Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Crisostomo vs. SEC

    Uploaded by

    Edz Votefornoymar Del Rosario
    The case Crisostomo vs. SEC involved a minority shareholder named Crisostomo of United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) who opposed holding an election for the hospital's new board of directors after Japanese doctors invested $57 million in UDMC. Crisostomo claimed allowing the Japanese doctors on the board would violate constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership and practice of professionals. However, the Supreme Court ruled the investments did not violate the constitution since the Japanese doctors did not practice medicine in the Philippines by merely owning shares in the corporation operating the hospital. The court held stock ownership alone does not amount to illegally practicing a profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Crisostomo vs. SEC

    Uploaded by

    Edz Votefornoymar Del Rosario
    86 views1 page
    The case Crisostomo vs. SEC involved a minority shareholder named Crisostomo of United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) who opposed holding an election for the hospital's new board of directors after Japanese doctors invested $57 million in UDMC. Crisostomo claimed allowing the Japanese doctors on the board would violate constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership and practice of professionals. However, the Supreme Court ruled the investments did not violate the constitution since the Japanese doctors did not practice medicine in the Philippines by merely owning shares in the corporation operating the hospital. The court held stock ownership alone does not amount to illegally practicing a profession.

    Original Description:

    aadsaf

    Original Title

    3. Crisostomo vs. SEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case Crisostomo vs. SEC involved a minority shareholder named Crisostomo of United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) who opposed holding an election for the hospital's new board of directors after Japanese doctors invested $57 million in UDMC. Crisostomo claimed allowing the Japanese doctors on the board would violate constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership and practice of professionals. However, the Supreme Court ruled the investments did not violate the constitution since the Japanese doctors did not practice medicine in the Philippines by merely owning shares in the corporation operating the hospital. The court held stock ownership alone does not amount to illegally practicing a profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    86 views1 page

    Crisostomo vs. SEC

    Uploaded by

    Edz Votefornoymar Del Rosario
    The case Crisostomo vs. SEC involved a minority shareholder named Crisostomo of United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) who opposed holding an election for the hospital's new board of directors after Japanese doctors invested $57 million in UDMC. Crisostomo claimed allowing the Japanese doctors on the board would violate constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership and practice of professionals. However, the Supreme Court ruled the investments did not violate the constitution since the Japanese doctors did not practice medicine in the Philippines by merely owning shares in the corporation operating the hospital. The court held stock ownership alone does not amount to illegally practicing a profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Crisostomo vs.

    SEC
    G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555

    FACTS:

    Crisostomo is a minority stockholder of the United Doctors Medical Center. He is


    also the director and legal counsel of UDMC. The said hospital was unable to pay
    its P55 million debt incurred from the Development Bank of the Philippines hence
    it faced foreclosure. In order to avoid foreclosure, Crisostomo and some others
    were able to convince Japanese doctors to invest in the hospital. Eventually, these
    Japanese doctors invested P57 million in said hospital. Pursuant to the
    Memorandum in lieu of the investment, the Japanese doctors were promised to
    be part of the hospital’s board of directors. However, instead of holding an
    election for the new board of directors, Crisostomo opposed the same saying that
    it violates some constitutional grounds restricting foreign ownership and practice
    of professionals in the Philippines. The issue reached the Securities and Exchange
    Commission which ordered UDMC to hold the election.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the investments in UDMC of the Japanese doctors violate the
    Constitutional prohibition against foreigners practicing a profession in the
    Philippines (Section 14, Article XII, 1987 Constitution)- NO

    HELD/RULING:

    The investments in UDMC of Doctors Yamada and Enatsu do not violate the
    Constitutional prohibition against foreigners practising a profession in the
    Philippines (Section 14, Article XII, 1987 Constitution) for they do not practice
    their profession (medicine) in the Philippines, neither have they applied for a
    license to do so. They only own shares of stock in a corporation that operates a
    hospital. No law limits the sale of hospital shares of stock to doctors only. The
    ownership of such shares does not amount to engaging (illegally,) in the practice
    of medicine, or, nursing. If it were otherwise, the petitioner's stockholding in
    UDMC would also be illegal.

    You might also like