SEC En Banc Case No. 01-13-284 In the matter of Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation : Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc.

SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City Securities and Exchange Commission Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

In the Matter of Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation:

SEC En Banc Case No. 01-13-284 For: Application for Extension of Corporate Term

HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.

Appellant.

X

DECISION

Company Registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD), dated January 14, 2013. denying the appellant's letter, dated December 27, 2012, asking the CRMD to accept its supporting documents. application for the amendment of incorporation and by-laws together with all the .required Before the Commission En Banc is an appeal from the Order issued by the

its Memorandum on Appeal2, are as follows: The relevant facts, as alleged, argued, verified and certified by the appellant' in

into 100,000 common shares with a par value of One Thousand Pesos (P 1,000.00) per 31, 1962 for a term of fifty (50) years or until July 30, 2012. The appellant has an outstanding capital stock of One Hundred Million Pesos (Php 100,000,000.00) divided share. The appellant was registered with the Commission as a stock corporation on July

became the registered owner of 93,727 appellant shares representing approximately (Illido) purchased 46,863 of appellant's shares from Eco Leisure representing 100% of appellant's outstanding capital stock. In 2011, Illido Management Corporation approximately 50% of appellant's outstanding capital stock. On January 13, 2010, Eco Leisure & Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (Eco Leisure)

2 Dated January 28, 2013. 1 Through its Corporate Secretary. Atty. Roland S. Ang.

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1, 2013 Page 2 of 2

and Cooperation Agreement with the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) with a term of at least ten (10) years. On December 8, 2011, appellant entered into a Contract of Lease and Marketing

On July 30, 2012, the appellant's original 50-year term expired

In November 2012, Eco Leisure purchased back from Illido the 46,863 shares

Resorts World Corporation (LRWC) the 46,863 share and an additional 983 shares, representing approximately 51% of appellant's outstanding capital stock. LRWC is a publicly listed company whose shares are listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). comprising all of the latter's shares in appellant. In turn, Eco Leisure sold to Leisure &

On December 17..2012. in a joint special meeting, appellant's stockholders and board of directors unanimously approved the amendment of appellant's articles of incorporation and by-laws for the purpose of. among others, extending its corporate term for another 50 years from the date of the original expiration.

On December 26, 2012, appellant filed with the Commission its application for amendment of articles of incorporation and by-laws together with the required supporting documents3. The CRMD verbally informed the appellant that it could not accept and process the appellant's application after the expiration of its corporate term.

On January 2, 2013, appellant filed an appeal letter with the CRMD for the latter to reconsider its previous decision and process appellant's applicationt.

On January 14, 2013, the CRMD, during a formal conference with the appellant3.

laws. The CRMD based its decision on SEC Resolution 394, Series of 2008. Thus, the appellant has fifteen (15) days or until January 29, 2013 to file and perfect its appeal from the CRMD's denial as provided under Rule XI of the SEC's 2006 Rules of Procedure. formally denied its application for the amendment of articles of incorporation and by-

On January 25, 2013, appellant formally notified the CRMD of its intention to appeal its decision dated January 14, 2013 to the Commission En Banc.

Memorandum on Appeal and paid its corresponding docket fees. On January 28, 2013, appellant filed with the Commission En Banc its

in not considering factors and exceptional circumstances which could have sufficiently The appellant further argues in its Memorandum on Appeal that the CRMD erred

3Annex "C", Memorandum on Appeal dated January 28, 20 1 3. 5Annex "E", note 3, supra. 4Annex "D", supra.

Decision dated October 1, 2013 Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Page 3 of 12

explained and justified appellant's inability to amend its articles of incorporation extending its corporate term on or before July 31, 2012, to wit:

- finally decided to buy back all of Illido's shares in appellant and enter into a new partnership with LRWC, the corporate term of appellant had already expired."e of its stockholder was ever organized held or conducted."From December appellant's outstanding capital stock on November 2012, no formal meeting 2011 to the expiration of appellant's corporate life in July 2012, Eco Leisure and of incorporation, it was necessary, therefore, for both Eco Leisure and Illido to since the representatives in appellant of both Eco Leisure and Ilido were then management/operational concerns and intra-corporate issues. When Eco Leisure Illido each owned approximately 50% equity in appellant. Since the vote of at least 2/3 of its outstanding capital stock is required to amend appellant's articles participate or, at least, be represented in the required stockholders meeting. Unfortunately, the conduct of a stockholders' meeting had been deferred way too "3.3Prior to the acquisition by LRWC of approximately 51% of ...focused in...addressing. and...resolving...overwhelming

maintaining, improving and eventually expanding its business and operations. Appellant has, in fact, an existing agreement with PAGCOR with a term of at least ten (10) years, expiring in December 2021. Moreover, appellant claims that the interest of the appellant's creditors, employees and stakeholders should be duly considered and given its continued existence would greatly benefit the State in a number of ways. The weight in the decision to be rendered by the Commission. Finally, appellant alleges that Nonetheless, the appellant maintains that it has every intention of continuing.

appellant claims that it has paid and remitted in 2011 over Php 13 Million in taxes and licenses. It has also paid Php 16 Million in salaries and wages in 201 1 alone.

On February 6, 2013, the Commission En Banc issued an Order directing CRMD to file a Reply Memorandum to appellant's Memorandum on Appeal within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order. The CRMD did not file any pleading.

On August 7, 2013, the appellant filed with the Commission En Banc its Supplement [to the Memorandum on Appeal dated January 28, 2013] dated August 6, 2013 (Supplement). The appellant now claims that the approval"of the Board of Directors and the ratification of the stockholders of a resolution to extend its corporate

held on December i7, 2012 merely reaffirmed the appellant's intention to extend its term were made on February 24, 2012 and that the stockholders and directors' meeting corporate term, thus:

2012, appellant held a joint special meeting of its stockholders and directors. 2.7 Within appellant's original 50-year term, or on 24 February

6 Emphasis supplied

Decision dated October 1, 2013 Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Page 4 of 12

It was during this meeting that appellant Board of Directors and shareholders_..representing99.55%.ofits....outstanding.capital..stock unanimously approved a resolution to extend appellant's corporate term for fifty (50) years, or until 30 July.2062.

2.8 At this same meeting, however, the Board proceeded to discuss matters concerning the operations and management of the Midas Hotel and Casino. It was during these discussions that Atty. Ang became embroiled in a heated, emotional and highly contentious argument with reprcsentatives of the Illido group, mainly regarding certain financial, operational and policy issues concerning how the Midas Hotel and Casino should be managed. As a direct result thereof, Atty. Ang immediately tendered his.resignation as Corporate acted upon by the Board during the same meeting. Secretary and director of appellant. Atty. Ang's resignation, however, was not

2.9 On 27 February 2012 and 01 March 2012, pursuant to his

corporate records and documents in his possession to appellant's then Vice President, Ms. Mary Somera-Demetillo. Even at this point, however, the Board had not formally acted upon and accepted Atty. Ang's resignation. resignation just several days before, Atty. Ang turned over all of appellant's

appellant's Board, three (3) nominees each from Eco Leisure and Illido, a stalemate ensued, which rendered appellant unable to pass or approve any further resolution. Further, the Board's failure to act upon Atty. Ang's resignation and to designate or elect an acting or a new Corporate Secretary left appellant in a predicament where no one could certify matter's taken up during any of appellant's meetings, including but not limited to, the previously approved resolution to extend appellant's corporate term for fifty (50) years, or until 30 July 2062. 2.10 As Atty. Ang's resignation left only six (6) active directors in

extend its corporate life, appellant's original 50-year term expired without a formal application being filed with the Commission. 2.11 On 30 July 2012, and despite the approval of a resolution to

shares and an additional 938 shares, representing approximately 51% of 46,863 shares comprising all of the latter's shares in appellant. In turn, Leisure appellant's outstanding capital stock. This acquisition was well-documented in widely-read publications such as the Philippine Star and the Manila Standard. & Resorts World Corporation (LRWC) purchased from Eco Leisure 46,863 2.12 JIln November 2012, Eco Leisure purchase back from Illido

stockholder, Atty. Ang was immediately re-elected as Corporate Secretary of records and documents. appellant. 2.13 Atty. Ang then regained possession and custody of appellant's As a result of the departure of Illido and the entrance of a new

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines. Inc SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1.2013 Page 5 of 12

organized and arranged by Atty. Ang, appellant's stockholders and board of directors unanimously approved the amendment of appellant's articles of 214 On 17 December 2012,_a_joint special meeting_primarily

from the date of the original expiration." incorporation and by-Iaws for the purpose of, among others, re-affirming its intention of extending appellant's corporate term for another fifty (50) years

the extension of its corporate term. The issue is whether or not CRMD erred in denying appellant's application for

We rule against appellant.

prohibited pleadings in proceedings before the Commission, viz. : Section 3-6, Rule III of the 2006 SEC Rules of Procedure' enumerates the

made under a similar guise or title is not allowed: xxx "Section 3-6. The following pleadings or any submission that is filed or

() motion for leave to amend pleadings.

automatically expunged from the records of the case." Should one be filed, said prohibited pleading or submission shall be

board resolved and the stockholders ratified the amendments to the appellant's articles of the controversy may speedily be determined xxx.8 On the other hand, a supplemental pleading may set forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since by the appellant, denominated as a supplement to the memorandum on appeal, amends directors' meeting was held on February 24, 2012, is really an amendment. It is intended as a correction of a mistaken or an inadequate allegation or description of how the alleged memorandum on appeal. Accordingly, said amendment, made and filed under the guise of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name or a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that that the actual merits of incorporation. Indeed, such act of the appellant's directors and stockholders was not a transaction, occurrence or event which has happened since the last date of the the last date of the pleading sought to be supplemented'. In this case, the pleading filed the original pleading. The new allegation in the Supplement, that a stockholders and A pleading may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name

7Hereinafter referred to as the "2006 SEC Rules" 8Section 1. Rule 10, Revised Rules of Court. Section 6, Note 8, supra.

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1.2013 Page 6 of 12

from the records of this case. of a Supplement, is not allowed under the 2006 SEC Rules and is automatically expunged

pleading under the 2006 SEC Rules, still the Commission cannot consider appellant's improbable aliegation that on 24 February 2012,it held a joint special meeting of its stockholders and directors, because of the following reasons. Assuming for the sake of argument that such Supplement is not a prohibited

or an inadequate allegation or description but contradicts and conflicts with the following allegations in its Memorandum on Appeal and the attached evidence: First, the appellant's new allegation in the Supplement does not correct a mistake

to appellant's new allegation. The appellant earlier claimed that: A. The last paragraph of appellant's letter dated December 27, 20121 is adverse

66.67% or 2/3 of outstanding capital stock is required in order to amend HEPI's article of incorporation. It was necessary therefore for both Eco HEPI's outstanding capital stock in November 2012. no formal meeting of stockholders was organized, held or conducted. Each of Eco Leisure and Illido previously owned approximately 50% equity in HEPI. The vote of Leisure and Illido to be represented in the required stockholders meeting, the holding of which. "xxx Prior to the acquisition by LRWC of approximately 51%_of had unfortunately been deferred Representatives in HEPI of both Eco Leisure and Illido were then way too LR WC, the corporate term of HEPI had expired.,1 focused in addressing and resolving overwhelming intra-corporate issues and back all of Illido's shares in HEPI and enter into a new partnership with management/operational concerns. When Eco Leisure finally decided to buy

reiterated the afore-quoted portion of appellant's December 27, 2012 letter. B. Paragraph 3.3 of appellant's Memorandum on Appeal positively asserted and

and Board of Directors12 which was published in Philippine Daily Inquirer on December 12, 2012 claims that: C. The first paragraph of the Notice of Joint Special Meeting of the Stockholders

HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES,INC.,which owns and "The Joint Special Meeting of the Stockholders and Board of Directors of 2:00 p.m, at the Midas Hotel located at 2702 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. operates the Midas Hotel, will be held on Monday; 17 December 2012, at

: Annex "D", note 3, supra. I Emphasis supplied. 12 Annex "H", note 3, supra.

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines. Inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1, 2013 Page 7 of 12

Stockholders shall approve the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Corporation and the filing of the proper application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to carry on the business and operation of the Midas Hotel. xxx

Memorandum on Appeal and the Supplement. Thus, he should not have withheld or omitted the "factual milieu which effectively prevented [the appellant] from extending its despite knowing that the alleged meeting and approval of the extension of term happened February 24, 2012 stockholders' and directors' meeting, verified and certified13 both the corporate term prior to its expiration"1 knowledge, the contents of the Memorandum on Appeal. If, as Atty. Ang claims, he was elected back as appellant's Corporate Secretary in November 2012, one wonders why, directors' meeting to happen in order to approve the extension of appellant's corporate term; (2) let the filing of appeliant's application for extension of its corporate term based Memorandum on Appeal, including the non-holding of any stockholders' meeting prior the records in his possession. His own conduct, therefore, discredits his whole story. His manner of presenting his case gives rise to doubts as to the truthfulness of his certification that the extension of appellant's corporate term was approved on February 24, 2012. Said certification, therefore, is self-serving. on February 24, 2012, he still: (1) let the December 17, 2012 special stockholders' and on the December 17, 2012 meetings; and (3) certify under oath that the contents of the to November 2012, were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and on the basis of Second, Atty. Roland S. Ang, the alleged corporate secretary at the appellant's 4 at the time he verified, to the best of his

under our Rules.15 The appellant, in the Supplement, insists that "on 24 February 2012 fifty (50) years, or until 30"July 206216. Then, the appellant claims that "no one could the previously approved resolution to extend appellant's corporate term for fifty (50) stockholders and board of directors, unanimously approved the amendment, reaffirming xxx its Board of Directors and shareholders representing 99.55% of its outstanding certify matter's taken up during any of appellant's meeting, including but not limited to, years"7. its intention of extending appellant's corporate term18 capital stock unanimously approved a resolution to extend appellant's corporate term for Third, bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof Finally, appellant maintains that, "on December 17, 2012 xxx appellant's . These allegations, however, were

13 Dated 28 [25] January 2013. Commission, 272 SCRA 793, May 29,1997. Cited in Emiia Manzano vs Miguel Perez, Sr. et al. G.R. No. I?Paragraph 2.10. Supplement. ISecond paragraph, Nature and Ground for Addendum, page 1, Supplement. 15 philippine National Bank v. CA 266 SCRA 136, January 6, 1997; Martinez v. National Labor Relations 18' Paragraph 2. 1 4, Supplement 1.12485, August 9, 2001. Paragraph 2.7. Suppiement.

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1, 2013 Page 8 of !2

not proven by any documentary evidence aside from the self-serving certification of Atty. appellant was held on February 24, 2012, approving such amendments to the articles of Certificate for the December 17, 2012, as well as the appellant's assertions in its letter of incorporation. When considered with the Notice, and the Directors' and Secretary's December 27, 2013 and in its Memorandum on Appeal, said self-serving certification. Annex B of the Supplement, carries little or no weight at all. Ang 9 that a joint special meeting of the Board of Directors and stockholders of the

improbable and is unsubstantiated. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Accordingly the new allegation is inherently

term was, indeed, approved by the necessary vote of its directors and stockholders on denied for having been fi led after the expiration of its term. February 24, 2012, still, its application therefor with the Commission was properly Assuming for the sake of argument that the extension of appellant's corporate

may be extended through an amendment of the articles of incorporation, made in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In particular, Sections 1121, 1622 and 3723 of The Corporation Code2(Code) provides that a corporation's term of existence

Commission or from the date of filing with the said Commission if not acted upon within six (6) months from the date of filing for a cause not attributable to the corporation." 19 Annex "B" Supp!ement. 20Batas Pambansa BIg. 68 (1980) date of incorporation unless sooner dissofved or unless said period is extended. The_corporate term as originally stated in the articles of incorporation may be extended for periods not exceeding fifty (50) years in any single instance by an amendment of the articles of incorporation. in accordance_with this Code: Provided. That no extension can be made earlier than five (5) years prior to the original or subsequent expiry date(s) unless there are justifiable reasons for an 'earlier extension as may be determined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. special iaw. and for legitimate purposes, any provision or matter stated in the articles of incorporation may be amended by a majority vote of the board of directors or trustees and the vote or written assent of the stockholders_representing at least two-thirds (2/3)_of the outstanding_capital stock, without prejudice to the appraisal right of dissenting stockholders in accordance with the provisions of this Code. or the vote or written assent of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members if it be a non-stock corporation. out in the articles of incorporation. Such articies, as amended shali be indicated by underscoring the change or changes made, and a copy thereof duly certified under oath by the corporate secretary and duly approved by the required vote of the stockholders or members, shall be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. a majority of the directors or trustees stating the fact that said amendment or amendments have been I -Sec. } 1.Corporate term. - A corporation shail exist for a period not exceeding fifty (50) years from the Sec. 16.Amendment of Articles of Incorporation. - Unless otherwise prescribed by this Code or by The amendments_shall take_effect_ upon_their approval by the_Securities_and_Exchange The original and amended articles together shall contain all provisions required by law to be set

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1, 2013

Page 9 of 12

the Code provide how this type amendment becomes effective. Pursuant thereto, the Commission issued SEC Resolution No. 394, Series of 2008, which provides:

"SEC RES. NO. 394, s. of 2008

terms of existence be not allowed to file any amended articles of incorporation extending their corporate life." RESOLVED, To ADOPT the policy that corporations with expired

term to be effective all of the following should be done before the expiration of the corporation's corporate term: (1) a majority of the board of directors vote to adopt the amendment; (2) the adoption of the amendment is ratified by the stockholders representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock in a meeting duly have been duly approved by the required vote of the stockholders; (5) the corporation called in accordance with Section 37 of the Code; (3) the corporation prepares a copy of the articles of incorporation; as amended, underscoring the changes made; (4) the submits the amended articles together with the secretary/directors' certification to the corporate secretary and a majority of the directors certify under oath that the amendments Commission for approval. From the foregoing, it is clear that for an amendment for extension of corporate

2012. In fact, the appellant further argued, in paragraph 3.11 thereof, that: the stockholders and the board of directors of the amendment of its articles of incorporation and by-laws for the purpose of, among others, extending its corporate term, was done on December 17, 2012 or after the expiration of its corporate term on July 30, However, the appeliant admits in its Memorandum on Appeal that the approval by

appellant's execution of remedial actions to overcome the expiration of its the amendment of the articles of incorporation to extend its corporate term. corporate life mere months from the expiration of its corporate term. As pointed out, barely a month after LRWC's purchase of appellant's shares, LRWC and Eco Leisure immediately called and held a stockholder's meeting approving "Such intention to continue with the business is also evidence by the

23 Sec. 37.Power to extend or shorten corporate term. - A private corporation may extend or shorten its term as stated in the_articles of incorporation when approved by a majority vote of the board of the outstanding_capital_stock_or_by at_ Jeast_two-thirds (2/3)_of the_members in case of non-stock corporations. Written notice of the proposed action and of the time and place of the meeting shall be addressed to each stockholder or member at his piace of residence as shown on the books of the corporation and deposited to the addressee in the post office with postage prepaid, or served personaily: Provided, That in case of extension of corporate term, any dissenting stockholder may exercise his appraisal right under the conditions provided in this code. (n) directors or trustees and ratified at a meeting.by the stockholders representing at teast two-thirds (2/3) of

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Decision dated October 1,2013 Page 10 of 12

Subsequently, a formal application for amendment of articles of incorporation was then presented to this Honorable Commission for filing."24

articles of incorporation extending their corporate term. amendment of it articles of incorporation extending its corporate life. SEC Resolution 394, Series of 2008, which is pursuant to the intent of the Corporation Code, is explicit. Corporations with expired terms of existence shall not be allowed to file any amended Accordingly, the CRMD correctly denied the appellant's application for the

the Court of Appeals: also in accordance with the recent decision of the Supreme Court, in. Cebu Bonded Warehousing Corporation vs. Fe Barin, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Appeal's Decision dated March 30, 2012 and Resolution dated November 23, 201226, for failure of therein petitioner to show any reversible error in the challenged decision. Said Securities and Exchange Commission, En Banc2s The CRMD's denial of appellant's application for extension of corporate term is , which affirmed the Court of

dissolved or unless such period is extended, xxx. organization of corporations, provides that a corporation shall exist for a period not exceeding fifty (50) years from the date of incorporation unless sooner "The Corporation Code, the law which governs the formation and

originally stated in the articles of incorporation may be extended by an the absence of compliance with the legal requisite for the extension of the period. the corporation ceases to exist and is dissolved ipso facto. The corporate term as amendment of the corporation's articles of incorporation in accordance with the Code. Upon the expiration of the period fixed in the articles of incorporation in

extending or shortening the corporate term, xxx. Section 37 of the Corporation Code provides for the procedure for

XXX

power to extend the corporate term is not an inherent right. The amended articles of incorporation must be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for approval, as provided in Section 16 of the Corporation Code: xxx. Since the life of the corporation is just a concession of the State, the

XXX

25G.R. No. 204549, February 6, 20 1 3. 24 Emphasis supplied. 26CA-G.R. S.P. No. 117393.

Decision dated October 1.2013 Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, inc. SEC En Banc Case No.01-13-284 Page 11 of 12

SEC of the amendments to the articles of incorporation, or if not acted upon contracts should be construed as to harmonized and give effect to the different provisions thereof. When read together, it becomes clear from the provisions that the corporate term is deemed extended only upon the approyal by the within six (6) months from the date of filing for a cause not attributable to the corporation, the corporate term is deemed extended on such date of filing with the SEC. Since the approval by the SEC of the amendment to the articles of incorporation is an indispensabie requirement for the extension of the life of a corporation, such approval must also come before its expiration. Specificity is not necessary for, not only is it implicit therefrom, logic likewise dictates that when the corporate life of the corporation was ended, already elapsed, there is nothing to renew for the corporation is already there.is nothing more to extend. Where the term of the.corporation had inexistent. The parimateria rule of statutory construction dictates that laws and

Reconsideration of Cebu Bonded ruled that: Moreover, the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution28 denying the Motion for

Resolution No. 394 Series of 2008 is more in accord with the intent of the Jaw. To strike it down just because it was a substantial change from a previous SEC resolution would be tantamount to saying that erroneous interpretations of law made by government agencies tasked to implement them are immutable and incurable. "We disagree. As extensively discussed in Our Dccision,SEc

advisory. As between the law and the SEC opinion, the law prevails, and it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. of Ramcar Incorporated be similarly applied to its case. SEC opinions are merely Petitioner cannot insist that the opinion rendered by the SEC in the case

is an administrative issuance that is a legislative rule, as opposed to being merely guestioned SEC Resolution is merely interpretative in nature for it gives no an interpretative rule, and therefore requires publication, We find otherwise. The real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed, and is designed to provide guidelines to the law which it is in charge of enforcing. No publication is necessary. This is in contrast to a legislative rule which is primary legislation by providing the detais thereof, hence the requirement of public hearing and publication." As to petitioner's averment that SEC Resolution No. 394, Series of 2008

27 Emphasis Supplied, Page 5, Note 25, supra. 28 Promuigated on November 23, 2012. 29 Emphasis supplied.

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, inc. SEC En Banc Case No.0 1-13-284 Decision dated October 1, 20 13 Page 12 of 12

according to the appellant, could have sufficiently explained and justified its inability to amend its articles of incorporation. This is because the corporation has "overstepped the limits of its limited existence. No life there is to prolong. law and is legally dead as of July 30, 2012 for all intents and purposes. Therefore, the Commission cannot consider the alleged factors and exceptional circumstances which In view of the foregoing, the appellant's term of existence expired by operation of 230

lack of merit. Let the CRMD be furnished with a copy of this Decision for its appropriate action. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, October 1, 2013.

TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson

A w19&-0 MA JUANITA E. QUETO Commissioner MANUEL HUBERTO B. GAITE M Commissioner

Namio hotuas.he

ELADI Cbmmi M. JALA Sioner ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner

*on official leave

30 Ahambra vs. SEC, G. R. No. L-23606, July 29, 1 968.