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). GOCCs can be established in two ways: through special charters or under the general Corporation Code. Those with original charters are generally governed by their specific charters, potentially limiting SEC jurisdiction. Yet, corporations formed under the Corporation Code, even with government majority ownership, are typically subject to SEC oversight. A key legal distinction arises with “acquired asset corporations,” defined under AO 59. AO 59 defines a GOCC as:

    n

    “Government-owned and/or controlled corporation… is a corporation which is created by special law or organized under the Corporation Code in which the government, directly or indirectly, has ownership of the majority of the capital or has voting control; Provided, That an acquired asset corporation as defined in the next paragraph shall not be considered as GOCC or government corporation.”

    n

    An “acquired asset corporation” is further defined as a privately owned corporation whose shares were conveyed to the government in debt satisfaction or acquired through sequestration, often slated for privatization. This distinction is crucial because AO 59 stipulates different governance structures for GOCCs versus acquired asset corporations.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Pabion and Ramiro vs. PNCC – A Fight for Shareholder Rights

    n

    The legal saga began in 1994 when stockholders Ernesto Pabion and Louella Ramiro, citing a twelve-year lapse in stockholders’ meetings, petitioned the SEC to compel PNCC to hold elections for its board of directors. They argued that PNCC’s directors were illegally holding office beyond their one-year term, violating both PNCC’s By-Laws and the Corporation Code.

    n

    PNCC countered that it was a GOCC governed by AO 59, where directors are appointed by the President, not elected by stockholders. They cited Section 16 of AO 59, stating:

    n

    “GOCC (government-owned and/or controlled corporation) shall be governed by a Board of Directors or equivalent body composed of an appropriate number of members to be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Secretary of whose Department the GOCC is attached.”

    n

    The SEC Hearing Officer initially hesitated, requesting clarification on PNCC’s GOCC status. Pabion and Ramiro then elevated the matter to the SEC en banc via certiorari, challenging the Hearing Officer’s orders. The SEC en banc sided with Pabion and Ramiro, ordering PNCC to hold a stockholders’ meeting. It reasoned that the core issue was an intra-corporate dispute within SEC jurisdiction, and that PNCC, incorporated under the Corporation Code, was subject to its provisions, including mandatory stockholders’ meetings. The SEC en banc declared:

    n

    “being incorporated under the Corporation Code, is, therefore, subject to Section 50 of the Corporation Code which requires the holding of regular stockholders’ meeting for the purpose of selecting PNCC’s Board of Directors”

    n

    PNCC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the SEC’s decision. The CA concurred that PNCC, despite government majority ownership, remained a private corporation bound by the Corporation Code’s election mandates. The CA emphasized that PNCC was likely an “acquired asset corporation” under AO 59, further solidifying SEC jurisdiction. Unsatisfied, PNCC took the case to the Supreme Court, raising four key issues:

    n

      n

    1. Whether PNCC is a GOCC.

      2. n

    2. Whether SEC has jurisdiction to order a stockholders’ meeting for PNCC.

      3. n

    3. Whether PNCC is legally required to hold such a meeting.

      4. n

    4. Whether the SEC en banc erred in ruling on the merits in certiorari proceedings.

      5. n

    n

    The Supreme Court denied PNCC’s petition and upheld the lower courts. The Court firmly established that SEC jurisdiction extends to corporations formed under the Corporation Code, even those majority-owned by the government. It clarified that PNCC’s status as an “acquired asset corporation” under AO 59 further cemented SEC jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated:

    n

    “Specifically, the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) may be ordered by SEC to hold a shareholders’ meeting to elect its board of directors in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws as well as with the Corporation Code.”

    n

    The Court dismissed PNCC’s argument that directors should be presidentially appointed, reiterating that PNCC’s directors derive their authority from shareholder election, not presidential fiat. The Supreme Court underscored that PNCC’s corporate form, established under the Corporation Code, placed it squarely within SEC’s regulatory ambit.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Corporate Governance and SEC Compliance in the Philippines

    n

    This Supreme Court decision carries significant implications for corporations in the Philippines, especially those with government ownership or involvement. It definitively clarifies that incorporation under the Corporation Code subjects a company to SEC jurisdiction, regardless of ownership structure. Companies cannot circumvent corporate governance norms, such as regular stockholders’ meetings and director elections, simply by claiming GOCC status without a special charter.

    n

    For businesses, this means meticulous compliance with the Corporation Code and SEC regulations is non-negotiable. Even if government entities hold majority shares, the SEC’s oversight ensures transparency, accountability, and protection of all shareholders, including minority stakeholders. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to corporate formalities and procedures, particularly concerning director elections and stockholders’ rights. It also serves as a reminder that “acquired asset corporations,” despite potential government links and privatization mandates, remain under SEC jurisdiction until formally dissolved or privatized.

    nn

    Key Lessons:

    n

      n

    • SEC Jurisdiction is Broad: Corporations formed under the Corporation Code are generally subject to SEC jurisdiction, including GOCCs incorporated under this code and acquired asset corporations.

      • n

    • Corporate Form Matters: The manner of incorporation, not just ownership, determines regulatory oversight. Incorporation under the Corporation Code triggers SEC jurisdiction.

      • n

    • Stockholders’ Rights are Paramount: Regular stockholders’ meetings and director elections are mandatory for corporations under SEC jurisdiction, ensuring shareholder representation and corporate accountability.

      • n

    • Acquired Asset Corporations are SEC-Regulated: Even corporations classified as acquired assets under AO 59 remain under SEC jurisdiction and must comply with corporate governance requirements.

      • n

    • Presidential Appointment vs. Shareholder Election: Directors of corporations formed under the Corporation Code, even GOCCs or acquired asset corporations, derive their positions from shareholder election, not direct presidential appointment (unless specified by a special charter).

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    nn

    Q: Does the SEC have jurisdiction over all government-owned corporations?

    n

    A: No. The SEC’s jurisdiction primarily extends to corporations incorporated under the Corporation Code. GOCCs created by special charters are generally governed by their charters, although the Corporation Code may apply suppletorily. However, GOCCs and acquired asset corporations formed under the Corporation Code fall under SEC jurisdiction.

    nn

    Q: What is an