Antecedent Facts

Joselyn was a stockholder of Chua Tee Corporation of Manila. Alfredo was the president and chairman of
the board, while Tomas was the corporate secretary and also a member of the board of the same
corporation. Mercedes was the accountant/bookkeeper tasked with the physical custody of the corporate
records.

August 2000, Joselyn invoked her right as a stockholder pursuant to Section 741 of the [OLD] Corporation
Code to inspect the records of the books of the business transactions of the corporation, the minutes of the
meetings of the board of directors and stockholders, as well as the financial statements of the corporation.

She hired a lawyer to send demand letters to each of the petitioners for her right to inspect to be heeded.
She was denied of such right to inspect.

Joselyn likewise hired the services of Mr. Velayo from the of Guzman Bocaling and Company to assist her in
examining the books of the corporation. Mr. Velayo with a letter request and his group visited the
corporation's premises for the supposed examination of the accounts.

However, the books of accounts were not formally presented to them and there was no list of schedules
which would allow them to pursue their inspection.

Mr. Velayo testified that they failed to complete their objective of inspecting the books of accounts and
examine the recorded documents.

In the Quezon City Prosecutors' Office, Joselyn alleged that despite written demands, the Chuas conspired in
refusing without valid cause the exercise of her right to inspect Chua Tee Corporation of Manila's (CTCM)
business transactions records, financial statements and minutes of the meetings of both the board of
directors and stockholders.

In their reply, they argued that:

1
Sec. 74. Books to be kept; stock transfer agent. - Every corporation shall keep and carefully preserve at its principal office a record of all business
transactions and minutes of all meetings of stockholders or members, or of the board of directors or trustees, in which shall be set forth in detail the
time and place of holding the meeting, how authorized, the notice given, whether the meeting was regular or special, if special its object, those
present and absent, and every act done or ordered done at the meeting. Upon the demand of any director, trustee, stockholder or member, the time
when any director, trustee, stockholder or member entered or left the meeting must be noted in the minutes; and on a similar demand, the yeas and
nays must be taken on any motion or proposition, and a record thereof carefully made. The protest of any director, trustee, stockholder or member
on any action or proposed action must be recorded in full on his demand.
The records of all business transactions of the corporation and the minutes of any meetings shall be open to inspection by any director, trustee,
stockholder or member of the corporation at reasonable hours on business days and he may demand, writing, for a copy of excerpts from said
records or minutes, at his expense.
Any officer or agent of the corporation who shall refuse to allow any director, trustees, stockholder or member of the corporation to examine and
copy excerpts from its records or minutes, in accordance with the provisions of this Code, shall be liable to such director, trustee, stockholder or
member for damages, and in addition, shall be guilty of an offense which shall be punishable under Section 144 of this Code: Provided, That if
such refusal is made pursuant to a resolution or order of the board of directors or trustees, the liability under this section for such action shall be
imposed upon the directors or trustees who voted for such refusal: and Provided, further, That it shall be a defense to any action under this section
that the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts from the corporation's records and minutes has improperly used any information secured
through any prior examination of the records or minutes of such corporation or of any other corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for a
legitimate purpose in making his demand.
Stock corporations must also keep a book to be known as the "stock and transfer book", in which must be kept a record of all stocks in the names
of the stockholders alphabetically arranged; the installments paid and unpaid on all stock for which subscription has been made, and the date of
payment of any installment; a statement of every alienation, sale or transfer of stock made, the date thereof, and by and to whom made; and such
other entries as the by-laws may prescribe. The stock and transfer book shall be kept in the principal office of the corporation or in the office of its
stock transfer agent and shall be open for inspection by any director or stockholder of the corporation at reasonable hours on business days.
No stock transfer agent or one engaged principally in the business of registering transfers of stocks in behalf of a stock corporation shall be allowed
to operate in the Philippines unless he secures a license from the Securities and Exchange Commission and pays a fee as may be fixed by the
Commission, which shall be renewable annually: Provided, That a stock corporation is not precluded from performing or making transfer of its
own stocks, in which case all the rules and regulations imposed on stock transfer agents, except the payment of a license fee herein provided, shall
be applicable. (51a and 32a; B. P. No. 268.)
 Joselyn and her lawyers then failed to set up an appointment with Mercedes. Joselyn, through
counsel, then sent demand letters to inspect the records. Not long after, Joselyn filed two cases, one of
which was civil and the other, criminal, against the petitioners.

LOWER COURT
Convicted the petitioners. Sentencing them to surfer the penalty of 30 days of imprisonment, and directing
them to pay the costs of suit. They cited Ang-Abaya, et al. v. Ang saying that under Section 74 of the
Corporation Code, to wit: (a) a stockholder's prior demand in writing for the inspection of corporate records;
(b) refusal by corporate officers to allow the inspection; and (c) proofs adduced by the corporate officers of
the stockholder's prior improper or malicious use of the records in the event that the same is raised as a
defense for the refusal to allow the inspection. Also invoking Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, saying that a stockholder's right to inspect corporate records is based upon the necessity of
self-protection.

Issue

Whether or not the respondents are entitled to inspect the records and books of the corporation – YES
Whether or not the intent to deprive is relevant - NO

Ruling of the Court

1st Issue:

Despite the expiration of the corporate term in 1999, duties as corporate officers still pertained
to the petitioners when Joselyn's complaint was filed in 2000.

Yu, et al. v. Yukayguan, et al.

The corporation continues to be a body corporate for three (3) years after its dissolution for purposes of
prosecuting and defending suits by and against it and for enabling it to settle and close its affairs, culminating
in the disposition and distribution of its remaining assets. x x x The termination of the life of a juridical entity
does not by itself cause the extinction or diminution of the rights and liabilities of such entity x x x nor those
of its owners and creditors. x x x.
Further, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, Sections 122 and 145 of the Corporation Code explicitly
provide for the continuation of the body corporate for three years after dissolution. The rights and remedies
against, or liabilities of, the officers shall not be removed or impaired by reason of the dissolution of the
corporation. Corollarily then, a stockholder's right to inspect corporate records subsists during the
period of liquidation. Hence, Joselyn, as a stockholder, had the right to demand for the inspection
of records. Lodged upon the corporation is the corresponding duty to allow the said inspection.

2nd Issue

It is apparent that a complete examination of the petitioners corporation records did not occur resulting to
an effective deprivation of Joselyn's right as a stockholder. However, from Joselyn and Velayo's testimonies,
it can be inferred that permission to view the records was granted, albeit not fully effected.

The petitioners, on their part, explained in the Counter-Affidavit filed before the Quezon City
Prosecution Office that they never prevented Joselyn from exercising her right of inspection, but
when the latter made her request, Mercedes was too occupied in winding up the affairs of CTCM.

While a cloud of doubt is cast upon the existence of criminal intent on the part of the petitioners,
it is jurisprudentially settled that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential
in offenses punishable by special laws, which are mala prohibita.
In this case the petitioners were charged with violations of Section 74, in relation to Section 1442, of the
Corporation Code, a special law. Accordingly, since Joselyn was deprived of the exercise of an
effective right of inspection, offenses had in fact been committed, regardless of the petitioners'
intent. The Corporation Code provides for penalties relative to the commission of offenses, which
cannot be trivialized, lest the public purpose for which they are crafted be defeated and put to
naught.

The court also rules that the punishment of imprisonment be modified and shall be a fine instead. Coz a
corporation cannot be imprisoned. Duh.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the conviction of Alfredo L. Chua, Tomas L. Chua and
Mercedes P. Diaz for violations of Section 74, in relation to Section 144, of the Corporation Code
is AFFIRMED, but MODIFIED to the extent that in lieu of the penalty of thirty (30) days of imprisonment,
a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) each is imposed upon the petitioners.

2
Sec. 144. Violations of the Code. - Violations of any of the provisions of this Code or its amendments not
otherwise specifically penalized therein shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand (P1,000.00)
pesos but not more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days but
not more than five (5) years, or both, in the discretion of the court. If the violation is committed by a corporation,
the same may, after notice and hearing, be dissolved in appropriate proceedings before the Securities and
Exchange Commission: Provided, That such dissolution shall not preclude the institution of appropriate action
against the director, trustee or officer of the corporation responsible for said violation: Provided, further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed to repeal the other causes for dissolution of a corporation provided in
this Code. (190 1/2 a)