Can a Startup Co-Founder Contest Expulsion?
Introduction
Removing an original co-founder from a startup shortly before a venture capital funding round can affect ownership, voting rights, board control, management authority, and the value of the founder’s shares. The legal result depends on the founder’s status, the corporation’s articles and bylaws, the terms of any shareholders’ or founders’ agreement, and the procedure used for the expulsion.
Expulsion from management is not necessarily the same as cancellation of share ownership. A founder may lose an executive position while retaining shares, voting rights, inspection rights, and the right to challenge corporate acts. Conversely, a claimed removal may be invalid if the person was expelled without authority, without notice, or without compliance with the Revised Corporation Code and the corporation’s governing documents.
What Legal Relationship Does the Founder Have?
The first step is to identify the founder’s legal capacity. A co-founder may simultaneously be a stockholder, director, corporate officer, employee, and party to a shareholders’ agreement. These capacities carry different rights and remedies.
| Capacity | Possible legal concern |
|---|---|
| Stockholder | Ownership, voting, dividends, inspection of corporate records, and appraisal rights |
| Director | Validity of election, removal, board participation, and fiduciary duties |
| Corporate officer | Validity of appointment or removal and whether the dispute is intra-corporate |
| Employee | Possible illegal dismissal or other labor claims, depending on how the position was created |
| Contracting party | Breach of a founders’ agreement, shareholders’ agreement, employment contract, or vesting arrangement |
The Supreme Court applies both the relationship test and the nature-of-the-controversy test. The relationship test asks whether the parties are stockholders, members, directors, officers, or the corporation itself. The nature-of-the-controversy test asks whether the dispute concerns rights and obligations arising from corporate law or the corporation’s internal rules. These requirements were discussed in De Castro, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 204261, 2016.
When Is the Dispute Intra-Corporate?
A dispute is generally intra-corporate when it concerns the relationship between a corporation and its stockholder, director, officer, or member, and the controversy involves corporate governance, ownership, election, appointment, removal, or the exercise of rights under the corporation’s governing documents.
In Vesagas, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 142924, 2001, the Supreme Court recognized that a dispute involving the relationship between a corporation and its members or officers may be intra-corporate. The Court also stressed that corporate existence or dissolution must comply with statutory requirements; board resolutions or minutes alone are insufficient when the law requires formal corporate and regulatory action.
A challenge to the removal of a co-founder as a director or corporate officer will ordinarily raise an intra-corporate controversy. In Dy, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 68544, 1986, the Court held that controversies concerning the election or appointment of corporate officers or managers, including the validity of board meetings and actions, fall within the corporate forum rather than the labor forum.
Similarly, Malcaba, et al. v. ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 209085, 2018, explained that the dismissal of a corporate officer is a corporate act when the position is created by the corporation’s charter, bylaws, or board action. The label “illegal dismissal” does not by itself place the controversy under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
Can the Founder Be Removed From Management?
Yes, but the corporation must identify the position from which the founder is being removed and follow the applicable source of authority. The board may generally act on corporate officers when the law, articles, bylaws, or valid corporate resolutions authorize such action. Removal of a director, however, is subject to different statutory requirements from removal of an appointed officer.
The manner in which the office was created is important. A person appointed by the board to an office created by the bylaws may be treated differently from an ordinary employee whose position exists only because of an employment contract or operational arrangement. This distinction was emphasized in De Castro, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 204261, 2016.
A board resolution that merely states that the founder is “expelled” may be insufficient if the corporation is actually attempting to remove the person as a director, cancel shares, terminate employment, or alter contractual rights. Each legal act must have a valid basis and must comply with the procedure applicable to it.
Removal as Director Is Different From Loss of Membership
The consequences of expulsion depend on whether the corporation is a stock or non-stock corporation. SEC Opinion No. 09-06, 2009, distinguishes between the two situations.
In a non-stock corporation, membership may be a prerequisite to serving as a trustee. Thus, valid expulsion as a member may affect the person’s trusteeship. In a stock corporation, however, the removal of a director is not automatically accomplished merely because the person is expelled as a stockholder or otherwise loses a corporate position. Removal must comply with the statutory process applicable to directors, including the required vote under the corporation law and the corporation’s governing documents.
For a startup organized as a stock corporation, the founder should therefore determine whether the alleged expulsion was intended to remove the founder as:
- a stockholder;
- a director;
- a corporate officer;
- an employee or consultant; or
- a party to a founders’ or shareholders’ agreement.
Does Expulsion Automatically Cancel the Founder’s Shares?
No. Removal from management does not automatically cancel or transfer shares. A founder’s shares may be affected by a valid stock restriction, vesting arrangement, buyback provision, redemption clause, compulsory sale provision, or other agreement, but the corporation must establish the legal and contractual authority for the transfer.
The Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines, R.A. No. 11232, recognizes various classes and arrangements involving shares. Section 7 governs founders’ shares and permits special rights and privileges, including certain voting rights, subject to the statutory five-year limit for exclusive voting and election rights. Section 8 addresses redeemable shares when the articles of incorporation expressly provide for them and when the transaction complies with the applicable terms and regulatory requirements.
A startup cannot simply treat an informal understanding about “founder status” as authority to confiscate shares. The relevant documents may include the subscription agreement, stock certificates, capitalization table, articles of incorporation, bylaws, board resolutions, shareholders’ agreement, vesting documents, and financing term sheet.
What Rights Does the Founder Retain?
Even after being removed from daily management, a stockholder may retain rights attached to the shares. These may include voting rights, notice of meetings, receipt of declared dividends, inspection of corporate books and records, and participation in matters requiring stockholder approval.
The founder may also have the right to dissent and demand payment of the fair value of shares in circumstances recognized by Section 80 of R.A. No. 11232. These circumstances include certain amendments to the articles of incorporation, disposition of all or substantially all corporate assets, merger or consolidation, and investment of corporate funds for a purpose other than the corporation’s primary purpose.
The appraisal right is not a general remedy for every disagreement with management. It must arise from one of the statutory situations and must be exercised according to the prescribed procedure.
Can the Founder Challenge the Funding Round?
The existence of an impending venture capital investment does not by itself invalidate the expulsion. It may, however, make the dispute legally significant if the removal was designed to dilute the founder, deprive the founder of voting power, divert corporate opportunities, conceal information, or force a transfer of shares at an unfair price.
The founder should examine whether the funding round involves:
- the issuance of new shares that materially dilutes existing ownership;
- amendments to the articles or bylaws;
- creation of a new class of preferred shares;
- conversion of founder shares;
- waiver or alteration of preemptive or contractual rights;
- sale of substantially all corporate assets; or
- transactions involving directors, officers, or controlling stockholders.
When the challenged act is an act of the corporation, the proper remedy may be a direct corporate action, a derivative suit, or both, depending on the injury and the relief sought.
When Is a Derivative Suit Available?
A derivative suit is brought by a stockholder or member on behalf of the corporation when the corporation itself is the real party in interest but refuses or is unable to pursue the claim. The relief must ultimately benefit the corporation rather than merely provide a personal remedy to the complaining founder.
In Agdao Residents Inc., et al. v. Maramion, et al., G.R. Nos. 188642/189425, 2016, the Supreme Court recognized that a derivative action may proceed when the cause of action and relief ultimately redound to the benefit of the corporation. The Court also held that demand on the corporation may be excused when it would be futile, including circumstances where the complaining members were expelled after questioning corporate transactions.
A derivative action may be appropriate where the founder alleges that the remaining directors caused the corporation to issue shares, transfer assets, or enter into a financing arrangement for an improper purpose. A direct action may be more appropriate where the founder seeks recognition of personal voting rights, access to records, payment for shares, or enforcement of an individual contractual right.
What If the Founder Was Expelled Without Notice?
Due process concerns are particularly important in non-stock corporations and in organizations whose bylaws require notice and a hearing before expulsion. In Agdao Residents Inc., et al. v. Maramion, et al., G.R. Nos. 188642/189425, 2016, the Supreme Court invalidated the expulsion of members where the corporation failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
For a stock corporation, the required procedure depends on the specific action taken. An alleged removal from an appointed office, termination of employment, removal as director, and cancellation or transfer of shares are legally distinct events. The absence of notice may support a challenge where notice is required by law, bylaws, contract, or basic corporate procedure, but the precise remedy depends on the transaction and the governing documents.
What Evidence Should the Founder Preserve?
The founder should immediately preserve documents showing ownership, appointment, participation in management, and the circumstances of the expulsion. Electronic evidence should be retained in its original form, with dates and metadata where possible.
| Document or evidence | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Articles of incorporation and bylaws | Shows the corporation’s purposes, offices, voting rules, and removal procedures |
| Stock certificates and subscription records | Supports ownership and the number and class of shares |
| Shareholders’ or founders’ agreement | May contain vesting, buyback, deadlock, removal, and transfer provisions |
| Board and stockholder minutes | Shows whether a meeting, quorum, vote, and resolution existed |
| Expulsion notice and communications | Identifies the stated ground, effective date, and procedure followed |
| Funding documents and capitalization records | May show dilution, changes in control, and the connection between the expulsion and investment |
What Immediate Steps Should the Founder Take?
The founder should first obtain the corporation’s current records and determine whether the alleged expulsion has already been implemented in the corporation’s books, filings, bank mandates, capitalization table, or financing documents. A written demand should identify the disputed acts, request the relevant records, reserve the founder’s rights, and ask that no irreversible corporate action be taken while the dispute is being addressed.
The founder should avoid signing a resignation, waiver, quitclaim, release, stock transfer, or settlement document without reviewing its effect on shares, claims, intellectual property, confidentiality obligations, and future financing rights.
If a funding round is imminent, counsel should assess whether interim relief is available and whether delay could make the requested remedy ineffective. The founder should also evaluate potential claims for accounting, inspection, annulment of unauthorized corporate acts, recognition of ownership or voting rights, damages, or enforcement of contractual obligations.
Can the Corporation Be Dissolved to Defeat the Claim?
No. Dissolution does not necessarily extinguish intra-corporate disputes that arose before dissolution. In Aguirre II, et al. v. FQB+7, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 170770, 2013, the Supreme Court held that corporate dissolution does not eliminate the rights and remedies of stockholders, directors, or officers concerning disputes that arose before dissolution, provided the action does not seek to continue the business of the dissolved corporation.
This principle is relevant if the startup attempts to dissolve, rename, or reorganize the corporation after the founder challenges the expulsion. The founder must still identify the proper relief and comply with the rules governing the chosen proceeding.
Does the Corporation’s Label Control the Analysis?
No. The corporation’s legal classification must be determined from its articles, capital structure, and actual rights attached to the interests issued. SEC En Banc Case No. 02-10-195, 2019, held that a “stock, non-profit” corporation does not exist as a separate corporate category under Philippine law. A corporation with capital stock divided into shares and authorized to distribute profits is treated as a stock corporation, even if it has not actually distributed dividends.
This classification matters because the statutory rules on stockholders, directors, shares, and founders’ rights differ from the rules applicable to non-stock corporations and their members or trustees.
Typical Startup Scenarios
Scenario 1: Removal as chief executive officer. If the founder was appointed as an officer and remains a stockholder, the board may have authority to remove the founder from the office if the bylaws and applicable law permit it. The removal does not, by itself, cancel the founder’s shares.
Scenario 2: Removal as director before financing. If the founder was elected as a director, the corporation must comply with the statutory and corporate rules governing director removal. A board resolution alone may not be sufficient where stockholder action or another prescribed procedure is required.
Scenario 3: Forced transfer of vested shares. If the corporation seeks to repurchase or cancel vested shares, the validity of the act depends on the stock restriction, vesting agreement, articles, bylaws, and applicable corporate law. The founder may challenge a transfer that lacks contractual or statutory authority.
Scenario 4: Expulsion followed by dilution. If the founder is removed and a new financing immediately reduces the founder’s percentage, the timing may be relevant evidence of improper purpose. Dilution is not automatically unlawful, but the issuance must be authorized, properly approved, and undertaken for a legitimate corporate purpose.
Final Observations
A co-founder’s removal from startup management does not automatically end the founder’s ownership or corporate rights. The decisive questions are the founder’s legal capacity, the authority for the expulsion, compliance with the articles and bylaws, the validity of the corporate approvals, and the effect of the proposed financing.
The founder should promptly preserve records, obtain the corporate documents, separate personal claims from corporate claims, and seek advice before signing any release or stock transfer. Where the dispute concerns corporate governance or the enforcement of rights arising from the corporate relationship, it should be assessed as a possible intra-corporate controversy under the principles stated in De Castro, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 204261, 2016, and related jurisprudence.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
