Imagine a scenario where corporate officers receive compensation, and minority shareholders cry foul, alleging a violation of corporate governance principles. This is a common battleground in the corporate world, where the lines between permissible compensation and self-dealing can blur. This case, Western Institute of Technology, Inc. vs. Salas, delves into the specifics of compensating corporate officers versus directors, offering crucial insights for Philippine corporations.

The central legal question revolves around whether compensating board members who also serve as corporate officers violates Section 30 of the Corporation Code, which governs director compensation. The Supreme Court clarifies this distinction, providing guidance on permissible compensation structures within corporations.

Legal Framework: Compensation of Directors vs. Officers

The Corporation Code of the Philippines sets the rules for how corporations can compensate their directors. Section 30 of the Corporation Code is particularly relevant:

“Sec. 30. Compensation of directors.— In the absence of any provision in the by-laws fixing their compensation, the directors shall not receive any compensation, as such directors, except for reasonable per diems: Provided, however, That any such compensation (other than per diems) may be granted to directors by the vote of the stockholders representing at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock at a regular or special stockholders’ meeting. In no case shall the total yearly compensation of directors, as such directors, exceed ten (10%) percent of the net income before income tax of the corporation during the preceding year.”

This section essentially states that directors cannot receive compensation unless it’s stipulated in the by-laws or approved by a majority vote of the stockholders. This rule aims to prevent directors from unduly enriching themselves at the expense of the corporation and its shareholders.

However, this rule applies specifically to compensation received by directors “as such directors.” This distinction is crucial because directors often hold additional roles within the corporation, such as officers (e.g., Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary). The Supreme Court in this case clarifies that compensation for services rendered in these officer roles is not covered by the restrictions in Section 30.

Case Summary: Western Institute of Technology vs. Salas

The Salas family, controlling members of the Board of Trustees of Western Institute of Technology, Inc. (WIT), authorized monthly compensation for themselves as corporate officers. Minority shareholders, the Villasis family and Dimas Enriquez, alleged that this violated Section 30 of the Corporation Code.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• June 1, 1986: The Board of Trustees passed Resolution No. 48, granting monthly compensation to the Salas family members as corporate officers, retroactive to June 1, 1985.
• March 13, 1991: The minority shareholders filed an affidavit-complaint, leading to criminal charges of falsification of a public document and estafa against the Salas family.
• September 6, 1993: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted the Salas family on both counts but did not impose any civil liability.
• The minority shareholders appealed the civil aspect of the RTC decision, seeking to hold the Salas family civilly liable.

The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, upholding the acquittal and finding no basis to hold the Salas family civilly liable. The Court emphasized the distinction between compensation for directors and compensation for corporate officers. The Court stated:

“The unambiguous implication is that members of the board may receive compensation, in addition to reasonable per diems, when they render services to the corporation in a capacity other than as directors/trustees.”

Furthermore, the Court noted:

“Clearly, therefore , the prohibition with respect to granting compensation to corporate directors/trustees as such under Section 30 is not violated in this particular case. Consequently, the last sentence of Section 30… does not likewise find application in this case since the compensation is being given to private respondents in their capacity as officers of WIT and not as board members.”

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ claim that this was a derivative suit, pointing out that it failed to meet the procedural requirements and should have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the first place.

Practical Implications for Philippine Corporations

This case provides essential guidance for Philippine corporations regarding compensation practices. It clarifies that while director compensation is restricted by Section 30 of the Corporation Code, compensation for services rendered as corporate officers is not subject to the same limitations.

However, corporations must exercise caution to ensure transparency and fairness in their compensation structures. Here are some key lessons:

• Clearly Define Roles: Delineate the specific duties and responsibilities of directors and officers to justify compensation accordingly.
• Proper Documentation: Maintain detailed records of board resolutions and shareholder approvals related to compensation.
• Transparency: Ensure that all compensation arrangements are disclosed to shareholders and comply with relevant regulations.
• Avoid Conflicts of Interest: Implement safeguards to prevent self-dealing and ensure that compensation decisions are made in the best interests of the corporation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can a director receive a salary from the corporation?

A: Yes, but only if it’s stipulated in the corporation’s by-laws or approved by a majority vote of the stockholders. The salary must be for duties performed as an officer, not just as a director.

Q: What is the difference between a director and an officer?

A: Directors are elected by the shareholders to oversee the management of the corporation. Officers are appointed by the board of directors to manage the day-to-day operations of the corporation.

Q: What is a derivative suit?

A: A derivative suit is an action brought by minority shareholders on behalf of the corporation to redress wrongs committed against it when the directors refuse to sue.

Q: Where should a derivative suit be filed?

A: Derivative suits are intra-corporate disputes and fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Q: What happens if a director receives unauthorized compensation?

A: The director may be liable to return the compensation to the corporation. They may also face legal action from shareholders or regulatory authorities.

Q: How can a corporation ensure its compensation practices are compliant?

A: Consult with legal counsel to review the corporation’s by-laws, compensation policies, and board resolutions to ensure compliance with the Corporation Code and other relevant regulations.

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