G.R. Nos. 200070-71. December 07, 2021 (Case Brief / Digest)

Title: Total Office Products and Services (TOPROS), Inc. v. John Charles Chang, Jr. et al.

The case stemmed from a corporate controversy involving TOPROS, a corporation established primarily to distribute Minolta plain paper copiers in the Philippines. Spouses Ramon and Yaona Ang Ty wanted to create this corporation and enlisted John Charles Chang, Jr., a former employee of a company owned by the Ty Family, to manage the new corporation, providing him with 10% shares which later increased to 20%. Subsequent to its success, TOPROS expanded its line of business under Chang’s leadership. However, issues surfaced when it was discovered that Chang, while holding his position in TOPROS, also incorporated respondent corporations – TOPGOLD, Golden Exim, and Identic – engaging in similar business operations and seemingly siphoning assets and opportunities from TOPROS. This led TOPROS to file a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was later transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) due to jurisdictional changes under the Securities Regulation Code.

An exhaustive legal battle ensued with TOPROS alleging Chang exploited his position to disadvantage TOPROS, while Chang countered, highlighting his contributions and asserting tacit approval from the Ty Family toward his actions including the formation of the competing corporations. The RTC ruled in favor of TOPROS, ordering Chang and his companies to account for and refund profits among other damages to TOPROS. Chang and his co-respondents appealed to the CA which reversed the RTC’s decision, leading to TOPROS filing a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

1. Whether Chang’s formation of and involvement with respondent corporations while serving as an officer and director of TOPROS constitutes a breach of his fiduciary duties specifically in relation to the doctrine of corporate opportunity.

Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court found merit in TOPROS’ petition, agreeing that Chang violated his fiduciary duties under Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code by establishing and engaging in competing corporations. The Court pointed out that a fiduciary cannot serve two masters and emphasized the necessity of loyalty for corporate officers. It reversed the CA decision, siding with the RTC’s findings but remanded the case for further proceedings, highlighting the need to clearly establish the business opportunities usurped by Chang and to precisely determine the damages owed to TOPROS based on the doctrine of corporate opportunity.

The doctrine of corporate opportunity stands as a principle recognizing a corporate officer’s or director’s fiduciary relationship to the corporation, mandating the utmost loyalty, prohibiting the acquisition of business opportunities for personal gain if the opportunity falls within the corporation’s line of business or interest, and if the corporation is capable of pursuing such opportunity.

Class Notes:
1. Fiduciary Duty: A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. In corporate law, directors and officers owe this duty to the corporation and its shareholders.
2. Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity: A principle that prohibits corporate fiduciaries from taking for themselves business opportunities that could benefit the corporation.
3. Sections 31 & 34, Corporation Code: Outline the liabilities for directors who engage in acts of disloyalty or conflict of interest with the corporation.
4. Business Judgment Rule: A presumption that in making business decisions, corporate directors act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that the action taken is in the best interest of the company.

Historical Background:
This case exemplifies the application and evolution of corporate governance principles in the Philippines. It reaffirms the sanctity of fiduciary duties in corporate settings, emphasizing the prohibited act of self-dealing by corporate officers and directors. It also reflects the changes in jurisdictional authority from the SEC to the RTC following the enactment of the Securities Regulation Code, illustrating the legal system’s adaptability to evolving business practices and regulatory needs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters