Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gokongwei Jr. Vs SEC - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Valentine Morales
    650 views1 page
    Petitioner John Gokongwei Jr., a stockholder of respondent San Miguel Corporation, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) challenging amended bylaws and requesting an injunction against the majority of the Board of Directors. Gokongwei also filed a motion for production and inspection of corporate documents. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing it had no legal basis and sought irrelevant information intended to harass the corporation. The motion further failed to demonstrate good cause since issues had not been joined.

    Original Description:

    Corporation Law - Right to Inspection

    Original Title

    Gokongwei Jr. vs SEC - Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner John Gokongwei Jr., a stockholder of respondent San Miguel Corporation, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) challenging amended bylaws and requesting an injunction against the majority of the Board of Directors. Gokongwei also filed a motion for production and inspection of corporate documents. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing it had no legal basis and sought irrelevant information intended to harass the corporation. The motion further failed to demonstrate good cause since issues had not been joined.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    650 views1 page

    Gokongwei Jr. Vs SEC - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Valentine Morales
    Petitioner John Gokongwei Jr., a stockholder of respondent San Miguel Corporation, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) challenging amended bylaws and requesting an injunction against the majority of the Board of Directors. Gokongwei also filed a motion for production and inspection of corporate documents. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing it had no legal basis and sought irrelevant information intended to harass the corporation. The motion further failed to demonstrate good cause since issues had not been joined.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JOHN GOKONGWEI, JR.

    , petitioner,

    vs.

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ANDRES M. SORIANO, JOSE M. SORIANO,


    ENRIQUE ZOBEL, ANTONIO ROXAS, EMETERIO BUNAO, WALTHRODE B. CONDE,
    MIGUEL ORTIGAS, ANTONIO PRIETO, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, EMIGDIO
    TANJUATCO, SR., and EDUARDO R. VISAYA, respondents.

    G.R. No. L-45911 April 11, 1979

    Facts:

    Petitioner, Gokongwei jr., as stockholder of respondent San Miguel Corporation, filed with the
    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a petition for "declaration of nullity of amended by-
    laws, cancellation of certificate of filing of amended by- laws, injunction and damages with
    prayer for a preliminary injunction" against the majority of the members of the Board of Directors
    and San Miguel Corporation as an unwilling petitioner.

    In connection with the same case, petitioner filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
    an "Urgent Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents", alleging that the Secretary of
    respondent corporation refused to allow him to inspect its records despite request made by
    petitioner for production of certain documents enumerated in the request, and that respondent
    corporation had been attempting to suppress information from its stockholders despite a
    negative reply by the SEC to its query regarding their authority to do so.

    The "Urgent Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents" was opposed by respondents,
    alleging, among others that the motion has no legal basis; that the demand is not based on
    good faith; that the motion is premature since the materiality or relevance of the evidence
    sought cannot be determined until the issues are joined, that it fails to show good cause and
    constitutes continued harrasment, and that some of the information sought are not part of the
    records of the corporation and, therefore, privileged.

    You might also like