corporation cases 3
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 1/105
G.R. No. L-43350 December 23, 1937
CAGAYAN FISHING DEEL!"#EN$ C!., INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
$E!D!R! SANDI%!, defendant-appellee.
LA&REL, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila absolving the
defendant from the plaintiff's complaint.
Manuel Tabora is the registered owner of four parcels of land situated in the barrio of inao,
town of !parri, "rovince of Caga#an, as evidenced b# transfer certificate of title $o. %& of the
land records of Caga#an, a cop# of which is in evidence as ()hibit &. To guarantee the pa#ment
of a loan in the sum of "*,+++, Manuel Tabora, on !ugust &, &%, e)ecuted in favor of the
"hilippine $ational an/ a first mortgage on the four parcels of land above-mentioned. ! second
mortgage in favor of the same ban/ was in !pril of &0+ e)ecuted b# Tabora over the same lands
to guarantee the pa#ment of another loan amounting to ",+++. ! third mortgage on the same
lands was e)ecuted on !pril &1, &0+ in favor of 2everina u3on to whom Tabora was indebted
in the sum of "%,+++. These mortgages were registered and annotations thereof appear at the
bac/ of transfer certificate of title $o. %&.
4n Ma# 0&, &0+, Tabora e)ecuted a public document entitled 5(scritura de Transpaso de
"ropiedad Inmueble5 6()hibit !7 b# virtue of which the four parcels of land owned b# him was
sold to the plaintiff compan#, said to under process of incorporation, in consideration of one peso
6"&7 subject to the mortgages in favor of the "hilippine $ational an/ and 2everina u3on and,
to the condition that the certificate of title to said lands shall not be transferred to the name of the plaintiff compan# until the latter has full# and completel# paid Tabora's indebtedness to the
"hilippine $ational an/.
The plaintiff compan# filed its article incorporation with the ureau of Commerce and Industr#
on 4ctober %%, &0+ 6()hibit %7. ! #ear later, on 4ctober %*, &0&, the board of directors of said
compan# adopted a resolution 6()hibit 87 authori3ing its president, 9ose :entura, to sell the four
parcels of lands in ;uestion to Teodoro 2andi/o for "%,+++. ()hibits , C and < were thereafter
made and e)ecuted. ()hibit is a deed of sale e)ecuted before a notar# public b# the terms of
which the plaintiff sold ceded and transferred to the defendant all its right, titles, and interest in
and to the four parcels of land described in transfer certificate in turn obligated himself toshoulder the three mortgages hereinbefore referred to. ()hibit C is a promisor# note for "%=,0++.
drawn b# the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, pa#able after one #ear from the date thereof.
()hibit < is a deed of mortgage e)ecuted before a notar# public in accordance with which the
four parcels of land were given a securit# for the pa#ment of the promissor# note, ()hibit C. !ll
these three instrument were dated Februar# &=, &0%.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 2/105
The defendant having failed to pa# the sum stated in the promissor# note, plaintiff, on 9anuar#
%=, &0, brought this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila pra#ing that judgment be
rendered against the defendant for the sum of "%=,0++, with interest at legal rate from the date of
the filing of the complaint, and the costs of the suits. !fter trial, the court below, on <ecember
&*, &0, rendered judgment absolving the defendant, with costs against the plaintiff. "laintiff
presented a motion for new trial on 9anuar# &, &0=, which motion was denied b# the trial courton 9anuar# & of the same #ear. !fter due e)ception and notice, plaintiff has appealed to this
court and ma/es an assignment of various errors.
In dismissing the complaint against the defendant, the court below, reached the conclusion that
()hibit is invalid because of vice in consent and repugnanc# to law. >hile we do not agree
with this conclusion, we have however voted to affirm the judgment appealed from the reasons
which we shall presentl# state.
The transfer made b# Tabora to the Caga#an fishing <evelopment Co., Inc., plaintiff herein, was
affected on Ma# 0&, &0+ 6()hibit !7 and the actual incorporation of said compan# was affected
later on 4ctober %%, &0+ 6()hibit %7. In other words, the transfer was made almost five months
before the incorporation of the compan#. ?n;uestionabl#, a dul# organi3ed corporation has the
power to purchase and hold such real propert# as the purposes for which such corporation was
formed ma# permit and for this purpose ma# enter into such contracts as ma# be necessar# 6sec.
&0, pars. = and , and sec. &, !ct $o. &=7. ut before a corporation ma# be said to be lawfull#
organi3ed, man# things have to be done. !mong other things, the law re;uires the filing of
articles of incorporation 6secs. 1 et se;., !ct. $o. &=7. !lthough there is a presumption that all
the re;uirements of law have been complied with 6sec. 00, par. 0& Code of Civil "rocedure7, in
the case before us it can not be denied that the plaintiff was not #et incorporated when it entered
into a contract of sale, ()hibit !. The contract itself referred to the plaintiff as 5una sociedad en
vias de incorporacion.5 It was not even a de facto corporation at the time. $ot being in legale)istence then, it did not possess juridical capacit# to enter into the contract.
Corporations are creatures of the law, and can onl# come into e)istence in the manner
prescribed b# law. !s has alread# been stated, general law authori3ing the formation of
corporations are general offers to an# persons who ma# bring themselves within their
provisions@ and if conditions precedent are prescribed in the statute, or certain acts are
re;uired to be done, the# are terms of the offer, and must be complied with substantiall#
before legal corporate e)istence can be ac;uired. 6& C. 9., sec. &&&, p. &&*.7
That a corporation should have a full and complete organi3ation and e)istence as anentit# before it can enter into an# /ind of a contract or transact an# business, would seem
to be self evident. . . . ! corporation, until organi3ed, has no being, franchises or faculties.
$or do those engaged in bringing it into being have an# power to bind it b# contract,
unless so authori3ed b# the charter there is not a corporation nor does it possess franchise
or faculties for it or others to e)ercise, until it ac;uires a complete e)istence. 68ent vs.
Manufacturers and Merchant's Mutual Insurance Compan#, &+ Ill., 1=%, 1=*.7
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 3/105
oiled down to its na/ed realit#, the contract here 6()hibit !7 was entered into not between
Manuel Tabora and a non-e)istent corporation but between the Manuel Tabora as owner of the
four parcels of lands on the one hand and the same Manuel Tabora, his wife and others, as mere
promoters of a corporations on the other hand. For reasons that are self-evident, these promoters
could not have acted as agent for a projected corporation since that which no legal e)istence
could have no agent. ! corporation, until organi3ed, has no life and therefore no faculties. It is, asit were, a child in ventre sa mere. This is not sa#ing that under no circumstances ma# the acts of
promoters of a corporation be ratified b# the corporation if and when subse;uentl# organi3ed.
There are, of course, e)ceptions 6Fletcher C#c. of Corps., permanent edition, &0&, vol. I, secs.
%+ et seq.7, but under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case we decline to
e)tend the doctrine of ratification which would result in the commission of injustice or fraud to
the candid and unwar#.6Massachusetts rule, !bbott vs. Aapgood, &=+ Mass., %*@ %% $. (. +,
+*@ = . B. !., =*1@ &= !m. 2t. Bep., &0@ citing (nglish cases@ oppel vs. Massachusetts ric/
Co., &% Mass., %%0@ * $. (., &%*@ Aol#o/e (nvelope Co., vs. ?. 2. (nvelope Co., &*% Mass.,
&&@ 1= $. (., =.7 It should be observed that Manuel Tabora was the registered owner of the
four parcels of land, which he succeeded in mortgaging to the "hilippine $ational an/ so thathe might have the necessar# funds with which to convert and develop them into fisher#. Ae
appeared to have met with financial reverses. Ae formed a corporation composed of himself, his
wife, and a few others. From the articles of incorporation, ()hibit %, it appears that out of the
"*,++, amount of capital stoc/ subscribed, "=,+++ was subscribed b# Manuel Tabora himself
and "=++ b# his wife, Bufina D. de Tabora@ and out of the "0,0++, amount paid on subscription,
"%,&++ is made to appear as paid b# Tabora and "%++ b# his wife. oth Tabora and Ais wife
were directors and the latter was treasurer as well. In fact, to this da#, the lands remain inscribed
in Tabora's name. The defendant alwa#s regarded Tabora as the owner of the lands. Ae dealt with
Tabora directl#. 9ose :entura, president of the plaintiff corporation, intervened onl# to sign the
contract, ()hibit , in behalf of the plaintiff. (ven the "hilippine $ational an/, mortgagee of
the four parcels of land, alwa#s treated Tabora as the owner of the same. 6See ()hibits ( and F.7
Two civil suits 6$os. &0& and 0*1&7 were brought against Tabora in the Court of First Instance
of Manila and in both cases a writ of attachment against the four parcels of land was issued. The
"hilippine $ational an/ threatened to foreclose its mortgages. Tabora approached the defendant
2andi/o and succeeded in the ma/ing him sign ()hibits , C, and < and in ma/ing him, among
other things, assume the pa#ment of Tabora's indebtedness to the "hilippine $ational an/. The
promisor# note, ()hibit C, was made pa#able to the plaintiff compan# so that it ma# not attached
b# Tabora's creditors, two of whom had obtained writs of attachment against the four parcels of
land.
If the plaintiff corporation could not and did not ac;uire the four parcels of land here involved, itfollows that it did not possess an# resultant right to dispose of them b# sale to the defendant,
Teodoro 2andi/o.
2ome of the members of this court are also of the opinion that the transfer from Manuel Tabora
to the Caga#an Fishing <evelopment Compan#, Inc., which transfer is evidenced b# ()hibit !,
was subject to a condition precedent 6condicion suspensiva7, namel#, the pa#ment of the
mortgage debt of said Tabora to the "hilippine $ational an/, and that this condition not having
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 4/105
been complied with b# the Caga#an Fishing <evelopment Compan#, Inc., the transfer was
ineffective. 6!rt. &&&, Civil Code@ >ise E Co. vs. ell# and im, 0 "hil., 11@ Manresa, vol.
*, p. &&.7 Aowever, having arrived at the conclusion that the transfer b# Manuel Tabora to the
Caga#an Fishing <evelopment Compan#, Inc. was null because at the time it was affected the
corporation was non-e)istent, we deem it unnecessar# to discuss this point.lawphil.net
The decision of the lower court is accordingl# affirmed, with costs against the appellant. 2o
4rdered.
G.R. No. L-20993 Se'(ember 2), 19*)
RI+AL LIGH$ ICE C!., INC., petitioner,
vs.
$HE #&NICI"ALI$Y !F #!R!NG, RI+AL / $HE "&LIC SERICE
C!##ISSI!N, respondents.
----------------------------
G.R. No. L-21221 Se'(ember 2), 19*)
RI+AL LIGH$ ICE C!., INC., petitioner,
vs.
$HE "&LIC SERICE C!##ISSI!N / #!R!NG ELEC$RIC C!.,
INC., respondents.
Amado A. Amador, Jr. for petitioner.
Atilano C. Bautista and Pompeyo F. Olivas for respondents.
+ALDIAR, J.:
These two cases, being interrelated, are decided together.
Case 8.B. $o. -%+0 is a petition of the Bi3al ight E Ice Co., Inc. to review and set aside the
orders of respondent "ublic 2ervice Commission, & dated !ugust %+, &1%, and Februar# &=,
&10, in "2C Case $o. 0&1, cancelling and revo/ing the certificate of public convenience and
necessit# and forfeiting the franchise of said petitioner. In the same petition, the petitioner pra#ed
for the issuance of a writ of preliminar# injunction e parte suspending the effectivit# of said
orders andor enjoining respondents Commission andor Municipalit# of Morong, Bi3al, from
enforcing in an# wa# the cancellation and revocation of petitioner's franchise and certificate of
public convenience during the pendenc# of this appeal. # resolution of March &%, &10, this
Court denied the petition for injunction, for lac/ of merit.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 5/105
Case 8. B. -%&%%& is li/ewise a petition of the Bi3al ight E Ice Co., Inc. to review and set
aside the decision of the Commission dated March &0, &10 in "2C Case $o. 1%-=&0 granting a
certificate of public convenience and necessit# to respondent Morong (lectric Co., Inc. % to
operate an electric light, heat and power service in the municipalit# of Morong, Bi3al. In the
petition Bi3al ight E Ice Co., Inc. also pra#ed for the issuance of a writ of preliminar#
injunction e parte suspending the effectivit# of said decision. "er resolution of this Court, datedMa# 1, &10, said petition for injunction was denied.
The facts, as the# appear in the records of both cases, are as followsG
"etitioner Bi3al ight E Ice Co., Inc. is a domestic corporation with business address at Morong,
Bi3al. 4n !ugust &=, &, it was granted b# the Commission a certificate of public convenience
and necessit# for the installation, operation and maintenance of an electric light, heat and power
service in the municipalit# of Morong, Bi3al.
In an order dated <ecember &, &=1, the Commission re;uired the petitioner to appear before it
on Februar# &*, &= to show cause wh# it should not be penali3ed for violation of the
conditions of its certificate of public convenience and the regulations of the Commission, and for
failure to compl# with the directives to raise its service voltage and maintain them within the
limits prescribed in the Bevised 4rder $o. & of the Commission, and to ac;uire and install a
/ilowattmeter to indcate the load in /ilowatts at an# particular time of the generating unit. 0
For failure of the petitioner to appear at the hearing on Februar# &*, &=, the Commission
ordered the cancellation and revocation of petitioner's certificate of public convenience and
necessit# and the forfeiture of its franchise. "etitioner moved for reconsideration of said order on
the ground that its manager, 9uan <. Francisco, was not aware of said hearing. Bespondent
municipalit# opposed the motion alleging that petitioner has not rendered efficient andsatisfactor# service and has not complied with the re;uirements of the Commission for the
improvement of its service. The motion was set for hearing and Mr. "edro 2. Talavera, Chief,
Industrial <ivision of the Commission, was authori3ed to conduct the hearing for the reception
of the evidence of the parties.
Finding that the failure of the petitioner to appear at the hearing set for Februar# &*, &= H the
sole basis of the revocation of petitioner's certificate H was reall# due to the illness of its
manager, 9uan <. Francisco, the Commission set aside its order of revocation. Bespondent
municipalit# moved for reconsideration of this order of reinstatement of the certificate, but the
motion was denied.
In a petition dated 9une %=, &=*, filed in the same case, respondent municipalit# formall# as/ed
the Commission to revo/e petitioner's certificate of public convenience and to forfeit its
franchise on the ground, among other things, that it failed to compl# with the conditions of said
certificate and franchise. 2aid petition was set for hearing jointl# with the order to show cause.
The hearings had been postponed several times.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 6/105
Meanwhile, inspections had been made of petitioner's electric plant and installations b# the
engineers of the Commission, as followsG !pril &=, &=* b# (ngineer !ntonio M. !lli@
2eptember &*, &=, 9ul# &%-&0, &1+, and 9une %&-%, &1&, b# (ngineer Meliton 2. Martine3.
The inspection on 9une %&-%, &1& was made upon the re;uest of the petitioner who manifested
during the hearing on <ecember &=, &1+ that improvements have been made on its service since
the inspection on 9ul# &%-&0, &1+, and that, on the basis of the inspection report to be submitted,it would agree to the submission of the case for decision without further hearing.
>hen the case was called for hearing on 9ul# =, &1&, petitioner failed to appear. Bespondent
municipalit# was then allowed to present its documentar# evidence, and thereafter the case was
submitted for decision.
4n 9ul# , &1&, petitioner filed a motion to reopen the case upon the ground that it had not been
furnished with a cop# of the report of the 9une %&-%, &1& inspection for it to repl# as
previousl# agreed. In an order dated !ugust %=, &1&, petitioner was granted a period of ten 6&+7
da#s within which to submit its written repl# to said inspection report, on condition that should it
fail to do so within the said period the case would be considered submitted for decision.
"etitioner failed to file the repl#. In consonance with the order of !ugust %=, &1&, therefore, the
Commission proceeded to decide the case. 4n 9ul# %, &1% petitioner's electric plant was
burned.
In its decision, dated !ugust %+, &1%, the Commission, on the basis of the inspection reports of
its aforenamed engineers, found that the petitioner had failed to compl# with the directives
contained in its letters dated Ma# %&, &= and 2eptember , &=, and had violated the
conditions of its certificate of public convenience as well as the rules and regulations of the
Commission. The Commission concluded that the petitioner 5cannot render the efficient,
ade;uate and satisfactor# electric service re;uired b# its certificate and that it is against publicinterest to allow it to continue its operation.5 !ccordingl#, it ordered the cancellation and
revocation of petitioner's certificate of public convenience and the forfeiture of its franchise.
4n 2eptember &*, &1%, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision, alleging that
before its electric plant was burned on 9ul# %, &1%, its service was greatl# improved and that it
had still e)isting investment which the Commission should protect. ut eight da#s before said
motion for reconsideration was filed, or on 2eptember &+, &1%, Morong (lectric, having been
granted a municipal franchise on Ma# 1, &1% b# respondent municipalit# to install, operate and
maintain an electric heat, light and power service in said municipalit# H approved b# the
"rovincial oard of Bi3al on !ugust 0&, &1% H filed with the Commission an application for acertificate of public convenience and necessit# for said service. 2aid application was entitled
5Morong (lectric Co., Inc., !pplicant5, and doc/eted as Case $o. 1%-=&0.
"etitioner opposed in writing the application of Morong (lectric, alleging among other things,
that it is a holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate an electric light, heat and
power service in the same municipalit# of Morong, Bi3al, and that the approval of said
application would not promote public convenience, but would onl# cause ruinous and wasteful
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 7/105
competition. !lthough the opposition is dated 4ctober 1, &1%, it was actuall# received b# the
Commission on $ovember *, &1%, or twent# four da#s after the order of general default was
issued in open court when the application was first called for hearing on 4ctober &=, &1%. 4n
$ovember &%, &1%, however, the petitioner filed a motion to lift said order of default. ut
before said motion could be resolved, petitioner filed another motion, dated 9anuar# , &10, this
time as/ing for the dismissal of the application upon the ground that applicant Morong (lectrichad no legal personalit# when it filed its application on 2eptember &+, &1%, because its
certificate of incorporation was issued b# the 2ecurities and ()change Commission onl# on
4ctober &, &1%. This motion to dismiss was denied b# the Commission in a formal order
issued on 9anuar# &, &10 on the premise that applicant Morong (lectric was a de
facto corporation. Conse;uentl#, the case was heard on the merits and both parties presented
their respective evidence. 4n the basis of the evidence adduced, the Commission, in its decision
dated March &0, &10, found that there was an absence of electric service in the municipalit# of
Morong and that applicant Morong (lectric, a Filipino-owned corporation dul# organi3ed and
e)isting under the laws of the "hilippines, has the financial capacit# to maintain said service.
These circumstances, considered together with the denial of the motion for reconsideration filed b# petitioner in Case $o. 0&= on Februar#, &=, &10, such that as far as the Commission was
concerned the certificate of the petitioner was alread# declared revo/ed and cancelled, the
Commission approved the application of Morong (lectric and ordered the issuance in its favor of
the corresponding certificate of public convenience and necessit#.!awph"l.n#t
4n March *, &10, petitioner filed with this Court a petition to review the decision in Case $o.
0&= 6now 8. B. $o. -%+07. Then on !pril %1, &10, petitioner also filed a petition to
review the decision in Case $o. 1%-=&0 6now 8. B. $o. -%&%%&7.
In ;uestioning the decision of the Commission in Case $o. 0&=, petitioner contendsG 6&7 that
the Commission acted without or in e)cess of its jurisdiction when it delegated the hearing of thecase and the reception of evidence to Mr. "edro 2. Talavera who is not allowed b# law to hear the
same@ 6%7 that the cancellation of petitioner's certificate of public convenience was unwarranted
because no sufficient evidence was adduced against the petitioner and that petitioner was not
able to present evidence in its defense@ 607 that the Commission failed to give protection to
petitioner's investment@ and 67 that the Commission erred in imposing the e)treme penalt# of
revocation of the certificate.
In ;uestioning the decision in Case $o. 1%-=&0, petitioner contendsG 6&7 that the Commission
erred in den#ing petitioner's motion to dismiss and proceeding with the hearing of the application
of the Morong (lectric@ 6%7 that the Commission erred in granting Morong (lectric a certificateof public convenience and necessit# since it is not financiall# capable to render the service@ 607
that the Commission erred when it made findings of facts that are not supported b# the evidence
adduced b# the parties at the trial@ and 67 that the Commission erred when it did not give to
petitioner protection to its investment H a reiteration of the third assignment of error in the other
case.!awph"l.n#t
>e shall now discuss the appeals in these two cases separatel#.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 8/105
$.%. &o. '()*++
&. ?nder the first assignment of error, petitioner contends that while Mr. "edro 2. Talavera, who
conducted the hearings of the case below, is a division chief, he is not a law#er. !s such, under
2ection 0% of Commonwealth !ct $o. &1, as amended, the Commission should not have
delegated to him the authorit# to conduct the hearings for the reception of evidence of the parties.
>e find that, reall#, Mr. Talavera is not a law#er. = ?nder the second paragraph of 2ection 0% of
Commonwealth !ct $o. &1, as amended, 1 the Commission can onl# authori3e a division chief
to hear and investigate a case filed before it if he is a law#er. Aowever, the petitioner is raising
this ;uestion for the first time in this appeal. The record discloses that petitioner never made an#
objection to the authorit# of Mr. Talavera to hear the case and to receive the evidence of the
parties. 4n the contrar#, we find that petitioner had appeared and submitted evidence at the
hearings conducted b# Mr. Talavera, particularl# the hearings relative to the motion for
reconsideration of the order of Februar# &*, &= cancelling and revo/ing its certificate. >e also
find that, through counsel, petitioner had entered into agreements with Mr. Talavera, as hearing
officer, and the counsel for respondent municipalit#, regarding procedure in order to abbreviate
the proceedings. It is onl# after the decision in the case turned out to be adverse to it that
petitioner ;uestioned the proceedings held before Mr. Talavera.
This Court in several cases has ruled that objection to the delegation of authorit# to hear a case
filed before the Commission and to receive the evidence in connection therewith is a procedural,
not a jurisdictional point, and is waived b# failure to interpose timel# the objection and the case
had been decided b# the Commission. * 2ince petitioner has never raised an# objection to the
authorit# of Mr. Talavera before the Commission, it should be deemed to have waived such
procedural defect, and consonant with the precedents on the matter, petitioner's claim that theCommission acted without or in e)cess of jurisdiction in so authori3ing Mr. Talavera should be
dismissed.
%. !nent the second assigned error, the gist of petitioner's contention is that the evidence H
consisting of inspection reports H upon which the Commission based its decision is insufficient
and untrustworth# in that 6&7 the authors of said reports had not been put to test b# wa# of cross-
e)amination@ 6%7 the reports constitute onl# one side of the picture as petitioner was not able to
present evidence in its defense@ 607 judicial notice was not ta/en of the testimon# of Mr. Aarr# .
ernardino, former ma#or of respondent municipalit#, in "2C Case $o. 1%=&0 6the other case,
8. B. $o. -%&%%&7 to the effect that the petitioner had improved its service before its electric power plant was burned on 9ul# %, &1% H which testimon# contradicts the inspection reports@
and 67 the Commission acted both as prosecutor and judge H passing judgment over the ver#
same evidence presented b# it as prosecutor H a situation 5not conducive to the arrival at just
and e;uitable decisions.5
2ettled is the rule that in reviewing the decision of the "ublic 2ervice Commission this Court is
not re;uired to e)amine the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 9/105
preponderance of evidence reall# justifies the decision. The onl# function of this Court is to
determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might
reasonabl# be based. This Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on
;uestions of fact and will not interfere in the latter's decision unless it clearl# appears that there is
no evidence to support it. &+ Inasmuch as the onl# function of this Court in reviewing the decision
of the Commission is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence before the Commissionupon which its decision can reasonabl# be based, as it is not re;uired to e)amine the proof de
novo, the evidence that should be made the basis of this Court's determination should be onl#
those presented in this case before the Commission. >hat then was the evidence presented
before the Commission and made the basis of its decision subject of the present appeal !s stated
earlier, the Commission based its decision on the inspection reports submitted b# its engineers
who conducted the inspection of petitioner's electric service upon orders of the
Commission. && 2aid inspection reports specif# in detail the deficiencies incurred, and violations
committed, b# the petitioner resulting in the inade;uac# of its service. >e consider that said
reports are sufficient to serve reasonabl# as bases of the decision in ;uestion. It should be
emphasi3ed, in this connection that said reports, are not mere documentar# proofs presented for the consideration of the Commission, but are the results of the Commission's own observations
and investigations which it can rightfull# ta/e into consideration, &% particularl# in this case where
the petitioner had not presented an# evidence in its defense, and spea/ing of petitioner's failure to
present evidence, as well as its failure to cross-e)amine the authors of the inspection reports,
petitioner should not complain because it had waived not onl# its right to cross-e)amine but also
its right to present evidence. Duoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of the transcripts of the
proceedings where the petitioner, through counsel, manifested in clear language said waiver and
its decision to abide b# the last inspection report of (ngineer Martine3G
Proceedin-s of ecem/er !0, !+1*
C4MMI22I4$G
It appears at the last hearing of this case on 2eptember %0, &1+, that an engineer of this
Commission has been ordered to ma/e an inspection of all electric services in the province of
Bi3al and on that date the engineer of this Commission is still underta/ing that inspection and it
appears that the said engineer had actuall# made that inspection on 9ul# &% and &0, &1+. The
engineer has submitted his report on $ovember &*, &1+ which is attached to the records of this
case.
!TTJ. ?D?( 6Councel for "etitioner7G
... 6>7e respectfull# state that while the report is, as I see it attached to the records, clear and
ver# thorough, it was made sometime 9ul# of this #ear and I understand from the respondent that
there is some improvement since this report was made ... we respectfull# re;uest that an up-to-
date inspection be made ... . !n inspector of this Commission can be sent to the plant and
considering that the engineer of this Commission, (ngineer Meliton Martine3, is ver# ac;uainted
to the points involved we pra# that his report will be used b# us for the reason that he is a
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 10/105
technical man and he /nows well as he has done a good job and I thin/ our proposition would
e)pedite the matter. >e sincerel# believe that the inspection report will be the best evidence to
decide this matter.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
!TTJ. ?D?(G
... This is a ver# important matter and to show the good faith of respondent in this case we will
not even cross-e)amine the engineer when he ma/es a new report. >e will agree to the findings
and, #our honor please, considering as we have manifested before that (ngineer Martine3 is an
e)perienced engineer of this Commission and the points reported b# (ngineer Martine3 on the
situation of the plant now will prevent the necessit# of having a hearing, of us bringing new
evidence and complainant bringing new evidence. ... .
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C4MMI22I4$ 6to !tt#. u;ue7G
D <oes the Commission understand from the counsel for applicant that if the
motion is granted he will submit this order to show cause for decision without an# further
hearing and the decision will be based on the report of the engineer of this Commission
! >e respectfull# repl# in this manner that we be allowed or be given an
opportunit# just to read the report and K, we will agree that the report will be the basis
of that decision. >e just want to find out the contents of the report, however, we re;uest
that we be furnished with a cop# of the report before the hearing so that we will just ma/ea manifestation that we will agree.
C4MMI22I4$ 6to !tt#. u;ue7G
D In order to prevent the dela# of the disposition of this case the Commission will
allow counsel for the applicant to submit his written repl# to the report that the engineer
of this Commission. >ill he submit this case without further hearing upon the receipt of
that written repl#
! Jes, #our honor.
Proceedin-s of Au-ust )0, !+1!
!TTJ. ?D?( 6Counsel for petitioner7G
In order to avoid an# dela# in the consideration of this case we are respectfull# move 6sic7 that
instead of our witnesses testif#ing under oath that we will submit a written repl# under oath
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 11/105
together with the memorandum within fifteen 6&=7 da#s and we will furnish a cop# and upon our
submission of said written repl# under oath and memorandum we consider this case submitted.
This suggestion is to abbreviate the necessit# of presenting witnesses here which ma# prolong
the resolution of this case.
!TTJ. 4I:!2 6Counsel for respondent municipalit#7G
I object on the ground that there is no resolution b# this Commission on the action to reopen the
case and second this case has been closed.
!TTJ. ?D?(G
>ith regard to the testimon# on the ground for opposition we respectfull# submit to this
Commission our motion to submit a written repl# together with a memorandum. !lso as stated to
e)pedite the case and to avoid further hearing we will just submit our written repl#. !ccording to
our records we are furnished with a cop# of the report of 9ul# &, &1&. >e submit #our honor.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C4MMI22I4$G
To give applicant a chance to have a da# in court the Commission grants the re;uest of applicant
that it be given &+ da#s within which to submit a written repl# on the report of the engineer of
the Commission who inspected the electric service, in the municipalit# of Morong, Bi3al, and
after the submission of the said written repl# within &+ da#s from toda# this case will be
considered submitted for decision.
The above-;uoted manifestation of counsel for the petitioner, specificall# the statement referring
to the inspection report of (ngineer Martine3 as the 5best evidence to decide this matter,5 can
serve as an argument against petitioner's claim that the Commision should have ta/en into
consideration the testimon# of Mr. ernardino. ut the primar# reasons wh# the Commission
could not have ta/en judicial cogni3ance of said testimon# areG first, it is not a proper subject of
judicial notice, as it is not a 5/nown5 fact H that is, well established and authoritativel# settled,
without ;ualification and contention@ &0 second, it was given in a subse;uent and distinct case
after the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was heard b# the Commission en /anc and
submitted for decision, & and third, it was not brought to the attention of the Commission in this
case through an appropriate pleading. &=
Begarding the contention of petitioner that the Commission had acted both as prosecutor and
judge, it should be considered that there are two matters that had to be decided in this case,
namel#, the order to show cause dated <ecember &, &=1, and the petition or complaint b#
respondent municipalit# dated 9une %=, &=*. oth matters were heard jointl#, and the record
shows that respondent municipalit# had been allowed to present its evidence to substantiate its
complaint. It can not be said, therefore, that in this case the Commission had acted as prosecutor
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 12/105
and judge. ut even assuming, for the sa/e of argument, that there was a commingling of the
prosecuting and investigating functions, this e)ercise of dual function is authori3ed b# 2ection
&6a7 of Commonwealth !ct $o. &1, as amended, under which the Commission has power 5to
investigate, upon its own initiative or upon complaint in writing, an# matter concerning an#
public service as regards matters under its jurisdiction@ to, re;uire an# public service to furnish
safe, ade;uate, and proper service as the public interest ma# re;uire and warrant@ to enforcecompliance with an# standard, rule, regulation, order or other re;uirement of this !ct or of the
Commission ... .5 Thus, in the case of Collector of 2nternal %evenue vs. 3state of F. P. Buan , -
&&0*, 9ul# 0&, &=*, this Court held that the power of the Commission to cancel and revo/e a
certificate of public convenience and necessit# ma# be e)ercised b# it even without a formal
charge filed b# an# interested part#, with the onl# limitation that the holder of the certificate
should be given his da# in court.
It ma# not be amiss to add that when prosecuting and investigating duties are delegated b#
statute to an administrative bod#, as in the case of the "ublic 2ervice Commission, said bod#
ma# ta/e steps it believes appropriate for the proper e)ercise of said duties, particularl# in themanner of informing itself whether there is probable violation of the law andor its rules and
regulations. It ma# initiate an investigation, file a complaint, and then tr# the charge as preferred.
2o long as the respondent is given a da# in court, there can be no denial of due process, and
objections to said procedure cannot be sustained.
0. In its third assignment of error, petitioner invo/es the 5protection-of-investment rule5
enunciated b# this Court in Batan-as 4ransportation Co. vs. Orlanes &1 in this wiseG
The 8overnment having ta/en over the control and supervision of all public utilities, so
long as an operator under a prior license complies with the terms and conditions of his
license and reasonable rules and regulations for its operation and meets the reasonabledemands of the public, it is the dut# of the Commission to protect rather than to destro#
his investment b# the granting of the second license to another person for the same thing
over the same route of travel. The granting of such a license does not serve its
convenience or promote the interests of the public.
The above-;uoted rule, however, is not absolute, for nobod# has e)clusive right to secure a
franchise or a certificate of public convenience. & >here, as in the present case, it has been
shown b# ample evidence that the petitioner, despite ample time and opportunit# given to it b#
the Commission, had failed to render ade;uate, sufficient and satisfactor# service and had
violated the important conditions of its certificate as well as the directives and the rules andregulations of the Commission, the rule cannot appl#. To appl# that rule un;ualifiedl# is to
encourage violation or disregard of the terms and conditions of the certificate and the
Commission's directives and regulations, and would close the door to other applicants who could
establish, operate and provide ade;uate, efficient and satisfactor# service for the benefit and
convenience of the inhabitants. It should be emphasi3ed that the paramount consideration should
alwa#s be the public interest and public convenience. The dut# of the Commission to protect
investment of a public utilit# operator refers onl# to operators of good standing H those who
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 13/105
compl# with the laws, rules and regulations H and not to operators who are unconcerned with
the public interest and whose investments have failed or deteriorated because of their own
fault. &*
. The last assignment of error assails the propriet# of the penalt# imposed b# the Commission
on the petitioner H that is, the revocation of the certificate and the forfeiture of the franchise."etitioner contends that the imposition of a fine would have been sufficient, as had been done b#
the Commission in cases of a similar nature.
It should be observed that 2ection &16n7 of Commonwealth !ct $o. &1, as amended, confers
upon the Commission ample power and discretion to order the cancellation and revocation of an#
certificate of public convenience issued to an operator who has violated, or has willfull# and
contumaciousl# refused to compl# with, an# order, rule or regulation of the Commission or an#
provision of law. >hat matters is that there is evidence to support the action of the Commission.
In the instant case, as shown b# the evidence, the contumacious refusal of the petitioner since
&= to compl# with the directives, rules and regulations of the Commission, its violation of the
conditions of its certificate and its incapabilit# to compl# with its commitment as shown b# its
inade;uate service, were the circumstances that warranted the action of the Commission in not
merel# imposing a fine but in revo/ing altogether petitioner's certificate. To allow petitioner to
continue its operation would be to sacrifice public interest and convenience in favor of private
interest.
! grant of a certificate of public convenience confers no propert# rights but is a mere
license or privilege, and such privilege is forfeited when the grantee fails to compl# with
his commitments behind which lies the paramount interest of the public, for public
necessit# cannot be made to wait, nor sacrificed for private convenience. 6Collector of
Internal Bevenue v. (state of F. ". uan, et al., -&&0* and 2antiago 2ambrano, et al. v."2C, et al., -&&0 E -&&=%-1, 9ul# 0&, &=*7
6T7he "ublic 2ervice Commission, ... has the power to specif# and define the terms and
conditions upon which the public utilit# shall be operated, and to ma/e reasonable rules
and regulations for its operation and the compensation which the utilit# shall receive for
its services to the public, and for an# failure to compl# with such rules and regulations or
the violation of an# of the terms and conditions for which the license was granted, the
Commission has ample power to enforce the provisions of the license or even to revo5e
it, for any failure or ne-lect to comply with any of its terms and provisions . 6atangas
Trans. Co. v. 4rlanes, =% "hil. ==, 1+@ emphasis supplied7
"resumabl#, the petitioner has in mind 2ection %& of Commonwealth !ct $o. &1, as amended,
which provides that a public utilit# operator violating or failing to compl# with the terms and
conditions of an# certificate, or an# orders, decisions or regulations of the Commission, shall be
subject to a fine and that the Commission is authori3ed and empowered to impose such fine, after
due notice and hearing. It should be noted, however, that the last sentence of said section states
that the remed# provided therein 5shall not be a bar to, or affect an# other remed# provided in
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 14/105
this !ct but shall be cumulative and additional to such remed# or remedies.5 In other words, the
imposition of a fine ma# onl# be one of the remedies which the Commission ma# resort to, in its
discretion. ut that remed# is not e)clusive of, or has preference over, the other remedies. !nd
this Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission, as long as there is
evidence to support the e)ercise of that discretion b# the Commission.
$. %. &o. '()!))!
Coming now to the other case, let it be stated at the outset that before an# certificate ma# be
granted, authori3ing the operation of a public service, three re;uisites must be complied with,
namel#G 6&7 the applicant must be a citi3en of the "hilippines or of the ?nited 2tates, or a
corporation or co-partnership, association or joint-stoc/ compan# constituted and organi3ed
under the laws of the "hilippines, si)t# per centum at least of the stoc/ or paid-up capital of
which belongs entirel# to citi3ens of the "hilippines or of the ?nited 2tates@ & 6%7 the applicant
must be financiall# capable of underta/ing the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities
incident to its operation@ %+ and 607 the applicant must prove that the operation of the public
service proposed and the authori3ation to do business will promote the public interest in a proper
and suitable manner. %&
!s stated earlier, in the decision appealed from, the Commission found that Morong (lectric is a
corporation dul# organi3ed and e)isting under the laws of the "hilippines, the stoc/holders of
which are Filipino citi3ens, that it is financiall# capable of operating an electric light, heat and
power service, and that at the time the decision was rendered there was absence of electric
service in Morong, Bi3al. >hile the petitioner does not dispute the need of an electric service in
Morong, Bi3al, %% it claims, in effect, that Morong (lectric should not have been granted the
certificate of public convenience and necessit# because 6&7 it did not have a corporate personalit#
at the time it was granted a franchise and when it applied for said certificate@ 6%7 it is notfinanciall# capable of underta/ing an electric service, and 607 petitioner was rendering efficient
service before its electric plant was burned, and therefore, being a prior operator its investment
should be protected and no new part# should be granted a franchise and certificate of public
convenience and necessit# to operate an electric service in the same localit#.
&. The bul/ of petitioner's arguments assailing the personalit# of Morong (lectric dwells on the
proposition that since a franchise is a contract, %0 at least two competent parties are necessar# to
the e)ecution thereof, and parties are not competent e)cept when the# are in being. Aence, it is
contended that until a corporation has come into being, in this jurisdiction, b# the issuance of a
certificate of incorporation b# the 2ecurities and ()change Commission 62(C7 it cannot enter into an# contract as a corporation. The certificate of incorporation of the Morong (lectric was
issued b# the 2(C on 4ctober &, &1%, so onl# from that date, not before, did it ac;uire juridical
personalit# and legal e)istence. "etitioner concludes that the franchise granted to Morong
(lectric on Ma# 1, &1% when it was not #et in esse is null and void and cannot be the subject of
the Commission's consideration. 4n the other hand, Morong (lectric argues, and to which
argument the Commission agrees, that it was a de factocorporation at the time the franchise was
granted and, as such, it was not incapacitated to enter into an# contract or to appl# for and accept
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 15/105
a franchise. $ot having been incapacitated, Morong (lectric maintains that the franchise granted
to it is valid and the approval or disapproval thereof can be properl# determined b# the
Commission.
"etitioner's contention that Morong (lectric did not #et have a legal personalit# on Ma# 1, &1%
when a municipal franchise was granted to it is correct. The juridical personalit# and legale)istence of Morong (lectric began onl# on 4ctober &, &1% when its certificate of
incorporation was issued b# the 2(C. % efore that date, or pending the issuance of said
certificate of incorporation, the incorporators cannot be considered as de facto corporation.%= ut
the fact that Morong (lectric had no corporate e)istence on the da# the franchise was granted in
its name does not render the franchise invalid, because later Morong (lectric obtained its
certificate of incorporation and then accepted the franchise in accordance with the terms and
conditions thereof. This view is sustained b# eminent !merican authorities. Thus, McDuiuin
sa#sG
The fact that a compan# is not completel# incorporated at the time the grant is made to it
b# a municipalit# to use the streets does not, in most jurisdictions, affect the validit# of
the grant. ut such grant cannot ta/e effect until the corporation is organi3ed. !nd in
Illinois it has been decided that the ordinance granting the franchise ma# be presented
before the corporation grantee is full# organi3ed, where the organi3ation is completed
before the passage and acceptance. 6McDuillin, Municipal Corporations, 0rd (d., :ol. &%,
Chap. 0, 2ec. 0.%&7
Fletcher sa#sG
>hile a franchise cannot ta/e effect until the grantee corporation is organi3ed, the
franchise ma#, nevertheless, be applied for before the compan# is full# organi3ed.
! grant of a street franchise is valid although the corporation is not created until
afterwards. 6Fletcher, C#clopedia Corp. "ermanent (dition, Bev. :ol. 1-!, 2ec. %**&7
!nd Thompson gives the reason for the ruleG
6I7n the matter of the secondar# franchise the authorities are numerous in support of the
proposition that an ordinance granting a privilege to a corporation is not void because the
beneficiar# of the ordinance is not full# organi3ed at the time of the introduction of the
ordinance. It is enough that organi3ation is complete prior to the passage and acceptanceof the ordinance. The reason is that a privilege of this character is a mere license to the
corporation until it accepts the grant and complies with its terms and conditions.
6Thompson on Corporations, :ol. , 0rd (d., 2ec. %%7 %1
The incorporation of Morong (lectric on 4ctober &, &1% and its acceptance of the franchise as
shown b# its action in prosecuting the application filed with the Commission for the approval of
said franchise, not onl# perfected a contract between the respondent municipalit# and Morong
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 16/105
(lectric but also cured the deficienc# pointed out b# the petitioner in the application of Morong
(Iectric. Thus, the Commission did not err in den#ing petitioner's motion to dismiss said
application and in proceeding to hear the same. The efficac# of the franchise, however, arose
onl# upon its approval b# the Commission on March &0, &10. The reason is that H
?nder !ct $o. 11, as amended b# !ct $o. &+%%, a municipal council has the power togrant electric franchises, subject to the approval of the provincial board and the "resident.
Aowever, under 2ection &16b7 of Commonwealth !ct $o. &1, as amended, the "ublic
2ervice Commission is empowered 5to approve, subject to constitutional limitations an#
franchise or privilege granted under the provisions of !ct $o. 11, as amended b# !ct
$o. &+%%, b# an# political subdivision of the "hilippines when, in the judgment of the
Commission, such franchise or privilege will properl# conserve the public interests and
the Commission shall in so approving impose such conditions as to construction,
e;uipment, maintenance, service, or operation as the public interests and convenience
ma# reasonabl# re;uire, and to issue certificates of public convenience and necessit#
when such is re;uired or provided b# an# law or franchise.5 Thus, the efficac# of amunicipal electric franchise arises, therefore, onl# after the approval of the "ublic 2ervice
Commission. 6!lmendras vs. Bamos, + "hil. %0&7 .
The conclusion herein reached regarding the validit# of the franchise granted to Morong (lectric
is not incompatible with the holding of this Court in Ca-ayan Fishin- evelopment Co., 2nc. vs.
4eodoro Sandi5o % upon which the petitioner leans heavil# in support of its position. In said case
this Court held that a corporation should have a full and complete organi3ation and e)istence as
an entit# before it can enter into an# /ind of a contract or transact an# business. It should be
pointed out, however, that this Court did not sa# in that case that the rule is absolute or that under
no circumstances ma# the acts of promoters of a corporation be ratified or accepted b# the
corporation if and when subse;uentl# organi3ed. 4f course, there are e)ceptions. It will be notedthat !merican courts generall# hold that a contract made b# the promoters of a corporation on its
behalf ma# be adopted, accepted or ratified b# the corporation when organi3ed. %*
%. The validit# of the franchise and the corporate personalit# of Morong (lectric to accept the
same having been shown, the ne)t ;uestion to be resolved is whether said compan# has the
financial ;ualification to operate an electric light, heat and power service. "etitioner challenges
the financial capabilit# of Morong (lectric, b# pointing out the inconsistencies in the testimon#
of Mr. 9ose ". Ingal, president of said compan#, regarding its assets and the amount of its initial
investment for the electric plant. In this connection it should be stated that on the basis of the
evidence presented on the matter, the Commission has found the Morong (lectric to be5financiall# ;ualified to install, maintain and operate the proposed electric light, heat and power
service.5 This is essentiall# a factual determination which, in a number of cases, this Court has
said it will not disturb unless patentl# unsupported b# evidence. !n e)amination of the record of
this case readil# shows that the testimon# of Mr. Ingal and the documents he presented to
establish the financial capabilit# of Morong (lectric provide reasonable grounds for the above
finding of the Commission.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 17/105
It is now a ver# well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that the findings and conclusions of
fact made b# the "ublic 2ervice Commission, after weighing the evidence adduced b# the
parties in a public service case, will not be disturbed b# the 2upreme Court unless those
findings and conclusions appear not to be reasonabl# supported b# evidence. 6a
Mallorca and "ampanga us Co. vs. Mercado, -&&%+, $ovember %, &1=7
For purposes of appeal, what is decisive is that said testimonial evidence provides
reasonable support for the "ublic 2ervice Commission's findings of financial capacit# on
the part of applicants, rendering such findings be#ond our power to disturb. 6<el "ilar
Transit vs. 2ilva, -%&=, 9ul# &=, &117
It ma# be worthwhile to mention in this connection that per inspection report dated 9anuar# %+,
&1 % of Mr. Meliton Martine3 of the Commission, who inspected the electric service of
Morong on 9anuar# &=-&1, &1, Morong (lectric 5is serving electric service to the entire area
covered b# its approved plan and has constructed its line in accordance with the plans and
specifications approved b# the Commission.5 # reason thereof, it was recommended that the
re;uests of Morong (lectric 6&7 for the withdrawal of its deposit in the amount of "&,+++.++ with
the Treasurer of the "hilippines, and 6%7 for the approval of Besolution $o. &1+ of the Municipal
Council of Morong, Bi3al, e)empting the operator from ma/ing the additional ",+++.++ deposit
mentioned in its petition, dated 2eptember &1, &10, be granted. This report removes an# doubt
as to the financial capabilit# of Morong (lectric to operate and maintain an electric light, heat
and power service.
0. >ith the financial ;ualification of Morong (lectric be#ond doubt, the remaining ;uestion to be
resolved is whether, or not, the findings of fact of the Commission regarding petitioner's service
are supported b# evidence. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Commission made some
findings of fact prejudicial to its position but which do not find support from the evidence presented in this case. 2pecificall#, petitioner refers to the statements or findings that its service
had 5turned from bad to worse,5 that it miserabl# failed to compl# with the oft-repeated promises
to bring about the needed improvement, that its e;uipment is unserviceable, and that it has no
longer an# plant site and, therefore, has discredited itself. "etitioner further states that such
statements are not onl# devoid of evidentiar# support but contrar# to the testimon# of its witness,
Mr. Aarr# ernardino, who testified that petitioner was rendering efficient and satisfactor#
service before its electric plant was burned on 9ul# %, &1%.
4n the face of the decision appealed from, it is obvious that the Commission in describing the
/ind of service petitioner was rendering before its certificate was ordered revo/ed and cancelled,too/ judicial notice of the records of the previous case 6"2C Case $o. 0&=7 where the ;ualit#
of petitioner's service had been s;uarel# put in issue. It will be noted that the findings of the
Commission were made notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned testimon# of Mr.
ernardino had been emphasi3ed and pointed out in petitioner's Memorandum to the
Commission. 0+ The implication is simpleG that as between the testimon# of Mr. ernardino and
the inspection reports of the engineers of the Commission, which served as the basis of the
revocation order, the Commission gave credence to the latter. $aturall#, whatever conclusion or
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 18/105
finding of fact that the Commission arrived at regarding the ;ualit# of petitioner's service are not
borne out b# the evidence presented in this case but b# evidence in the previous case. 0& In this
connection, we repeat, the conclusion, arrived at b# the Commission after weighing the
conflicting evidence in the two related cases, is a conclusion of fact which this Court will not
disturb.
!nd it has been held time and again that where the Commission has reached a conclusion
of fact after weighing the conflicting evidence, that conclusion must be respected, and the
2upreme Court will not interfere unless it clearl# appears that there is no evidence to
support the decision of the Commission. 6a Mallorca and "ampanga us Co., Inc. vs.
Mercado, -&&%+, $ovember %, &1= citing "angasinan Trans. Co., Inc. vs. <ela Cru3,
1 "hil. %*7
For that matter, petitioner's pretension that it has a prior right to the operation of an electric
service in Morong, Bi3al, is not tenable@ and its plea for protection of its investment, as in the
previous case, cannot be entertained.
>A(B(F4B(, the two decisions of the "ublic 2ervice Commission, appealed from, should be,
as the# are hereb# affirmed, with costs in the two cases against petitioner Bi3al ight E Ice Co.,
Inc. It is so ordered.
G.R. No. L-4)*27 e 30, 19)7
FER#IN +. CARA#, R. / R!SA !. DE CARA#, petitionersvs.
$HE H!N!RALE C!&R$ !F A""EALS / ALER$! . ARELLAN!, respondents.
CR&+, J.:
>e gave limited due course to this petition on the ;uestion of the solidar# liabilit# of the
petitioners with their co-defendants in the lower court 1 because of the challenge to the following
paragraph in the dispositive portion of the decision of the respondent courtG
&. <efendants are hereb# ordered to jointl# and severall# pa# the plaintiff the
amount of "=+,+++.++ for the preparation of the project stud# and his technical
services that led to the organi3ation of the defendant corporation, plus "&+,+++.++
attorne#'s fees@ 2
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 19/105
The petitioners claim that this order has no support in fact and law because the# had no contract
whatsoever with the private respondent regarding the above-mentioned services. Their position is
that as mere subse;uent investors in the corporation that was later created, the# should not be
held solidaril# liable with the Filipinas 4rient !irwa#s, a separate juridical entit#, and with
arretto and 8arcia, their co-defendants in the lower court, who were the ones who re;uested
the said services from the private respondent. 3
>e are not concerned here with the petitioners' co-defendants, who have not appealed the
decision of the respondent court and ma#, for this reason, be presumed to have accepted the
same. For purposes of resolving this case before us, it is not necessar# to determine whether it is
the promoters of the proposed corporation, or the corporation itself after its organi3ation, that
shall be responsible for the e)penses incurred in connection with such organi3ation.
The onl# ;uestion we have to decide now is whether or not the petitioners themselves
are also and personallyliable for such e)penses and, if so, to what e)tent.
The reasons for the said order are given b# the respondent court in its decision in this wiseG
!s to the th assigned error we hold that as to the remuneration due the plaintiff
for the preparation of the project stud# and the pre-organi3ational services in the
amount of "=+,+++.++, not onl# the defendant corporation but the other
defendants including defendants Caram should be jointl# and severall# liable for
this amount. !s we above related it was upon the re;uest of defendants arretto
and 8arcia that plaintiff handled the preparation of the project stud# which project
stud# was presented to defendant Caram so the latter was convinced to invest in
the proposed airlines. The project stud# was revised for purposes of presentation
to financiers and the ban/s. It was on the basis of this stud# that defendantcorporation was actuall# organi3ed and rendered operational. <efendants 8arcia
and Caram, and arretto became members of the oard andor officers of
defendant corporation. Thus, not onl# the defendant corporation but all the other
defendants who were involved in the preparator# stages of the incorporation, who
caused the preparation andor benefited from the project stud# and the technical
services of plaintiff must be liable. 4
It would appear from the above justification that the petitioners were not reall# involved in the
initial steps that finall# led to the incorporation of the Filipinas 4rient !irwa#s. (lsewhere in the
decision, arretto was described as 5the moving spirit.5 The finding of the respondent court isthat the project stud# was underta/en b# the private respondent at the re;uest of arretto and
8arcia who, upon its completion, presented it to the petitioners to induce them to invest in the
proposed airline. The stud# could have been presented to other prospective investors. !t an# rate,
the airline was eventuall# organi3ed on the basis of the project stud# with the petitioners as
major stoc/holders and, together with arretto and 8arcia, as principal officers.
The following portion of the decision in ;uestion is also worth consideringG
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 20/105
... 2ince defendant arretto was the moving spirit in the pre-organi3ation wor/ of
defendant corporation based on his e)perience and e)pertise, hence he was
logicall# compensated in the amount of "%++,+++.++ shares of stoc/ not as
industrial partner but more for his technical services that brought to fruition the
defendant corporation. # the same to/en, >e find no reason wh# the plaintiff
should not be similarl# compensated not onl# for having activel# participated inthe preparation of the project stud# for several months and its subse;uent revision
but also in his having been involved in the pre-organi3ation of the defendant
corporation, in the preparation of the franchise, in inviting the interest of the
financiers and in the training and screening of personnel. >e agree that for these
special services of the plaintiff the amount of "=+,+++.++ as compensation is
reasonable. 5
The above finding bolsters the conclusion that the petitioners were not involved in the initial
stages of the organi3ation of the airline, which were being directed b# arretto as the main
promoter. It was he who was putting all the pieces together, so to spea/. The petitioners weremerel# among the financiers whose interest was to be invited and who were in fact persuaded, on
the strength of the project stud#, to invest in the proposed airline.
2ignificantl#, there was no showing that the Filipinas 4rient !irwa#s was a fictitious corporation
and did not have a separate juridical personalit#, to justif# ma/ing the petitioners, as principal
stoc/holders thereof, responsible for its obligations. !s a /ona fide corporation, the Filipinas
4rient !irwa#s should alone be liable for its corporate acts as dul# authori3ed b# its officers and
directors.
In the light of these circumstances, we hold that the petitioners cannot be held personall# liable
for the compensation claimed b# the private respondent for the services performed b# him in theorgani3ation of the corporation. To repeat, the petitioners did not contract such services. It was
onl# the results of such services that arretto and 8arcia presented to them and which persuaded
them to invest in the proposed airline. The most that can be said is that the# benefited from such
services, but that surel# is no justification to hold them personall# liable therefor. 4therwise, all
the other stoc/holders of the corporation, including those who came in later, and regardless of
the amount of their share holdings, would be e;uall# and personall# liable also with the
petitioners for the claims of the private respondent.
The petition is rather ha3# and seems to be flawed b# an ambiguous ambivalence. 4ur
impression is that it is opposed to the imposition of solidar# responsibilit# upon the Carams butseems to be willing, in a vague, une)pressed offer of compromise, to accept joint liabilit#. >hile
it is true that it does here and there disclaim total liabilit#, the thrust of the petition seems to be
against the imposition of solidar# liabilit# onl# rather than against an# liabilit# at all, which is
what it should have categoricall# argued.
Categoricall#, the Court holds that the petitioners are not liable at all, jointl# or jointl# and
severall#, under the first paragraph of the dispositive portion of the challenged decision. 2o
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 21/105
holding, we find it unnecessar# to e)amine at this time the rules on solidar# obligations, which
the parties-needlessl#, as it turns out have belabored unto death.
>A(B(F4B(, the petition is granted. The petitioners are declared not liable under the
challenged decision, which is hereb# modified accordingl#. It is so ordered.
G.R. No. L-5003 e 27, 1953
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 22/105
NA+ARI! $RILLANA, administrator-appellee,vs.&E+!N C!LLEGE, INC., claimant-appellant.
Sin-son, Barnes, 6ap and Blanco for appellant.
el-ado, Flores 7 8acapa-al for appellee.
"ARAS, J.
<amasa Crisostomo sent the following letter to the oard of Trustees of the Due3on CollegeG
9une &, &*
The 4!B< 4F TB?2T((2Due3on CollegeManila
8entlemenG
"lease enter m# subscription to dalawang daan 6%++7 shares of #our capital stoc/ with a par value of "&++ each. (nclosed #ou will find 6aba#aran /ong lahat pag/atapos na a/oa# ma/apag-pahuli ng isda7 pesos as m# initial pa#ment and the balance pa#able inaccordance with law and the rules and regulations of the Due3on College. I hereb# agreeto shoulder the e)penses connected with said shares of stoc/. I further submit m#self toall lawful demands, decisions or directives of the oard of Trustees of the Due3onCollege and all its dul# constituted officers or authorities 6ang nasa itaas a# binasa atipinaliwanag sa a/in sa wi/ang tagalog na a/ing nalalaman7.
:er# respectfull#,
62gd.7 <!M!2! CBI242T4M42ignature of subscriber
$ilagdaan sa aming harapanG
942( CBI242T4M4(<?!B<4 CBI242T4M4
<amasa Crisostomo died on 4ctober %1, &*. !s no pa#ment appears to have been made on thesubscription mentioned in the foregoing letter, the Due3on College, Inc. presented a claim beforethe Court of First Instance of ulacan in her testate proceeding, for the collection of the sum of
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 23/105
"%+,+++, representing the value of the subscription to the capital stoc/ of the Due3on College,Inc. This claim was opposed b# the administrator of the estate, and the Court of First Instance of ulacan, after hearing issued an order dismissing the claim of the Due3on College, Inc. on theground that the subscription in ;uestion was neither registered in nor authori3ed b# the 2ecuritiesand ()change Commission. From this order the Due3on College, Inc. has appealed.
It is not necessar# for us to discuss at length appellant's various assignments of error relating tothe propriet# of the ground relief upon b# the trial court, since, as pointed out in the brief for theadministrator and appellee, there are other decisive considerations which, though not touched b#the lower court, ampl# sustained the appealed order.
It appears that the application sent b# <amasa Crisostomo to the Due3on College, Inc. waswritten on a general form indicating that an applicant will enclose an amount as initial pa#mentand will pa# the balance in accordance with law and the regulations of the College. 4n the other hand, in the letter actuall# sent b# <amasa Crisostomo, the latter 6who re;uested that her subscription for %++ shares be entered7 not onl# did not enclose an# initial pa#ment but stated
that 5baba#aran /ong lahat pag/atapos na a/o a# ma/apagpahuli ng isda.5 There is nothing in therecord to show that the Due3on College, Inc. accepted the term of pa#ment suggested b# <amasaCrisostomo, or that if there was an# acceptance the same came to her /nowledge during her lifetime. !s the application of <amasa Crisostomo is obviousl# at variance with the termsevidenced in the form letter issued b# the Due3on College, Inc., there was absolute necessit# onthe part of the College to e)press its agreement to <amasa's offer in order to bind the latter.Conversel#, said acceptance was essential, because it would be unfair to immediatel# obligate theDue3on College, Inc. under <amasa's promise to pa# the price of the subscription after she hadcaused fish to be caught. In other words, the relation between <amasa Crisostomo and theDue3on College, Inc. had onl# thus reached the preliminar# stage whereb# the latter offered itsstoc/ for subscription on the terms stated in the form letter, and <amasa applied for subscription
fi)ing her own plan of pa#ment, H a relation, in the absence as in the present case of acceptance b# the Due3on College, Inc. of the counter offer of <amasa Crisostomo, that had not ripened intoan enforceable contract.
Indeed, the need for e)press acceptance on the part of the Due3on College, Inc. becomes themore imperative, in view of the proposal of <amasa Crisostomo to pa# the value of thesubscription after she has harvested fish, a condition obviousl# dependent upon her sole will and,therefore, facultative in nature, rendering the obligation void, under article &&&= of the old CivilCode which provides as followsG 5If the fulfillment of the condition should depend upon thee)clusive will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void. If it should depend uponchance, or upon the will of a third person, the obligation shall produce all its effects inaccordance with the provisions of this code.5 It cannot be argued that the condition solel# is void, because it would have served to create the obligation to pa#, unli/e a case, e)emplified b# Osme9a vs. %ama 6& "hil., 7, wherein onl# the potestative condition was held void because it referred merel# to the fulfillment of an alread# e)isting indebtedness.
In the case of 4aylor vs. :y 4ien- Piao, et al . 60 "hil., *0, *7, this Court alread# held that 5acondition, facultative as to the debtor, is obno)ious to the first sentence contained in article &&&=and renders the whole obligation void.5
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 24/105
>herefore, the appealed order is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against appellant.
G.R. No6. L-4)195 / 4)19* # 1, 1942
S!FR!NI! $. AYLA, E$ AL., petitioners,vs.SILANG $RAFFIC C!., INC., respondent.SILANG $RAFFIC C!., 'e(8(8oer, 6. S!FR!NI! AYLA, E$ AL., respondents.
3. A. Beltran for petitioners.
Conrado ;. Sanche<, 8elchor C. Benite<, and 3nrique 8. Fernando for respondent.
!+AE$A, J.:
"etitioners in 8.B. $o. *&= instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Caviteagainst the respondent 2ilang Traffic Co., Inc. 6cross-petitioner in 8.B. $o. *&17, to recover certain sums of mone# which the# had paid severall# to the corporation on account of shares of stoc/ the# individuall# agreed to ta/e and pa# for under certain specified terms and conditions,of which the following referring to the petitioner 9osefa $aval, is t#picalG
!8B((M($T F4B I$2T!M($T 2!( 4F 2A!B(2 I$ TA( 52I!$8TB!FFIC C4M"!$J, I$C.,5
2ilang, Cavite, ". I.
TAI2 !8B((M($T, made and entered into between Mrs. 9osefa $aval, of legal age,married and resident of the Municipalit# of 2ilang, "rovince of Cavite, "hilippineIslands, part# of the First "art, hereinafter called the subscriber, and the 52ilang TrafficCompan#, Inc.,5 a corporation dul# organi3ed and e)isting b# virtue of and under thelaws of the "hilippine Islands, with its principal office in the Municipalit# of 2ilang,"rovince of Cavite, "hilippine Islands, part# of the 2econd "art, hereinafter called theseller,
>IT$(22(TAG
That the subscriber promises to pa# personall# or b# his dul# authori3ed agent to theseller at the Municipalit# of 2ilang, "rovince of Cavite, "hilippine Islands, the sum of one thousand five hundred pesos 6"&,=++7, "hilippine currenc#, as purchase price of FIFT(($ 6&=7 shares of capital stoc/, said purchase price to be paid as follows, to witGfive 6=K7 per cent upon the e)ecution of the contract, the receipt whereof is hereb#
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 25/105
ac/nowledged and confessed, and the remainder in installments of five per cent, pa#ablewithin the first month of each and ever# ;uarter thereafter, commencing on the &st da# of 9ul#, &0=, with interest on deferred pa#ments at the rate of 2IL 61K7 per cent per annumuntil paid.
That the said subscriber further agrees that if he fails to pa# an# of said installment whendue, or to perform an# of the aforesaid conditions, or if said shares shall be attached or levied upon b# creditors of the said subscriber, then the said shares are to revert to theseller and the pa#ments alread# made are to be forfeited in favor of said seller, and thelatter ma# then ta/e possession, without resorting to court proceedings.
The said seller upon receiving full pa#ment, at the time and manner hereinbeforespecified, agrees to e)ecute and deliver to said subscriber, or to his heirs and assigns, thecertificate of title of said shares, free and clear of all encumbrances.
In testimon# whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands in the Municipalit# of
2ilang, "rovince of Cavite, "hilippine Islands, this 0+th da# of March, &0=.
62gd.7 942(F! $!:!2I!$8 TB!FFIC C4M"!$J, I$C. Su/scri/er
# 62gd.7 I$4 84M( President .
6()hibit &. $otarial ac/nowledgment omitted.7
The agreements signed b# the other petitioners were of the same date 6March 0+, &0=7 and inidentical terms as the foregoing e)cept as to the number of shares and the corresponding purchase price. The petitioners agreed to purchase the following number of shares and, up to!pril 0+, &0, had paid the following sums on account thereofG
2ofronio T.a#la.......
* shares "01+
:enancioToledo........
* shares 0=
9osefa &= shares 1=
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 26/105
$aval..............
"a3Toledo................
&= shares 1=
"etitioners' action for the recover# of the sums above mentioned is based on a resolution b# the board of directors of the respondent corporation on !ugust &, &0, of the following tenorG
! mocion sel 2r. Marcos Caparas # secundado por el 2r. !lejandro a#la, ;ue para el bien de la corporacion # la pronta terminacion del asunto civil $o. 0&%= titulado 5:icenteF. :illanueva et al. vs. ino 8ome3 et al.,5 en el 9u3gado de "rimera Instancia de Cavite,donde se gasto # se gastara no poca cantidad de la Corporacion, se resolvio # se aprobo
por la 9unta <irectiva los siguientesG
6a7 Due se dejara sin efecto lo aprobado por la 9unta <irectiva el 0 de mar3o, &0=, art.&&, sec. &1%, sobre las cobran3as ;ue se haran por el 2ecretario Tesorero de laCorporacion a los accionistas ;ue habian tomado o suscrito nuevas acciones # ;ue se permitia a estos pagar %+K del valor de las acciones suscritas en un aNo, con interes de1K # el pago o jornal ;ue se hara por trimestre.
6b7 2e dejara sin efecto, en vista de ;ue aun no esta pagado todo el valor de las &%0acciones, tomadas de las acciones no e)pedidas 6unissued stoc/7 de la Corporacion # ;uefueron suscritas por los siguienesG
ino8ome3.....................
&+ !cciones
:enancioToledo.............
* !cciones
Melchor ".enite3........
& !cciones
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 27/105
Isaias:ideNa.................
& !cciones
(steban:elasco............
&+ !cciones
$umeriano 2.!ldaba....
&= !cciones
InocencioCru3.................
* !cciones
9osefa $aval ..................
&= !cciones
2ofronioa#la.................
* !cciones
<ionisio<ungca.............
0 !cciones
# devolver a las personas arriba descritas toda la cantidad ;ue estas habian pagado por las &%0acciones.
6c7 Due se dejara sin efecto lo aprobado por la 9unta <irectiva el 0 mar3o, &0=, art. :.
sec. &1=, sobre el cambio o true;ue de las 0& acciones del Treasur# 2toc/, contra las 0%acciones del 2r. $umeriano !ldaba, en la corporacion $orthern u3on Transportation Co.# ;ue se devuelva al 2r. $umeriano !ldaba las 0% acciones mencionadas despues ;ue elha#a devuelto el certificado de las 0& acciones de la 2ilang Traffic Co., Inc.
6d7 "ermitir al Tesorero de la Corporacion para ;ue devuelva a las personas arribaindicadas, las cantidades pagadas por las &%0 acciones. 6()hibit !-&.7
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 28/105
The respondent corporation set up the following defensesG 6&7 That the above-;uoted resolutionis not applicable to the petitioners 2ofronio T. a#la, 9osefa $aval, and "a3 Toledo because onthe date thereof 5their subscribed shares of stoc/ had alread# automaticall# reverted to thedefendant, and the installments paid b# them had alread# been forfeited5@ and 6%7 that saidresolution of !ugust &, &0, was revo/ed and cancelled b# a subse;uent resolution of the board
of directors of the defendant corporation dated !ugust %%, &0.
The trial court absolved the defendant from the complaint and declared canceled 6forfeited7 infavor of the defendant the shares of stoc/ in ;uestion. It held that the resolution of !ugust &,&0, was null and void, citing;elasco vs. Poi<at 60 "hil., *+%7, wherein this Court held that 5acorporation has no legal capacit# to release an original subscriber to its capital stoc/ from theobligation to pa# for shares@ and an# agreement to this effect is invalid5 "laintiffs below appealedto the Court of !ppeals, which modified of the trial court as followsG
That part of the judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint is affirmed, but that partthereof declaring their subscription canceled is reversed. <efendant is directed to grant
plaintiffs 0+ da#s after final judgment within which to pa# the arrears on their subscription. >ithout pronouncement as to costs.
oth parties appealed to this Court b# petition and cross-petition for certiorari. "etitioners insistthat the# have the right to recover the amounts involved under the resolution of !ugust &, &0,while the respondent and cross-petitioner on its part contends that said amounts have beenautomaticall# forfeited and the shares of stoc/ have reverted to the corporation under theagreement hereinabove ;uoted.
The parties litigant, the trial court, and the Court of !ppeals have interpreted or considered thesaid agreement as a contract of subscription to the capital stoc/ of the respondent corporation. It
should be noted, however, that said agreement is entitled 5!greement for Installment 2ale of 2hares in the 2ilang Traffic Compan#, Inc.,5@ that while the purchaser is designated as5subscriber,5 the corporation is described as 5seller5@ that the agreement was entered into onMarch 0+, &0=, long after the incorporation and organi3ation of the corporation, which too/ place in &%@ and that the price of the stoc/ was pa#able in ;uarterl# installments spread over a period of five #ears. It also appears that in civil case $o. 0&%= of the Court of First Instance of Cavite mentioned in the resolution of !ugust &, &0, the right of the corporation to sell theshares of stoc/ to the person named in said resolution 6including herein petitioners7 wasimpugned b# the plaintiffs in said case, who claimed a preferred right to bu# said shares.
>hether a particular contract is a subscription or a sale of stoc/ is a matter of construction anddepends upon its terms and the intention of the parties 6 Fletcher, C#clopedia of CorporationOpermanent editionP, %, cited in 2almon, <e)ter E Co. vs. ?nson 6 "hil. 1, 1=%7. In the?nson case just cited, this Court held that a subscription to stoc/ in an e)isting corporation is, as between the subscriber and the corporation, simpl# a contract of purchase and sale.
It seems clear from the terms of the contracts in ;uestion that the# are contracts of sale and not of subscription. The lower courts erred in overloo/ing the distinction between subscription and purchase 5! subscription, properl# spea/ing, is the mutual agreement of the subscribers to ta/e
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 29/105
and pa# for the stoc/ of a corporation, while a purchase is an independent agreement between theindividual and the corporation to bu# shares of stoc/ from it at stipulated price.5 6&* C. 9. 2.,1+.7 In some particulars the rules governing subscriptions and sales of shares are different. For instance, the provisions of our Corporation aw regarding calls for unpaid subscription andassessment of stoc/ 6sections 0-=+7 do not appl# to a purchase of stoc/. i/ewise the rule that
corporation has no legal capacit# to release an original subscriber to its capital stoc/ from theobligation to pa# for his shares, is inapplicable to a contract of purchase of shares.
The ne)t ;uestion to determine is whether under the contract between the parties the failure of the purchaser to pa# an# of the ;uarterl# installments on the purchase price automaticall# gaverise to the forfeiture of the amounts alread# paid and the reversion of the shares to thecorporation. The contract provides for interest of the rate of si) per centum per annum ondeferred pa#ments. It is also provides that if the purchaser fails to pa# an# of said installmentswhen due, the said shares are to revert to the seller and the pa#ments alread# made are to beforfeited in favor of said seller. The respondent corporation contends that when the petitionersfailed to pa# the installment which fell due on or before 9ul# 0&, &0, forfeiture automaticall#
too/ place, that is to sa#, without the necessit# of an# demand from the corporation, and thattherefore the resolution of !ugust &, &0, authori3ing the refund of the installments alread# paidwas inapplicable to the petitioners, who had alread# lost an# and all rights under said contract.The contention is, we thin/, untenable. The provision regarding interest on deferred pa#mentswould not have been inserted if it had been the intention of the parties to provide for automaticforfeiture and cancelation of the contract. Moreover, the contract did not e)pressl# provide thatthe failure of the purchaser to pa# an# installment would give rise to forfeiture and cancelationwithout the necessit# of an# demand from the seller@ and under article &&++ of the Civil Code persons obliged to deliver or do something are not in default until the moment the creditor demands of them judiciall# or e)trajudiciall# the fulfillment of their obligation, unless 6&7 theobligation or the law e)pressl# provides that demand shall not be necessar# in order that default
ma# arise, 6%7 b# reason of the nature and circumstances of the obligation it shall appear that thedesignation of the time at which that thing was to be delivered or the service rendered was the principal inducement to the creation of the obligation.
Is the resolution of !ugust &, &0, valid The contract in ;uestion being one of purchase and notsubscription as we have heretofore pointed out, we see no legal impediment to its rescission b#agreement of the parties. !ccording to the resolution of !ugust &, &0, the recission was madefor the good of the corporation and in order to terminate the then pending civil case involving thevalidit# of the sale of the shares in ;uestion among others. To that rescission the herein petitioners apparentl# agreed, as shown b# their demand for the refund of the amounts the# had paid as provided in said resolution. It appears from the record that said civil case wassubse;uentl# dismissed, and that the purchasers of shares of stoc/, other than the herein petitioners, who were mentioned in said resolution were able to benefit b# said resolution. Itwould be an unjust discrimination to den# the same benefit to the herein petitioners.
>e ma# add that there is no intimation in this case that the corporation was insolvent, or that theright of an# creditor of the same was in an# wa# prejudiced b# the rescission.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 30/105
The attempted revocation of said rescission b# the resolution of !ugust %%, &0, was invalid, itnot having been agreed to b# the petitioners.
>herefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereb# reversed and another judgment will beentered against the defendant 2ilang Traffic Co., Inc., ordering it to pa# to the plaintiffs 2ofronio
T. a#la, :enancio Toledo, 9osefa $aval, and "a3 Toledo, the sums of "01+, "0=, "1=, and"1=, respectivel#, with legal interest on each of said sums from Ma# %*, &0*, the date of thefiling of the complaint, until the date of pa#ment, and with costs in the three instances. 2oordered.
March &=, &&*
8.B. $o. &&=%*
#IG&EL ELASC!, 668:ee o; $<e "<8=8''8e C<em8c= "ro/c( Co. >L(/.?, plaintiff-
appellant,
vs.
EAN #. "!I+A$, defendant-appellee.
;icente %odri-ue< for appellant.
A. J. Bur5e for appellee.
S$REE$, J.
From the amended complaint filed in this cause upon Februar# =, &&=, it appears that the
plaintiff, as assignee in insolvenc# of 5The "hilippine Chemical "roduct Compan#5 6td.7 is
see/ing to recover of the defendant, 9ean M. "oi3at, the sum of "&,=++, upon a subscription
made b# him to the corporate stoc/ of said compan#. It appears that the corporation in ;uestion
was originall# organi3ed b# several residents of the cit# of Manila, where the compan# had its principal place of business, with a capital of "=+,+++, divided into =++ shares. The defendant
subscribed for %+ shares of the stoc/ of the compan#, an paid in upon his subscription the sum of
"=++, the par value of = shares . The action was brought to recover the amount subscribed upon
the remaining shares.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 31/105
It appears that the defendant was a stoc/ holder in the compan# from the inception of the
enterprise, and for sometime acted as its treasurer and manager. >hile serving in this capacit# he
called in and collected all subscriptions to the capital stoc/ of the compan#, e)cept the aforesaid
&= shares subscribed b# himself and another &= shares owned b# 9ose B. Infante.
?pon 9ul# &0, &&, a meeting of the board of directors of the compan# was held at which a
majorit# of the stoc/ was presented. ?pOon this occasion two resolutions, important to be here
noted, were adopted. The first was a proposal that the directors, or shareholders, of the compan#
should ma/e good b# new subscriptions, in proportion to their respective holdings, &= shares
which had been surrendered b# Infante. It seems that this shareholder had alread# paid %= per
cent of his subscription upon %+ shares, leaving &= shares unpaid for, and an understanding had
been reached b# him and the management b# which he was to be released from the obligation of
his subscription, it being understood that what he had alread# paid should not be refunded.
!ccordingl# the directors present at this meeting subscribed "&,%++ toward ta/ing up his shares,
leaving a deficienc# of "0++ to be recovered b# voluntar# subscriptions from stoc/holders not
present at the meeting.
The other proposition was o the effect that 9uan O9eanP M. "oi3at, who was absent, should be
re;uired to pa# the amount of his subscription upon the &= shares for which he was still indebted
to the compan#. The resolution further provided that, in case he should refuse to ma/e such
pa#ment, the management of the corporation should be authori3ed to underta/e judicial
proceedings against him. >hen notification of this resolution reached "oi3at through the mail it
evo/ed from him a manifestation of surprise and pain, which found e)pression in a letter written
b# him in repl#, dated 9ul# %, &&, and addressed to :elasco, as treasurer and administrator. In
this letter "oi3at states that he had been given to understand b# some member of the board of
directors that he was to be relieved from his subscription upon the terms conceded to Infante@ and
he addedG
M# desire to be relieved from the pa#ment of the remaining = per cent arises from the
poor opinion which I entertain of the business and the faint hope of ever recovering an#
mone# invested. In conse;uence, I prefer to lose the whole of the %= per cent I have
alread# paid rather than to continue investing more mone# in what I consider to be
ruinous proposition.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 32/105
>ithin a short while the unfavorable opinion entertained b# "oi3at as to the prospect of the
compan# was found to be full# justified, as the compan# soon went into voluntar# insolvenc#,
:elasco being named as the assignee. Ae ;ualified at once b# giving bond, and was dul#
inducted into the office of assignee upon $ovember %=, &&, b# virtue of a formal transfer
e)ecuted b# the cler/ in pursuance of section 0% of !ct $o. &=1 .
The answer of the defendant consisted of a general denial and a so-called special defense,
consisting of a concatenation of statements more appropriate for a demurrer than as material for
a special defense. The principal contention is that the call made b# the board of directors of the
compan# on 9ul# &0, && , was not made pursuant to the re;uirements of sections 0 and 0* of
the Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &=7 , and in particular that the action was instituted before the
e)piration of the 0+ da#s specified in section 0*.
!t the hearing of the Court of First Instance, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant,
and the complaint was dismissed. From this action the plaintiff has appealed.
>e thin/ that "oi3at is liable upon this subscription. ! stoc/ subscription is a contract between
the corporation on one side, and the subscriber on the other, and courts will enforce it for or
against either. It is a rule, accepted b# the 2upreme Court of the ?nited 2tates, that a subscription
for shares of stoc/ does not re;uire an e)press promise to pa# the amount subscribed, as the law
implies a promise to pa# on the part of the subscriber. 6 Buling Case aw, sec. &&.7 2ection 01
of the Corporation aw clearl# recogni3es that a stoc/ subscription is subsisting liabilit# from
the time the subscription is made, since it re;uires the subscriber to pa# interest ;uarterl# from
that date unless he is relieved from such liabilit# b# the b#-laws of the corporation. The
subscriber is as much bound to pa# the amount of the share subscribed b# him as he would be to
pa# an# other debt, and the right of the compan# to demand pa#ment is no less incontestable.
The provisions of the Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &=7 given recognition of two remedies for the
enforcement of stoc/ subscriptions. The first and most special remed# given b# the statuteconsists in permitting the corporation to put up the unpaid stoc/ for sale and dispose of it for the
account of the delin;uent subscriber. In this case the provisions of section 0* to *, inclusive , of
the Corporation aw are applicable and must be followed. The other remed# is b# action in
court, concerning which we find in section the following provisionG
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 33/105
$othing in this !ct shall prevent the directors from collecting, b# action in an# court of
proper jurisdiction, the amount due on an# unpaid subscription, together with accrued
interest and costs and e)penses incurred.
It is generall# accepted doctrine that the statutor# right to sell the subscriber's stoc/ is merel# a
remed# in addition to that which proceeds b# action in court@ and it has been held that the
ordinar# legal remed# b# action e)ists even though no e)press mention thereof is made in the
statute. 6Instone vs. Fran/fort ridge Co., % ibb O#.P, =1@ = !m. <ec., 10*.7
$o attempt is made in the Corporation aw to define the precise conditions under which an
action ma# be maintained upon a stoc/ subscription, as such conditions should be determined
with reference to the rules governing contract liabilit# in general@ and where it appears as in this
case that a matured stoc/ subscription is unpaid, none of the provisions contained in section 0*
to *, inclusive, of !ct $o. &=can be permitted to obstruct or impede the action to recover
thereon. # virtue of the first subsection of section 01 of the Insolvenc# aw 6!ct $o. &=17 the
assignee of the insolvent corporation succeeds to all the corporate rights of action vested in the
corporation prior to its insolvenc#@ and the assignee therefore has the same freedom with respect
to suing upon the stoc/ subscription as the directors themselves would have had under section
above cited.
ut there is another reason wh# the present plaintiff must prevail in this case, even supposing
that the failure of the directors to compl# with the re;uirements of the provisions of sections 0*
to *, inclusive, of !ct $o. &= might have been an obstacle to a recover# b# the corporation
itself. That reason is thisG >hen insolvenc# supervenes upon a corporation and the court assumes
jurisdiction to wind up, all unpaid stoc/ subscriptions become pa#able on demand, and are at
once recoverable in an action instituted b# the assignee or receiver appointed b# the court. This
rule apparentl# had origin in a recognition of the principle that a court of e;uit#, having
jurisdiction of the insolvenc# proceedings, could, if necessar#, ma/e the call itself, in its capacit#
as successor to the powers e)ercised b# the board of directors of the defunct compan#. ater a
further rule gained recognition to the effect that the receiver or assignee, in an action instituted
b# proper authorit#, could himself proceed to collect the subscription without the necessit# of
an# prior call whatever. This conclusion is well supported b# reference to the following
authoritiesG
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 34/105
. . . a court of e;uit# ma# enforce pa#ment of the stoc/ subscriptions, although there have
been no calls for them b# the compan#. 6Aatch vs. <ana, &+& ?. 2., %+=.7
It is again insisted that the plaintiffs cannot recover because the suit was not preceded b#
a call or assessment against no right of action accrues. In a suit b# a solvent going
corporation to collect a subscription, and in certain suits provided b# the statute this
would be true@ but it is now ;uite well settled that when the corporation becomes
insolvent, with proceedings instituted b# creditors to wind up and distribute its assets, no
call or assessment is necessar# before the institution of suits to collect unpaid balances on
subscription. 6Boss-Meehan 2hoe F. Co. vs.2outhern Malleable Iron Co., % Fed., =,
1+@ see also Aenr# vs. :ermillion etc. B. B. Co., & 4hio, &*, and Thompson on
Corporations %d ed., vol. 0, sec. %1.7
It evidentl# cannot be permitted that a subscriber should escape from his lawful obligation b#
reason of the failure of the officers of the corporation to perform their dut# in ma/ing a call@ and
when the original model of ma/ing the call becomes impracticable, the obligation must be
treated as due upon demand. If the corporation must be treated still an active entit#, and this
action should be dismissed for irregularit# in the ma/ing of the call, other steps could be ta/en
b# the board to cure the defect and another action could be brought@ but where the compan# is
being wound up, no such procedure would be practicable. The better doctrine is that when
insolvenc# supervenes all unpaid subscriptions become at once due and enforceable.
The printed bill of e)ceptions in this cause does not contain the original complaint, nor does it
state who was plaintiff therein or the date when the action was instituted. It ma#, however, be
gathered from the papers transmitted to this court that the action was originall# instituted in the
name of the "hilippine Chemical "roduct Co. 6td.7, prior to its insolvenc#, and that later the
assignee was substituted as plaintiff and then filed the amended complaint, with the permission
of the court. $ow, if we concede that no right of action e)isted when the original complaint was
filed, a right of action certainl# e)isted when the assignee filed his amended complaint@ and as
the bill of e)ceptions fails to show that an# e)ception was ta/en to the action of the court in
allowing the amended complaint to be filed, no objection would be here entertained on the
ground that the action was prematurel# brought.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 35/105
The circumstance that the board of directors in their meeting of 9ul# &0, &&, resolved to release
Infante from his obligation upon a subscription for &= shares is no wise prejudicial to the right of
the corporation or its assignee to recover from "oi3at upon a subscription made b# him. In
releasing Infante the board transcended its powers, and he no doubt still remained liable on such
of his shares as were not ta/en up and paid for b# other persons.
The general doctrine is that the corporation has no legal capacit# to release an original
subscriber to its capital stoc/ from the obligation of pa#ing for his shares, in whole or in
part, . . . 6&+ C#c., =+.7
The suggestion contained in "oi3at's letter of 9ul# %, &&, to the effect that he understood that
he was to be relieved upon the same terms as Infante is, for the same reason, of no merit as
matter of defense, even if an agreement to that effect had been dul# proved.
From what has been said it is manifest that the defendant is liable for "&,=++, the amount of his
subscription upon the unpaid shares. ?nder section 01 of the Corporation aw he is also liable
for interest at the lawful rate from the date of his subscription, unless relieved from this liabilit#
b# the b#-laws of the compan#. These b#-laws have not been introduced in evidence and there is
no proof showing the e)act date upon which the subscription was made, though it is alleged in
the original complaint that the compan# was organi3ed upon March %0, &&. This allegation is
not admitted in the agreed statement of facts. The defendant, however, inferentiall# admits in his
letter of 9ul# %, &&, that his subscription had been made prior to 9ul# &0, &&. It resulted that
in our opinion he should be held liable for interest from that date.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore reversed, and judgment will be rendered in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of one thousand five hundred pesos 6"&,=++7,
with interest from 9ul# &0, &+&, and costs of both instances. 2o ordered.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 36/105
G.R. No6. L-24177-)5 e 29, 19*)
"HILI""INE NA$I!NAL AN%, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
I$&L!% SA@#ILL, INC., DINGALAN L&#ER C!., INC., SIERRA #ADRE
L&#ER C!., INC., NASI"I$ L&#ER C!., INC., @!!D@!R%S, INC., G!N+AL!
"&YA$, $!#AS . #!RA$!, FINDLAY #ILLAR L&#ER C!., INC., E$ AL.,
INS&LAR L&#ER C!., ANA%AN L&#ER C!., AND CAN$ILAN L&#ER C!.,
INC., defendants-appellees.
4omas Besa, Simplicio &. An-eles and Jose B. $alan- for plaintiff(appellee.
Bausa, Ampil and Suare< for defendant(appellant =oodwor5s, 2nc.
Pacifico de Ocampo for defendant(appellant Ana5an 'um/er Co.
%oss, Selph, Salcedo, el %osario, Bito and 8isa for defendant(appellant 2nsular 'um/er Co.
$arin, Boquiren and 4amesis for defendant(appellant &asipit 'um/er Co., 2nc.
Feria, 8an-lapus and Associates for defendant(appellant $on<alo Puyat.
Sycip, Sala<ar and Associates for defendant(appellant Cantilan 'um/er Co., 2nc.
O<aeta, $i//s and O<aeta for defendant(appellant Findlay 8illar 'um/er Co., 2nc.
ominador Alafri< for defendant(appellant Bitulo5 Sawmill, 2nc.
e la Costa and e la Costa for defendant(appellant 4omas B. 8orato.
FERNAND!, J.:
In the face of a statutor# norm, which, as interpreted in a uniform line of decisions b# this Court,
spea/s une;uivocall# and is free from doubt, the lower court with full recognition that the case
for the plaintiff creditor, "hilippine $ational an/, 5is meritorious strictl# from the legal
standpoint5 & but apparentl# unable to 5close its e#es to the e;uit# of the case5 % dismissed nine
67 cases filed b# it, see/ing 5to recover from the defendant lumber producers Oitulo/ 2awmill,
Inc.@ <ingalan umber Co., Inc., 2ierra Madre umber Co., Inc.@ $asipit umber Co., Inc.@
>oodwor/s, Inc.@ 8on3alo "u#at@ Tomas . Morato@ Findla# Millar umber Co., Inc.@ Insular
umber Co., Inc.@ !na/an umber Co., Inc.@ and Cantilan umber Co., Inc.P the balance of their stoc/ subscriptions to the "hilippine umber <istributing !genc#, Inc.5 0 In essence then, the
crucial ;uestion posed b# this appeal from such a decision of the lower court is adherence to the
rule of law. 4therwise stated, would non-compliance with a plain statutor# command,
considering the persuasiveness of the plea that defendants-appellees would 5not have subscribed
to OtheP capital stoc/5 of the "hilippine umber <istributing !genc# 5were it not for the
assurance of the OthenP "resident of the Bepublic of the "hilippines that the 8overnment would
bac/ OitP up b# investing ".++ for ever# peso5 subscribed, a condition which was not fulfilled,
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 37/105
such commitment not having been complied with, be justified The answer must be in the
negative.
It cannot be otherwise even if an element of unfairness and injustice could be predicated, as the
lower court, in a rather s#mpathetic mood, did find in the plaintiff ban/, as creditor, compelling
defendant lumber producers under the above circumstances to pa# the balance of their subscriptions. For a plain and statutor# command, if applicable, must be respected. The rule of
law cannot be satisfied with an#thing less. The appeal must be sustained.
In these various suits decided jointl#, the "hilippine $ational an/, as creditor, and therefore the
real part# in interest, was allowed b# the lower court to substitute the receiver of the "hilippine
umber <istributing !genc# in these respective actions for the recover# from defendant lumber
producers the balance of their stoc/ subscriptions. The amount sought to be collected from
defendants-appellees itulo/ 2awmill, Inc., <ingalan umber Co., Inc., and 2ierra Madre
umber Co., Inc., is "=,+++.++, defendants-appellees having made a partial pa#ment of
"&=,+++.++ of their total subscription worth "%+,+++.++@ from defendant-appellee $asipit
umber Co., Inc., the sum of "&+,+++.++, defendant-appellee having made a partial pa#ment of
"&+,+++.++ of its total subscription worth "%+,+++.++@ from defendant-appellee >oodwor/s,
Inc., the sum of "&+,**1.++, defendant-appellee having made a partial pa#ment of ",&&.++ of
its total subscription worth "%+,+++.++@ from defendant-appellee 8on3alo "u#at the sum of
"&+,+++.++, defendant-appellee having made a partial pa#ment of "&+,+++.++ of his total
subscription worth "%+,+++.++@ from defendant-appellee Tomas Morato the sum of "&+,+++.++,
defendant-appellee having made a partial pa#ment of "&+,+++.++ of his total subscription worth
"%+,+++.++@ from defendant-appellee Findla# Millar umber Co., Inc., the sum of "&+,+++.++,
defendant-appellee having made a partial pa#ment of "&+,+++.++ of its total subscription worth
"%+,+++.++@ from defendant-appellee Insular umber Co., Inc., the sum of "=,+++.++, defendant-
appellee having made a partial pa#ment of "&=,+++.++ of its total subscription worth "%+,+++.++@from defendant-appellee !na/an umber Co., Inc., the sum of "&=,+++.++, defendant-appellee
having made a partial pa#ment of "=,+++.++ of its total subscription worth "%+,+++.++@ and from
defendant-appellee Cantilan umber Co., Inc., the sum of ",=++.++, defendant-appellee having
made a partial pa#ment of "%,=++.++ of its total subscription worth "&+,+++.++, plus interest at
the legal rate from the filing of the suits and the costs of the suits in all the nine 67 cases.
The "hilippine umber <istributing !genc#, Inc., according to the lower court, 5was organi3ed
sometime in the earl# part of & upon the initiative and insistence of the late "resident Manuel
Bo)as of the Bepublic of the "hilippines who for the purpose, had called several conferences
between him and the subscribers and organi3ers of the "hilippine umber <istributing !genc#,Inc.5 = The purpose was praiseworth#, to insure a stead# suppl# of lumber, which could be sold at
reasonable prices to enable the war sufferers to rehabilitate their devastated homes. The decision
continuesG 5Ae convinced the lumber producers to form a lumber cooperative and to pool their
sources together in order to wrest, particularl#, the retail trade from aliens who were acting as
middlemen in the distribution of lumber. !t the beginning, the lumber producers were reluctant
to organi3e the cooperative agenc# as the# believed that it would not be eas# to eliminate from
the retail trade the alien middlemen who had been in this business from time immemorial, but
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 38/105
because the late "resident Bo)as made it clear that such a cooperative agenc# would not be
successful without a substantial wor/ing capital which the lumber producers could not entirel#
shoulder, and as an inducement he promised and agreed to finance the agenc# b# ma/ing the
8overnment invest ".++ b# wa# of counterpart for ever# peso that the members would invest
therein,....5 1
This was the assurance relied upon according to the decision, which stated that the amount thus
contributed b# such lumber producers was not enough for the operation of its business especiall#
having in mind the primar# purpose of putting an end to alien domination in the retail trade of
lumber products. $or was there an# appropriation b# the legislature of the counterpart fund to be
put up b# the 8overnment, namel#, ".++ for ever# peso invested b# defendant lumber
producers. !ccordingl#, 5the late "resident Bo)as instructed the Aon. (milio !bello, then
()ecutive 2ecretar# and Chairman of the oard of <irectors of the "hilippine $ational an/, for
the latter to grant said agenc# an overdraft in the original sum of "%=+,+++.++ which was later
increased to "0=+,+++.++, which was approved b# said oard of <irectors of the "hilippine
$ational an/ on 9ul# %*, &, pa#able on or before !pril 0+, &=*, with interest at the rate of 1K per annum, and secured b# the chattel mortgages on the stoc/ of lumber of said
agenc#.5 The "hilippine 8overnment did not invest the ".++ for ever# peso coming from
defendant lumber producers. The loan e)tended to the "hilippine umber <istributing !genc# b#
the "hilippine $ational an/ was not paid. Aence, these suits.
For the lower court, the above facts sufficed for their dismissal. To its mind 5it is grossl# unfair
and unjust for the plaintiff ban/ now to compel the lumber producers to pa# the balance of their
subscriptions .... Indeed, when the late "resident Bo)as made representations to the plaintiff
ban/, thru the Aon. (milio !bello, who was then the ()ecutive 2ecretar# and Chairman of its
oard of <irectors, to grant said overdraft to the agenc#, it was the onl# wa# b# which "resident
Bo)as could ma/e good his commitment that the 8overnment would invest in said agenc# to thee)tent alread# mentioned because, according to said late "resident Bo)as, the legislature had not
appropriated an# amount for such counterpart. Conse;uentl#, viewing from all considerations of
e;uit# in the case, the Court finds that plaintiff ban/ should not collect an# more from the
defendants the balance of their subscriptions to the capital stoc/ of the "hilippine umber
<istributing !genc#, Inc.5 *
(ven with the case for defendant lumber producers being put forth in its strongest possible light
in the appealed decision, the plaintiff creditor, the "hilippine $ational an/, should have been
the prevailing part#. 4n the law as it stands, the judgment reached b# the lower court cannot be
sustained. The appeal, as earlier made clear, possesses merit.
In Philippine 4rust Co. v. %ivera, citing the leading case of ;elasco v. Poi<at , &+ this Court heldG
5It is established doctrine that subscriptions to the capital of a corporation constitute a fund to
which creditors have a right to loo/ for satisfaction of their claims and that the assignee in
insolvenc# can maintain an action upon an# unpaid stoc/ subscription in order to reali3e assets
for the pa#ment of its debt.... ! corporation has no power to release an original subscriber to its
capital stoc/ from the obligation of pa#ing for his shares, without a valuable consideration for
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 39/105
such release@ and as against creditors a reduction of the capital stoc/ can ta/e place onl# in the
manner and under the conditions prescribed b# the statute or the charter or the articles of
incorporation. Moreover, strict compliance with the statutor# regulations is necessar#....5 The
"oi3at doctrine found acceptance in later cases. &&4ne of the latest cases, 'in-ayen $ulf 3lectric
Power v. Balta<ar , &% 2pea/s to this effectG 5In the case of ;elasco v. Poi<at , &0 the corporation
involved was insolvent, in which case all unpaid stoc/ subscriptions become pa#able on demandand are immediatel# recoverable in an action instituted b# the assignee.5
It would be unwarranted to ascribe to the late "resident Bo)as the view that the pa#ment of the
stoc/ subscriptions, as thus re;uired b# law, could be condoned in the event that the counterpart
fund to be invested b# the 8overnment would not be available. (ven if such were the case,
however, and such a promise were in fact made, to further the laudable purpose to which the
proposed corporation would be devoted and the possibilit# that the lumber producers would lose
mone# in the process, still the plain and specific wording of the applicable legal provision as
interpreted b# this Court must be controlling. It is a well-settled principle that with all the vast
powers lodged in the ()ecutive, he is still devoid of the prerogative of suspending the operationof an# statute or an# of its terms.
The emphatic and categorical language of an !merican decision cited b# the late 9ustice aurel,
in People v. ;era,& comes to mindG 5# the twentieth article of the declaration of rights in the
constitution of this commonwealth, it is declared that the power of suspending the laws, or the
e)ecution of the laws, ought never to be e)ercised but b# the legislature, or b# authorit# derived
from it, to be e)ercised in such particular cases onl# as the legislature shall e)pressl# provide
for....5 $or could it be otherwise considering that the Constitution specificall# enjoins the
"resident to see to it that all laws be faithfull# e)ecuted. &= There ma# be a discretion as to what a
particular legal provision re;uires@ there can be none whatsoever as to the enforcement and
application thereof once its meaning has been ascertained. >hat it decrees must be followed@what it commands must be obe#ed. It must be respected, the wishes of the "resident, to the
contrar# notwithstanding, even if impelled b# the most worth# of motives and the most
persuasive e;uitable considerations. To repeat, such is not the case here. For at no time did
"resident Bo)as ever give defendant lumber producers to understand that the failure of the
8overnment for an# reason to put up the counterpart fund could terminate their statutor#
liabilit#.
2uch is not the law. ?nfortunatel#, the lower court was of a different mind. That is not to pa#
homage to the rule of law. Its decision then, one it is to be repeated influenced b# what it
considered to be the 5e;uit# of the case5, is not legall# impeccable.
>A(B(F4B(, the decision of the lower court is reversed and the cases remanded to the lower
court for judgment according to law, with full consideration of the legal defenses raised b#
defendants-appellees, itulo/ 2awmill, Inc.@ <ingalan umber Co., Inc.@ 2ierra Madre umber
Co., Inc.@ $asipit umber Co., Inc.@ >oodwor/s, Inc.@ 8on3alo "u#at@ Tomas . Morato@ Findla#
Millar umber Co., Inc.@ !na/an umber Co., Inc.@ and Cantilan umber Co., Inc. $o
pronouncement as to costs.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 40/105
G.R. No. L-30*4* r 30, 1929
$HE G!ERN#EN$ !F $HE "HILI""INE ISLANDS, petitioner,
vs.
$HE #ANILA RAILR!AD C!#"ANY / !SE "AE+ 6 #:er o; 68/
Com', respondents.
Attorney($eneral Jaranilla for petitioner.
Jose A/reu for respondents.
!HNS!N, J.:
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 41/105
This is a petition in the 2upreme Court of the e)traordinar# legal writ of mandamus presented b#
the 8overnment of the "hilippine Islands, pra#ing that the writ be issued to compel the Manila
Bailroad Compan# and 9ose "ae3, as its manager, to provide and e;uip the telegraph poles of
said compan# between the municipalit# of "ani;ui, "rovince of Tarlac, and the Municipalit# of
2an Fernando, "rovince of a ?nion, with crosspieces for si) telegraph wires belonging to the
8overnment, which, it is alleged, are necessar# for public service between said municipalities.
The onl# ;uestion raised b# the petition is whether the dependant compan# is re;uired to provide
and e;uip its telegraph poles with crosspieces to carr# si) telegraph wires of the 8overnment, or
whether it is onl# re;uired to furnish poles with crosspieces sufficient to carr# four wires onl#.
It is admitted that the present poles and crosspieces between said municipalities are sufficient to
carr# four telegraph wires and that the# do now carr# four telegraph wires, b# virtue of an
agreement between the respondents and the ureau of the "osts of the "hilippine 8overnment. It
is admitted that the poles and not sufficient to carr# si) telegraph wires.
The petitioner relies upon the provisions of section * of act $o. &=. !ct $o. &= is the
8eneral Corporation aw and was adopted b# the ?nited 2tates "hilippine Commission on
March &, &+1. 6:ol. =, "ub. aws, pp. %%-%1*.7 2ection * of the said !ct providesG
The railroad corporation shall establish along the whole length of the road a telegraph
line for the use of the railroad. The posts of this line ma# be used for 8overnment wires
and shall be of sufficient length and strength and e;uipped with sufficient crosspiece to
carr# the number of wires which the 8overnment ma# consider necessar# for the public
service. The establishment, protection, and maintenance of the wires and stations
necessar# for the public service shall be at the cost of the 8overnment. 6:ol. =, ". ., p.
%.7
The plaintiff contends that under said section * the defendant compan# is re;uired to erect and
maintain posts for its telegraph wires, of sufficient length and strength, and e;uipped with
sufficient crosspieces to carr# the number of wires which the 8overnment ma# consider
necessar# for the public service, and that si) wires are now necessar# for the public service.
The respondents answered b# a general and special defense. In their special defense the# contend
that section * of !ct $o. &= has been repealed b# section &, paragraph * of !ct $o. &=&+ of
the ?nited 2tates "hilippine Commission 6vol. =, ". ., pp. 0=+-0=*7, and that under the
provisions of said !ct $o. &=&+ the 8overnment is entitled to place on the poles of the compan#four wires onl#. !ct $o. &=&+ is the charter of the Manila Bailroad Compan#. It was adopted b#
the ?nited 2tates "hilippine Commission on 9ul# , &+1. 2ection &, paragraph *, of said !ct $o.
&=&+ providesG
*. The grantee 6the Manila Bailroad Compan#7 shall have the right to construct and
operate telegraph, telephone, and electrical transmission lines over said railwa#s for the
use of the railwa#s and their business, and also, with the approval of the 2ecretar# of >ar,
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 42/105
for public service and commercial purposes but these latter privileges shall be subject to
the following provisionsG
In the construction of telegraph or telephone lines along the right of wa# the grantee 6the
Manila Bailroad Compan#7 shall erect and maintain poles with sufficient space thereon to
permit the "hilippine 8overnment, at the e)pense of said 8overnment, to place, operate,and maintain four wires for telegraph, telephone, and electrical transmission for an#
8overnment purposes between the termini of the lines of railwa#s main or branch@ and
the "hilippine 8overnment reserves to itself the right to construct, maintain, and operate
telegraph, telephone, or electrical transmission lines over the right of wa# of said
railwa#s for commercial militar#, or government purposes, without unreasonabl#
interfering with the construction, maintenance, and operation b# the grantee of its
railwa#s, telegraph, telephone, and electrical transmission lines.
To answer the ;uestion above stated, it becomes necessar# to determine whether section * of
!ct $o. &= is applicable to the Manila Bailroad Compan#, or whether the manila Bailroad
Compan# is governed b# section &, paragraph *, of !ct $o. &=&+. !s has been said, !ct $o.
&= is a general law applicable to corporations generall#, while !ct $o. &=&+ is the charter of
the Manila Bailroad Compan# and constitute a contract between it and the 8overnment.
Inasmuch as !ct $o. &=&+ is the charter of Manila Bailroad Compan# and constitute a contract
between it and the 8overnmemnt, it would seem that the compan# is governd b# its contract and
not b# the provisions of an# general law upon ;uestions covered b# said contract. From a reading
of the said charter or contract it would be seen that there is no indication that the 8overnment
intended to impose upon said compan# an# other conditions as obligations not e)pressl# found in
said charter or contract. If that is true, then certainl# the 8overnment cannot impose upon said
compan# an# conditions or obligations found in an# general law, which does not e)pressl#modif# said contract.
2ection * of the Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &=7 was intended to appl# to all railwa#s in the
"hilippine Islands which did not have a special charter contract. !ct $o. &=&+ applies onl# to the
Manila Bailroad Compan#, one of the respondents, and being a special charter of said compan#,
its adoption had the effect of superseding the provisions of the general Corporation aw which
are applicable to railraods in general. The special charter 6!ct $o. &=&+7 had the effect of
superseding the general Corporation aw upon all matters covered b# said special charter. 2aid
!ct, inasmuch as it contained a special provision relating to the erection of telegraph and
telephone poles, and the number of wires which the 8overnment might place thereon,superseded the general law upon that ;uestion.
!ct $o. &=&+ is a special charter of the respondent compan#. It constitutes a contract between the
respondent compan# and the state@ and the state and the grantee of a charter are e;uall# bound b#
its provisions. For the state to impose an obligation or a dut# upon the respondent compan#,
which is not e)pressl# provided for in the charter 6!ct $o. &=&+7, would amount to a violation of
said contract between the state and the respondent compan#. The provisions of !ct $o. &=
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 43/105
relating to the number of wires which the 8overnment ma# place upon the poles of the compan#
are different and more enerous than the provisions of the charter upon the same ;uestion.
Therefore, to allow the plaintiff to re;uire of the respondent compan# a compliance with said
section * of !ct $o. &=, would be to re;uire of the respondent compan# and the performance
of an obligation which is not imposed upon it b# its charter. The charter of a corporation is a
contract between three partiesG 6a7 it is a contract between the state and the corporation to whichthe charter is granted@ 6b7 it is a contact between the stoc/holders and the state and 6c7 it is also a
contract between the corporation and its stoc/holders. 6Coo/ on Corporations, vol. %, sec.
and cases cited.7
The ;uestion is not whether !ct $o. &=&+ repealed !ct $o. &=@ but whether, after the adoption
of !ct $o. &=&+, the respondents are obliged to compl# with the special provision above
mentioned, contained in !ct $o. &=. >e must answer that ;uestion in the native. oth laws are
still in force, unless otherwise repealed. !ct $o. &=&+ is applicable to respondents upon the
;uestion before us, while !ct $o. &= is not applicable.
The petitioner, in view of all the foregoing facts and the law applicable thereto, has not shown
itself entitled to the remed# pra#ed for. The pra#er of the petition must, therefore, be denied. !nd
without an# finding as to costs, it is so ordered.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 44/105
G.R. No. 9**74 e 2*, 1992
R&RAL AN% !F SALINAS, INC., #AN&EL SAL&D, L&+I#INDA $RIAS /
FRANCISC! $RIAS, petitioners,
vs.
C!&R$ !F A""EALS, SEC&RI$IES AND ECHANGE C!##ISSI!N, #ELANIA A.
G&ERRER!, L&+ ANDIC!, @ILHE#INA G. R!SALES, FRANCISC! #.
G&ERRER!, R., / FRANCISC! G&ERRER! , SR.,respondents.
"ARAS, J.:
The basic controvers# in this case is whether or not the respondent court erred in sustaining the
2ecurities and ()change Commission when it compelled b# 8andamus the Bural an/ of
2alinas to register in its stoc/ and transfer boo/ the transfer of 0 shares of stoc/ to private
respondents. "etitioners maintain that the "etition for 8andamus should have been denied upon
the following grounds.
6&7 8andamus cannot be a remed# cogni3able b# the 2ecurities and ()change Commission
when the purpose is to register certificates of stoc/ in the names of claimants who are not #et
stoc/holders of a corporationG
6%7 There e)ist valid reasons for refusing to register the transfer of the subject of stoc/, namel#G
6a7 a pending controvers# over the ownership of the certificates of stoc/ with the
Begional Trial Court@
6b7 claims that the <eeds of !ssignment covering the subject certificates of stoc/
were fictitious and antedated@ and
6c7 claims on a resultant possible deprivation of inheritance share in relation with
a conflicting claim over the subject certificates of stoc/.
The facts are not disputed.
4n 9une &+, &, Clemente 8. 8uerrero, "resident of the Bural an/ of 2alinas, Inc., e)ecuted
a Special Power of Attorney in favor of his wife, private respondent Melania 8uerrero, giving
and granting the latter full power and authorit# to sell or otherwise dispose of andor mortgage
0 shares of stoc/ of the an/ registered in his name 6represented b# the an/'s stoc/
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 45/105
certificates nos. %1, and 1=7, to e)ecute the proper documents therefor, and to receive and sign
receipts for the dispositions.
4n Februar# %, &*+, and pursuant to said 2pecial "ower of !ttorne#, private respondent
Melania 8uerrero, as !ttorne#-in-Fact, e)ecuted a eed of Assi-nment for % shares out of the
0 shares, in favor of private respondents u3 !ndico 6= shares7, >ilhelmina Bosales 6&+shares7 and Francisco 8uerrero, 9r. 6= shares7.
!lmost four months later, or two 6%7 da#s before the death of Clemente 8uerrero on 9une %,
&*+, private respondent Melania 8uerrero, pursuant to the same 2pecial "ower of !ttorne#,
e)ecuted a eed of Assi-nment for the remaining one 6&7 share of stoc/ in favor of private
respondent Francisco 8uerrero, 2r.
2ubse;uentl#, private respondent Melania 8uerrero presented to petitioner Bural an/ of 2alinas
the two 6%7 <eeds of !ssignment for registration with a re;uest for the transfer in the an/'s
stoc/ and transfer boo/ of the 0 shares of stoc/ so assigned, the cancellation of stoc/
certificates in the name of Clemente 8. 8uerrero, and the issuance of new stoc/ certificates
covering the transferred shares of stoc/s in the name of the new owners thereof. Aowever,
petitioner an/ denied the re;uest of respondent Melania 8uerrero.
4n <ecember =, &*+, private respondent Melania 8uerrero filed with the 2ecurities and
()change Commission5 62(C7 an action for mandamus against petitioners Bural an/ of
2alinas, its "resident and Corporate 2ecretar#. The case was doc/eted as 2(C Case $o. &.
"etitioners filed their !nswer with counterclaim on <ecember &, &*+ alleging the upon the
death of Clemente 8. 8uerrero, his 0 shares of stoc/ became the propert# of his estate, and his
propert# and that of his widow should first be settled and li;uidated in accordance with law before an# distribution can be effected so that petitioners ma# not be a part# to an# scheme to
evade pa#ment of estate or inheritance ta) and in order to avoid liabilit# to an# third persons or
creditors of the late Clemente 8. 8uerrero.
4n 9anuar# %, &*&, a motion for intervention was filed b# Maripol 8uerrero, a legall# adopted
daughter of the late Clemente 8. 8uerrero and private respondent Melania 8uerrero, who stated
therein that on $ovember %1, &*+ 6almost two wee/s before the filing of the petition
for 8andamus7 a "etition for the administration of the estate of the late Clemente 8. 8uerrero
had been filed with the Begional Trial Court, "asig, ranch LI, doc/eted as 2pecial "roceedings
$o. ++. Maripol 8uerrero further claimed that the <eeds of !ssignment for the subject sharesof stoc/ are fictitious and antedated@ that said conve#ances are donations since the considerations
therefor are below the boo/ value of the shares, the assigneesprivate respondents being close
relatives of private respondent Melania 8uerrero@ and that the transfer of the shares in ;uestion
to assigneesprivate respondents, other than private respondent Melania 8uerrero, would deprive
her 6Maripol 8uerrero7 of her rightful share in the inheritance. The 2(C hearing officer denied
the Motion for Intervention for lac/ of merit. 4n appeal, the 2(C 3n Banc affirmed the decision
of the hearing officer.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 46/105
Intervenor 8uerrero filed a complaint before the then Court of First Instance of Bi3al, Due3on
Cit# ranch, against private respondents for the annulment of the <eeds of !ssignment,
doc/eted as Civil Case $o. D-0%+=+. "etitioners, on the other hand, filed a Motion to <ismiss
andor to 2uspend Aearing of 2(C Case $o. & until after the ;uestion of whether the subject
<eeds of !ssignment are fictitious, void or simulated is resolved in Civil Case $o. D-0%+=+. The
2(C Aearing 4fficer denied said motion.
4n <ecember &+, &*, the 2(C Aearing 4fficer rendered a <ecision granting the writ
of 8andamus pra#ed for b# the private respondents and directing petitioners to cancel stoc/
certificates nos. %1, and 1= of the an/, all in the name of Clemente 8. 8uerrero, and to issue
new certificates in the names of private respondents, e)cept Melania 8uerrero. The dispositive,
portion of the decision readsG
>A(B(F4B(, judgment is hereb# rendered in favor of the petitioners and
against the respondents, directing the latter, particularl# the corporate secretar# of
respondent Bural an/ of 2alinas, Inc., to register in the latter's 2toc/ and
Transfer oo/ the transfer of 0 shares of stoc/ of respondent an/ and to
cancel 2toc/ Certificates $os. %1, = and 1= and issue new 2toc/ Certificates
covering the transferred shares in favor of petitioners, as followsG
&. u3 !ndico = shares
%. >ilhelmina Bosales &+ shares
0. Francisco 8uerrero, 9r. = shares
. Francisco 8uerrero, 2r. & share
and to pa# to the above-named petitioners, the dividends for said shares
corresponding to the #ears &*&, &*%, &*0 and &* without interest.
$o pronouncement as to costs.
24 4B<(B(<. 6p. **, %ollo7
4n appeal, the 2(C 3n Banc affirmed the decision of the Aearing 4fficer. "etitioner filed a
petition for review with the Court of !ppeals but said Court li/ewise affirmed the decision of the
2(C.
>e rule in favor of the respondents.
2ection = 6b7 of ".<. $o. +%-! grants to the 2(C the original and e)clusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases involving intracorporate controversies. !n intracorporate controvers# has been
defined as one which arises between a stoc/holder and the corporation. There is no distinction,
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 47/105
;ualification, nor an# e)ception whatsoever 6Bivera vs. Florendo, & 2CB! 10 O&*1P7. The
case at bar involves shares of stoc/, their registration, cancellation and issuances thereof b#
petitioner Bural an/ of 2alinas. It is therefore within the power of respondent 2(C to
adjudicate.
Bespondent 2(C correctl# ruled in favor of the registering of the shares of stoc/ in ;uestion in private respondent's names. 2uch ruling finds support under 2ection 10 of the Corporation Code,
to witG
2ec. 10. . . . 2hares of stoc/ so issued are personal propert# and ma# be
transferred b# deliver# of the certificate or certificates indorsed b# the owner or
his attorne#-in-fact or other person legall# authori3ed to ma/e the transfer. $o
transfer, however, shall be valid, e)cept as between the parties, until the transfer is
recorded in the boo/s of the corporation . . .
In the case of Fleisher vs. Botica &olasco, "hil. =*0, the Court interpreted 2ec. 10 in
his wiseG
2aid 2ection 62ec. 0= of !ct &= Onow 2ec. 10 of the Corporation CodeP7
contemplates no restriction as to whom the stoc/s ma# be transferred. It does not
suggest that an# discrimination ma# be created b# the corporation in favor of, or
against a certain purchaser. The owner of shares, as owner of personal propert#, is
at libert#, under said section to dispose them in favor of whomever he pleases,
without limitation in this respect, than the general provisions of law. . . .
The onl# limitation imposed b# 2ection 10 of the Corporation Code is when the
corporation holds an# unpaid claim against the shares intended to be transferred, which isabsent here.
! corporation, either b# its board, its b#-laws, or the act of its officers, cannot create restrictions
in stoc/ transfers, becauseG
. . . Bestrictions in the traffic of stoc/ must have their source in legislative
enactment, as the corporation itself cannot create such impediment. #-laws are
intended merel# for the protection of the corporation, and prescribe regulation,
not restriction@ the# are alwa#s subject to the charter of the corporation. The
corporation, in the absence of such power, cannot ordinaril# in;uire into or passupon the legalit# of the transactions b# which its stoc/ passes from one person to
another, nor can it ;uestion the consideration upon which a sale is based. . . .
6Tomson on Corporation 2ec. &0, cited in Fleisher vs. $olasco, Supra7.
The right of a transfereeassignee to have stoc/s transferred to his name is an inherent right
flowing from his ownership of the stoc/s. ThusG
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 48/105
>henever a corporation refuses to transfer and register stoc/ in cases li/e the
present, mandamuswill lie to compel the officers of the corporation to transfer
said stoc/ in the boo/s of the corporation5 6%1, C#c. 0, A#er vs. r#an, & "hil.
&0*@ Fleisher vs. otica $olasco, "hil. =*0, =7.
The corporation's obligation to register is ministerial.
In transferring stoc/, the secretar# of a corporation acts in purel# ministerial
capacit#, and does not tr# to decide the ;uestion of ownership. 6Fletcher, 2ec.
==%*, page 07.
The dut# of the corporation to transfer is a ministerial one and if it refuses to
ma/e such transaction without good cause, it ma# be compelled to do so
b# mandamus. 6See. ==&*, &% Fletcher 07
For the petitioner Bural an/ of 2alinas to refuse registration of the transferred shares in its stoc/
and transfer boo/, which dut# is ministerial on its part, is to render nugator# and ineffectual the
spirit and intent of 2ection 10 of the Corporation Code. Thus, respondent Court of !ppeals did
not err in upholding the <ecision of respondent 2(C affirming the <ecision of its Aearing
4fficer directing the registration of the 0 shares in the stoc/ and transfer boo/ in the names of
private respondents. !t all events, the registration is without prejudice to the proceedings in court
to determine the validit# of the <eeds of !ssignment of the shares of stoc/ in ;uestion.
>A(B(F4B(, the petition is <I2MI22(< for lac/ of merit.
24 4B<(B(<.
G.R. No. 41570 Se'(ember *, 1934
RED LINE $RANS"!R$A$I!N C!., petitioner-appellant,
vs.R&RAL $RANSI$ C!., L$D., respondent-appellee.
'. . 'oc5wood for appellant.
Ohnic5 and Opisso for appellee.
&$$E, J.:
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 49/105
This case is before us on a petition for review of an order of the "ublic 2ervice Commission
entered <ecember %&, &0%, granting to the Bural Transit Compan#, td., a certificate of public
convenience to operate a transportation service between Ilagan in the "rovince of Isabela and
Tuguegarao in the "rovince of Caga#an, and additional trips in its e)isting e)press service
between Manila Tuguegarao.
4n 9une , &0%, the Bural Transit Compan#, td., a "hilippine corporation, filed with the "ublic
Compan# 2ervice Commission an application in which it is stated in substance that it is the
holder of a certificate or public convenience to operate a passenger bus service between Manila
and Tuguegarao@ that it is the onl# operator of direct service between said points and the present
authori3ed schedule of onl# one trip dail# is not sufficient@ that it will be also to the public
convenience to grant the applicant a certificate for a new service between Tuguegarao and
Ilagan.
4n 9ul# %%, &0%, the appellant, Bed ine Transportation Compan#, filed an opposition to the
said application alleging in substance that as to the service between Tuguegarao and Ilagan, the
oppositor alread# holds a certificate of public convenience and is rendering ade;uate and
satisfactor# service@ that the granting of the application of the Bural Transit Compan#, td.,
would not serve public convenience but would constitute a ruinous competition for the oppositor
over said route.
!fter testimon# was ta/en, the commission, on <ecember %&, &0%, approved the application of
the Bural Transit Compan#, td., and ordered that the certificate of public convenience applied
for be 5issued to the applicant Bural Transit Compan#, td.,5 with the condition, among others,
that 5all the other terms and conditions of the various certificates of public convenience of the
herein applicant and herein incorporated are made a part hereof.5
4n 9anuar# &, &00, the oppositor Bed ine Transportation Compan# filed a motion for
rehearing and reconsideration in which it called the commission's attention to the fact that there
was pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila case $. %00, an application for the
voluntar# dissolution of the corporation, Bural Transit Compan#, td. 2aid motion for
reconsideration was set down for hearing on March %, &00. 4n March %0, &00, the Bural
Transit Compan#, td., the applicant, filed a motion for postponement. This motion was verified
b# M. 4lsen who swears 5that he was the secretar# of the Bural Transit Compan#, td., in the
above entitled case.5 ?pon the hearing of the motion for reconsideration, the commission
admitted without objection the following documents filed in said case $o. %00 in the Court of
First Instance of Manila for the dissolution of the Bural Transit Compan#, td. the petition for dissolution dated 9ul# 1, &0%, the decision of the said Court of First Instance of Manila, dated
Februar# %*, &00, decreeing the dissolution of the Bural Transit Compan#, td.
!t the trial of this case before the "ublic 2ervice Commission an issue was raised as to who was
the real part# in interest ma/ing the application, whether the Bural Transit Compan#, td., as
appeared on the face of the application, or the achrach Motor Compan#, Inc., using name of the
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 50/105
Bural Transit Compan#, td., as a trade name. The evidence given b# the applicant's secretar#,
4lsen, is certainl# ver# dubious and confusing, as ma# be seen from the followingG
D. >ill #ou please answer the ;uestion whether it is the achrach Motor Compan#
operating under the trade name of the Bural Transit Compan#, imited, or whether it is
the Bural Transit Compan#, imited in its own name this application was filed
!. The achrach Motor Compan# is the principal stoc/holder.
D. "lease answer the ;uestion.
(2"((T!. 4bjecion por;ue la pregunta #a ha sido contestada.
9?(. "uede contestar.
!. I do not /now what the legal construction or relationship e)isting between the
two.
9?<8(. I do not /now what is in #our mind b# not telling the real applicant in this case
!. It is the Bural Transit Compan#, td.
9?<8(. !s an entit# b# itself and not b# the achrach Motor Compan#
!. I do not /now. I have not given that phase of the matter much thought, as in
previous occassion had not necessitated.
9?<8(. In filing this application, #ou filed it for the operator on that line Is it notQ
!. Jes, sir.
9?<8(. >ho is that operator
!. The Bural Transit Compan#, td.
9?<8(. # itself, or as a commercial name of the achrach Motor Compan#
!. I cannot sa#.
(2"((T!. The Bural Transit Compan#, td., is a corporation dul# established in
accordance with the laws of the "hilippine Islands.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 51/105
9?<8(. !ccording to the records of this commission the achrach Motor Compan# is
the owner of the certificates and the Bural Transit Compan#, td., is operating without
an# certificate.
9?<8(. If #ou filed this application for the Bural Transit Compan#, td., and afterwards
it is found out that the Bural Transit Compan#, td., is not an operator, ever#thing will beturned down.
9?<8(. M# ;uestion was, when #ou filed this application #ou evidentl# made it for the
operator
!. Jes, sir.
9?<8(. >ho was that operator #ou had in mind
!. !ccording to the status of the ownership of the certificates of the former Bural
Transit Compan#, the operator was the operator authori3ed in case $o. %0%& to whom all
of the assets of the former Bural Transit Compan# were sold.
9?<8(. achrach Motor Compan#
!. !ll actions have been prosecuted in the name of the Bural Transit Compan#,
td.
9?<8(. Jou mean the achrach Motor Compan#, Inc., doing business under the name
of the Bural Transit Compan#, td.
!. Jes, sir.
4C>44<. I move that this case be dismissed, #our Aonor, on the ground that this
application was made in the name of one part# but the real owner is another part#.
(2"((T!. >e object to that petition.
9?<8(. I will have that in mind when I decide the case. If I agree with #ou ever#thing
would be finished.
The achrach Motor Compan#, Inc., entered no appearance and ostensibl# too/ no part in the
hearing of the application of the Bural Transit Compan#, td. It ma# be a matter of some surprise
that the commission did not on its own motion order the amendment of the application b#
substituting the achrach Motor Compan#, Inc., as the applicant. Aowever, the hearing
proceeded on the application as filed and the decision of <ecember %, &0%, was rendered in
favor of the Bural Transit Compan#, td., and the certificate ordered to be issued in its name, in
the face of the evidence that the said corporation was not the real part# in interest. In its said
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 52/105
decision, the commission undertoo/ to meet the objection b# referring to its resolution of
$ovember %1, &0%, entered in another case. This resolution in case $o. %0%& concludes as
followsG
"remises considered we hereb# authori3e the achrach Motor Co., Inc., to continue using
the name of 5Bural Transit Co., td.,5 as its trade name in all the applications, motions or other petitions to be filed in this commission in connection with said business and that
this authorit# is given retroactive effect as of the date, of filing of the application in this
case, to wit, !pril %, &0+.
>e /now of no law that empowers the "ublic 2ervice Commission or an# court in this
jurisdiction to authori3e one corporation to assume the name of another corporation as a trade
name. oth the Bural Transit Compan#, td., and the achrach Motor Co., Inc., are "hilippine
corporations and the ver# law of their creation and continued e)istence re;uires each to adopt
and certif# a distinctive name. The incorporators 5constitute a bod# politic and corporate under
the name stated in the certificate.5 62ection &&, !ct $o. &=, as amended.7 ! corporation has the
power 5of succession /y its corporate name.5 62ection &0, i/id .7 The name of a corporation is
therefore essential to its e)istence. It cannot change its name e)cept in the manner provided b#
the statute. # that name alone is it authori3ed to transact business. The law gives a corporation
no e)press or implied authorit# to assume another name that is unappropriatedG still less that of
another corporation, which is e)pressl# set apart for it and protected b# the law. If an#
corporation could assume at pleasure as an unregistered trade name the name of another
corporation, this practice would result in confusion and open the door to frauds and evasions and
difficulties of administration and supervision. The polic# of the law e)pressed in our corporation
statute and the Code of Commerce is clearl# against such a practice. 6Cf. 2carsdale "ub. Co.
Colonial "ress vs. Carter, &&1 $ew Jor/ 2upplement, 0&@ 2vens/a $at. F. i. C. vs. 2wedish $at.
!ssn., %+= Illinois O!ppellate CourtsP, %*, 0.7
The order of the commission of $ovember %1, &0%, authori3ing the achrach Motor Co.,
Incorporated, to assume the name of the Bural Transit Co., td. li/ewise in corporated, as its
trade name being void, and accepting the order of <ecember %&, &0%, at its face as granting a
certificate of public convenience to the applicant Bural Transit Co., td., the said order last
mentioned is set aside and vacated on the ground that the Bural Transit Compan#, td., is not the
real part# in interest and its application was fictitious.
In view of the dissolution of the Bural Transit Compan#, td. b# judicial decree of Februar# %*,
&00, we do not see how we can assess costs against said respondent, Bural Transit Compan#,td.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 53/105
G.R. No. L-2*370 = 31, 1970
"HILI""INE FIRS$ INS&RANCE C!#"ANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
#ARIA CAR#EN HAR$IGAN, CGH, / !. ENG%EE, defendants-appellees.
Bausa, Ampil 7 Suare< for plaintiff(appellant.
&icasio 3. 8artin for defendants(appellees.
ARRED!, J.:
!ppeal from the decision dated 1 4ctober &1% of the Court of First Instance of Manila H
dismissing the action in its Civil Case $o. *%= H brought b# the herein plaintiff-appellant
"hilippine First Insurance Co., Inc. to the Court of !ppeals which could, upon finding that the
said appeal raises purel# ;uestions of law, declared itself without jurisdiction to entertain the
same and, in its resolution dated &= 9ul# &11, certified the records thereof to this Court for proper determination.
The antecedent facts are set forth in the pertinent portions of the resolution of the Court of
!ppeals referred to as followsG
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 54/105
!ccording to the complaint, plaintiff was originall# organi3ed as an insurance
corporation under the name of 'The Je/ Tong in Fire and Marine Insurance Co.,
td.' The articles of incorporation originall# presented before the 2ecurit# and
()change Commissioner and ac/nowledged before $otar# "ublic Mr. (. <.
Ignacio on 9une &, &=0 state that the name of the corporation was 'The Je/ Tong
in Fire and Marine Insurance Co., td.' 4n Ma# %1, &1& the articles of incorporation were amended pursuant to a certificate of the oard of <irectors
dated March *, &1& changing the name of the corporation to '"hilippine First
Insurance Co., Inc.'.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff "hilippine First Insurance Co., Inc., doing
business under the name of 'The Je/ Tong in Fire and Marine Insurance Co., t.'
signed as co-ma/er together with defendant Maria Carmen Aartigan, C8A, a
promissor# note for "=,+++.++ in favor of the China an/ing Corporation pa#able
within 0+ da#s after the date of the promissor# note with the usual ban/ing
interest@ that the plaintiff agreed to act as such co-ma/er of the promissor# noteupon the application of the defendant Maria Carmen Aartigan, C8A, who
together with !ntonio F. Chua and Chang a Fu, signed an indemnit# agreement
in favor of the plaintiff, underta/ing jointl# and severall#, to pa# the plaintiff
damages, losses or e)penses of whatever /ind or nature, including attorne#'s fees
and legal costs, which the plaintiff ma# sustain as a result of the e)ecution b# the
plaintiff and co-ma/er of Maria Carmen Aartigan, C8A, of the promissor# note
above-referred to@ that as a result of the e)ecution of the promissor# note b# the
plaintiff and Maria Carmen Aartigan, C8A, the China an/ing Corporation
delivered to the defendant Maria Carmen Aartigan, C8A, the sum of "=,+++.++
which said defendant failed to pa# in full, such that on !ugust 0&, &1& the same
was. renewed and as of $ovember %, &1& there was due on account of the promissor# note the sum of ",==.=+ including interest. The complaint ends with
a pra#er for judgment against the defendants, jointl# and severall#, for the sum of
",==.=+ with interest at the rate of &%K per annum from $ovember %0, &1&
plus "&&.+ b# wa# of attorne#'s fees and costs.
!lthough 4. (ng/ee was made as part# defendant in the caption of the complaint,
his name is not mentioned in the bod# of said complaint. Aowever, his name
!ppears in the !nne) ! attached to the complaint which is the counter indemnit#
agreement supposed to have been signed according to the complaint b# Maria
Carmen Aartigan, C8A, !ntonio F. Chua and Chang a Fu.
In their answer the defendants den# the allegation that the plaintiff formerl#
conducted business under the name and st#le of 'The Je/ Tong in Fire and
Marine Insurance Co., td.' The# admit the e)ecution of the indemnit# agreement
but the# claim that the# signed said agreement in favor of the Je/ Tong in Fire
and Marine Insurance Co., td.' and not in favor of the plaintiff. The# li/ewise
admit that the# failed to pa# the promissor# note when it fell due but the# allege
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 55/105
that since their obligation with the China an/ing Corporation based on the
promissor# note still subsists, the suret# who co-signed the promissor# note is not
entitled to collect the value thereof from the defendants otherwise the# will be
liable for double amount of their obligation, there being no allegation that the
suret# has paid the obligation to the creditor.
# wa# of special defense, defendants claim that there is no privit# of contract
between the plaintiff and the defendants and conse;uentl#, the plaintiff has no
cause of action against them, considering that the complaint does not allege that
the plaintiff and the 'Je/ Tong in Fire and Marine Insurance Co., td.' are one
and the same or that the plaintiff has ac;uired the rights of the latter. The parties
after the admission of ()hibit ! which is the amended articles of incorporation
and ()hibit & which is a demand letter dated !ugust &1, &1% signed b# the
manager of the loans and discount department of the China an/ing Corporation
showing that the promissor# note up to said date in the sum of ",=++.++ was still
unpaid, submitted the case for decision based on the pleadings.
?nder date of 1 4ctober &1%, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered the decision
appealed. It dismissed the action with costs against the plaintiff "hilippine First Insurance Co.,
Inc., reasoning as followsG
... >ith these undisputed facts in mind, the parties correctl# concluded that the
issues for resolution b# this Court are as followsG
6a7 >hether or not the plaintiff is the real part# in interest that ma# validl# sue on
the indemnit# agreement signed b# the defendants and the Je/ Tong in Fire E
Marine Insurance Co., td. 6!nne) ! to plaintiff's complaint 7@ and
6b7 >hether or not a suit for indemnit# or reimbursement ma# under said
indemnit# agreement prosper without plaintiff having #et paid the amount due
under said promissor# note.
In the first place, the change of name of the Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine
Insurance Co., td. to the "hilippines First Insurance Co., Inc. is of dubious
validit#. 2uch change of name in effect dissolved the original corporation b# a
process of dissolution not authori3ed b# our corporation law 6see 2ecs. 1% and 1,
inclusive, of our Corporation aw7. Moreover, said change of name, amounting toa dissolution of the Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance Co., td., does not
appear to have been effected with the written note or assent of stoc/holders
representing at least two-thirds of the subscribed capital stoc/ of the corporation,
a voting proportion re;uired not onl# for the dissolution of a corporation but also
for an# amendment of its articles of incorporation 62ecs. &* and 1%, Corporation
aw7. Furthermore, such change of corporate name appears to be against public
polic# and ma# be effected onl# b# e)press authorit# of law 6Bed ine
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 56/105
Transportation Co. v. Bural Transit Co., td., 1+ "hil. =, ===@ Cincinnati
Cooperage Co., td. vs. :ate, %1 2> =0*, =0@ "ilsen rewing Co. vs. >allace,
&%= $( &7, but there is nothing in our corporation law authori3ing the change
of corporate name in this jurisdiction.
In the second place, assuming that the change of name of the Je/ Tong in Fire EMarine Insurance Co. td., to "hilippines pine First Insurance Co., Inc., as
accomplished on March *, &1&, is valid, that would mean that the original
corporation, the Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance Co., td., became
dissolved and of no further e)istence since March *, &1&, so that on Ma# &=,
&1&, the date the indemnit# agreement, !nne) !, was e)ecuted, said original
corporation bad no more power to enter into an# agreement with the defendants,
and the agreement entered into b# it was ineffective for lac/ of capacit# of said
dissolved corporation to enter into said agreement. !t an# rate, even if we hold
that said change of name is valid, the fact remains that there is no evidence
showing that the new entit#, the "hilippine First Insurance Co., Inc. has with theconsent of the original parties, assumed the obligations or was assigned the rights
of action in the original corporation, the Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance
Co., td. In other words, there is no evidence of conventional subrogation of the
"laintiffs in the rights of the Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance Co., td.
under said indemnit# agreement 6!rts. &0++, &0+&, $ew Civil Code7. without
such subrogation assignment of rights, the herein plaintiff has no cause of action
against the defendants, and is, therefore, not the right part# in interest as plaintiff.
ast, but not least, assuming that the said change of name was legal and operated
to dissolve the original corporation, the dissolved corporation, must pursuant to
2ec. of our corporation law, be deemed as continuing as a bod# corporate for three 607 #ears from March *, &1& for the purpose of prosecuting and defending
suits. It is, therefore, the Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance Co., td. that is
the proper part# to sue the defendants under said indemnit# agreement up to
March *, &1.
Aaving arrived at the foregoing conclusions, this Court need not s;uarel# pass
upon issue 6b7 formulated above.
>A(B(F4B(, plaintiff's action is hereb# dismissed, with costs against the
plaintiff.
In due time, the "hilippine First Insurance Compan#, Inc. moved for reconsideration of the
decision aforesaid, but said motion was denied on <ecember 0, &1% in an order worded thusG
The motion for reconsideration, dated $ovember *, &1%, raises no new issue that
we failed to consider in rendering our decision of 4ctober 1, &1%. Aowever, it
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 57/105
gives us an opportunit# to amplif# our decision as regards the ;uestion of change
of name of a corporation in this jurisdiction.
>e find nothing in our Corporation aw authori3ing a change of name of a
corporation organi3ed pursuant to its provisions. 2ec. &* of the Corporation aw
authori3es, in our opinion, amendment to the !rticles of Incorporation of acorporation onl# as to matters other than its corporate name. 4nce a corporation is
organi3ed in this jurisdiction b# the e)ecution and registration of its !rticles of
Incorporation, it shall continue to e)ist under its corporate name for the lifetime of
its corporate e)istence fi)ed in its !rticles of Incorporation, unless sooner legall#
dissolved 62ec. &&, Corp. aw7. 2ignificantl#, change of name is not one of the
methods of dissolution of corporations e)pressl# authori3ed b# our Corporation
aw. !lso significant is the fact that the power to change its corporate name is not
one of the general powers conferred on corporations in this jurisdiction 62ec. &0,
Corp. aw7. The enumeration of corporate powers made in our Corporation aw
implies the e)clusion of all others 6Thomas v. >est 9erse# B. Co., &+& ?.2. &, %=. ed. =+7. It is obvious, in this connection, that change of name is not one of the
powers necessar# to the e)ercise of the powers conferred on corporations b# said
2ec. &0 6see 2ec. &, Corp. aw7.
To rule that 2ec. &* of our Corporation aw authori3es the change of name of a
corporation b# amendment of its !rticles of Incorporation is to indulge in judicial
legislation. >e have e)amined the cases cited in :olume &0 of !merican
9urisprudence in support of the proposition that the general power to alter or
amend the charter of a corporation necessaril# includes the power to alter the
name of a corporation, and find no justification for said conclusion arrived at b#
the editors of !merican 9urisprudence. 4n the contrar#, the annotations in favor of plaintiff's view appear to have been based on decisions in cases where the statute
itself e)pressl# authori3es change of corporate name b# amendment of its !rticles
of Incorporation. The correct rule in harmon# with the provisions of our
Corporation aw is well e)pressed in an (nglish case as followsG
!fter a compan# has been completel# register without defect or
omission, so as to be incorporated b# the name set forth in the deed
of settlement, such incorporated compan# has not the power to
change its name ... !lthough the ing b# his prerogative might
incorporate b# a new name, and the newl# named corporationmight retain former rights, and sometimes its former name also, ...
it never appears to be such an act as the corporation could do b#
itself, but re;uired the same power as created the corporation.
6Beg. v. Begistrar of 9oint 2toc/ Cos &+ D.. *0, = (.C.. *07.
The contrar# view appears to represent the minorit# doctrine, judging from the
annotations on decided cases on the matter.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 58/105
The movant invo/es as persuasive precedent the action of the 2ecurities
Commissioner in tacitl# approving the !mended, !rticles of Incorporation on
Ma# %1, &1&. >e regret that we cannot in good conscience lend approval to this
action of the 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner. >e find no justification,
legal, moral, or practical, for adhering to the view ta/en b# the 2ecurities and
()change Commissioner that the name of a corporation in the "hilippines ma# bechanged b# mere amendment of its !rticles of Incorporation as to its corporate
name. ! change of corporate name would serve no useful purpose, but on the
contrar# would most probabl# cause confusion. 4nl# a dubious purpose could
inspire a change of a corporate. name which, unli/e a natural person's name, was
chosen b# the incorporators themselves@ and our Courts should not lend their
assistance to the accomplishment of dubious purposes.
>A(B(F4B(, we hereb# den# plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, dated
$ovember *, &1%, for lac/ of merit.
In this appeal appellant contends that H
I
TA( TBI! C4?BT (BB(< I$ A4<I$8 TA!T I$ TAI2 9?BI2<ICTI4$,
TA(B( I2 $4TAI$8 I$ 4?B C4B"4B!TI4$ !> !?TA4BII$8 TA(
CA!$8( 4F C4B"4B!T( $!M(@
II
TA( TBI! C4?BT (BB(< I$ <(C!BI$8 TA!T ! CA!$8( 4FC4B"4B!T( $!M( !""(!B2 T4 ( !8!I$2T "?IC "4ICJ@
III
TA( TBI! C4?BT (BB(< I$ A4<I$8 TA!T ! CA!$8( 4F
C4B"4B!T( $!M( A!2 TA( (8! (FF(CT 4F <I224:I$8 TA(
4BI8I$! C4B"4B!TI4$G
I:
TA( TBI! C4?BT (BB(< I$ A4<I$8 TA!T TA( CA!$8( 4F $!M(
4F TA( J( T4$8 I$ FIB( E M!BI$( I$2?B!$C( C4., T<. I2 4F
<?I4?2 :!I<ITJ@
:
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 59/105
TA( TBI! C4?BT (BB(< I$ A4<I$8 TA!T TA( !""(!$T
A(B(I$ I2 $4T TA( BI8AT "!BTJ I$T(B(2T T4 2?( <(F($<!$T2-
!""(((2@
I:
TA( TBI! C4?BT FI$!J (BB(< I$ <I2MI22I$8 TA( C4M"!I$T.
!ppellant's "osition is correct@ all the above assignments of error are well ta/en. The whole case,
however, revolves around onl# one ;uestion. Ma# a "hilippine corporation change its name and
still retain its original personalit# and individualit# as such
The answer is not difficult to find. True, under 2ection 1 of the Corporation aw, the first thing
re;uired to be stated in the !rticles of Incorporation of an# corn corporation is its name, but it is
onl# one among man# matters e;uall# if not more important, that must be stated therein. Thus, it
is also re;uired, for e)ample, to state the number and names of and residences of the
incorporators and the residence or location of the principal office of the corporation, its term of
e)istence, the amount of its capital stoc/ and the number of shares into which it is divided, etc.,
etc.
4n the other hand, 2ection &* e)plicitl# permits the articles of incorporation to be amended thusG
2ec. &*. H !n# corporation ma# for legitimate corporate purpose or purposes,
amend its articles of incorporation b# a majorit# vote of its board of directors or
trustees and the vote or written assent of two-thirds of its members, if it be a
nonstoc/ corporation or, if it be a stoc/ corporation, b# the vote or written assent
of the stoc/holders representing at least two-thirds of the subscribed capital stoc/ of the corporation Provided , however , That if such amendment to the articles of
incorporation should consist in e)tending the corporate e)istence or in an# change
in the rights of holders of shares of an# class, or would authori3e shares with
preferences in an# respect superior to those of outstanding shares of an# class, or
would restrict the rights of an# stoc/holder, then an# stoc/holder who did not
vote for such corporate action ma#, within fort# da#s after the date upon which
such action was authori3ed, object thereto in writing and demand "a#ment for his
shares. If, after such a demand b# a stoc/holder, the corporation and the
stoc/holder cannot agree upon the value of his share or shares at the time such
corporate action was authori3ed, such values all be ascertained b# threedisinterested persons, one of whom shall be named b# the stoc/holder, another b#
the corporation, and the third b# the two thus chosen. The findings of the
appraisers shall be final, and if their award is not paid b# the corporation within
thirt# da#s after it is made, it ma# be recovered in an action b# the stoc/holder
against the corporation. ?pon pa#ment b# the corporation to the stoc/holder of
the agreed or awarded price of his share or shares, the stoc/holder shall forthwith
transfer and assign the share or shares held b# him as directed b# the
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 60/105
corporationG Provided , however , That their own shares of stoc/ purchased or
otherwise ac;uired b# ban/s, trust companies, and insurance companies, should
be disposed of within si) months after ac;uiring title thereto.
?nless and until such amendment to the articles of incorporation shall have been
abandoned or the action rescinded, the stoc/holder ma/ing such demand inwriting shall cease to be a stoc/holder and shall have no rights with respect to
such shares, e)cept the right to receive pa#ment therefor as aforesaid.
! stoc/holder shall not be entitled to pa#ment for his shares under the provisions
of this section unless the value of the corporate assets which would remain after
such pa#ment would be at least e;ual to the aggregate amount of its debts and
liabilities and the aggregate par value andor issued value of the remaining
subscribed capital stoc/.
! cop# of the articles of incorporation as amended, dul# certified to be correct b#
the president and the secretar# of the corporation and a majorit# of the board of
directors or trustees, shall be filed with the 2ecurities and ()change
Commissioner, who shall attach the same to the original articles of incorporation,
on file in his office. From the time of filing such cop# of the amended articles of
incorporation, the corporation shall have the same powers and it and the members
and stoc/holders thereof shall thereafter be subject to the same liabilities as if
such amendment had been embraced in the original articles of
incorporationG Provided, however , That should the amendment consist in
e)tending the corporate life, the e)tension shall not e)ceed =+ #ears in an# one
instance. Provided, further , That the original articles and amended articles
together shall contain all provisions re;uired b# law to be set out in the articles of incorporationG And provided, further , That nothing in this section shall be
construed to authori3e an# corporation to increase or diminish its capital stoc/ or
so as to effect an# rights or actions which accrued to others between the time of
filing the original articles of incorporation and the filing of the amended articles.
The 2ecurities and, ()change Commissioner shall be entitled to collect and receive the sum of
ten pesos for filing said cop# of the amended articles of incorporation. Provided, however , That
when the amendment consists in e)tending the term of corporate e)istence, the 2ecurities and
()change Commissioner shall be entitled to collect and receive for the filing of its amended
articles of incorporation the same fees collectible under e)isting law for the filing of articles of incorporation. The 2ecurities E ()change Commissioner shall not hereafter file an# amendment
to the articles of incorporation of an# ban/, ban/ing institution, or building and loan association
unless accompanied b# a certificate of the Monetar# oard 6of the Central an/7 to the effect
that such amendment is in accordance with law. 6!s further amended b# !ct $o. 01&+, 2ec. %
and 2ec. . B.!. $o. 00 and B.!. $o. 0=0&.7
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 61/105
It can be gleaned at once that this section does not onl# authori3e corporations to amend their
charter@ it also la#s down the procedure for such amendment@ and, what is more relevant to the
present discussion, it contains provisos restricting the power to amend when it comes to the term
of their e)istence and the increase or decrease of the capital stoc/. There is no prohibition therein
against the change of name. The inference is clear that such a change is allowed, for if the
legislature had intended to enjoin corporations from changing names, it would have e)pressl#stated so in this section or in an# other provision of the law.
$o doubt, 56the7 name 6of a corporation7 is peculiarl# important as necessar# to the ver#
e)istence of a corporation. The general rule as to corporations is that each corporation shall have
a name b# which it is to sue and be sued and do all legal acts. The name of a corporation in this
respect designates the corporation in the same manner as the name of an individual designates
the person.5 1 2ince an individual has the right to change his name under certain conditions, there
is no compelling reason wh# a corporation ma# not enjo# the same right. There is nothing
sacrosanct in a name when it comes to artificial beings. The sentimental considerations which
individuals attach to their names are not present in corporations and partnerships. 4f course, asin the case of an individual, such change ma# not be made e)clusivel#. b# the corporation's own
act. It has to follow the procedure prescribed b# law for the purpose@ and this is what is important
and indispensabl# prescribed H strict adherence to such procedure.
ocal well /nown corporation law commentators are unanimous in the view that a corporation
ma# change its name b# merel# amending its charter in the manner prescribed b#
law. 2 !merican authorities which have persuasive force here in this regard because our
corporation law is of !merican origin, the same being a sort of codification of !merican
corporate law, 3 are of the same opinion.
! general power to alter or amend the charter of a corporation necessaril#includes the power to alter the name of the corporation. Ft. Pitt Bld-., etc., Assoc.
v. 8odel Plan Bld-., etc., Assoc., &= "a. 2t. 0+*, %* !tl. %&=@ 2n re Fidelit# Mut.
!id !ssoc., &% >.$.C. 6"a.7 %&@ ()celsior 4il Co., 0 "a. Co. Ct. &*@ >etherill
2teel Casting Co., = "a. Co. Ct. 00.
))) ))) )))
?nder the 8eneral aws of Bhode Island, c &1, sec. , relating to an increase of
the capital stoc/ of a corporation, it is provided that 'such agreement ma# be
amended in an# other particular, e)cepting as provided in the following section',which relates to a decrease of the capital stoc/ This section has been held to
authori3e a change in the name of a corporation. Armin-ton v. Palmer , %& B.I.
&+, % !tl. 0+*, 0, .B.!. =, !m. 2t. Bep. *1. 6:ol. &, !merican and
(nglish !nnotated Cases, p. &%0.7
Fletcher, a standard authorit# on !merican an corporation law also sa#sG
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 62/105
2tatutes are to be found in the various jurisdictions dealing with the matter of
change in corporate names. 2uch statutes have been subjected to judicial
construction and have, in the main, been upheld as constitutional. 2n direct terms
or /y necessary implication, they authori<e corporations new names and prescribe
the mode of procedure for that purpose. The same steps must be ta/en under some
statutes to effect a change in a corporate name, as when an# other amendment of the corporate charter is sought .... >hen the general law thus deals with the
subject, a corporation can change its name onl# in the manner provided. 61
Fletcher, C#clopedia of the aw of "rivate Corporations, &1* Bevised :olume,
pp. %&%-%&0.7 6(mphasis supplied7
The learned trial judge held that the above-;uoted proposition are not supported b# the weight of
authorit# because the# are based on decisions in cases where the statutes e)pressl# authori3e
change of corporate name b# amendment of the articles of incorporation. >e have carefull#
e)amined these authorities and >e are satisfied of their relevance. (ven ord <enman who has
been ;uoted b# Ais Aonor from 2n %e-. v. %e-istrar of Joint Stoc5 Cos. &+, D.., = (.C..maintains merel# that the change of its name never appears to be such an act as the corporation
could do for itself, but re;uired @the same "ower as created a corporation.5 >hat seems to have
been overloo/ed, therefore, is that the procedure prescribes b# 2ection &* of our Corporation
aw for the amendment of corporate charters is practicall# identical with that for the
incorporation itself of a corporation.
In the appealed order of dismissal, the trial court, made the observation that, according to this
Court in %ed 'ine 4ransportation Co. v. %ural 4ransit Co., 'td ., 1+ "hil, =, ===, change of
name of a corporation is against public polic#. >e must clarif# that such is not the import of 4ur
said decision. >hat this Court held in that case is simpl# thatG
>e /now of no law that empowers the "ublic 2ervice Commission or an# court in
this jurisdiction to authori3e one corporation to assume the name of another
corporation as a trade name. oth the Bural Transit Compan#, td., and the
achrach Motor Co., Inc., are "hilippine corporations and the ver# law of their
creation and continued e)istence re;uires each to adopt and certif# a distinctive
name. The incorporators 'constitute a bod# politic and corporate under the name
stated in the certificate.' 62ection &&, !ct $o. &=, as amended.7 ! corporation
has the power >of succession /y its corporate name.> 62ection &0, i/id .7 The name
of a corporation is therefore essential to its e)istence. It cannot change its name
e)cept in the manner provided b# the statute. # that name alone is it authori3edto transact business. The law gives a corporation no e)press or implied authorit#
to assume another name that is unappropriated@ still less that of another
corporation, which is e)pressl# set apart for it and protected b# the law. If an#
corporation could assume at pleasure as an unregistered trade name the name of
another corporation, this practice would result in confusion and open the door to
frauds and evasions and difficulties of administration and supervision. The polic#
of the law as e)pressed our corporation statute and the Code of Commerce is
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 63/105
clearl# against such a practice. 6Cf. 2carsdale "ub. Co. H Colonial "ress vs.
Carter, &&1 $ew Jor/ 2upplement, 0&@ 2vens/a $at. F. i. C. vs. 2wedish $at.
!ssn., %+= Illinois O!ppellate CourtsP, %*, 0.7
In other words, what >e have held to be contrar# to public polic# is the use b# one corporation
of the name of another corporation as its trade name. >e are certain no one will disagree thatsuch an act can onl# 5result in confusion and open the door to frauds and evasions and
difficulties of administration and supervision.5 2urel#, the Bed ine case was not one of change
of name.
$either can >e share the posture of Ais Aonor that the change of name of a corporation results
in its dissolution. There is unanimit# of authorities to the contrar#.
!n authori3ed change in the name of a corporation has no more effect upon its
identit# as a corporation than a change of name of a natural person has upon his
identit#. It does not affect the rights of the corporation or lessen or add to its
obligations. !fter a corporation has effected a change in its name it should sue and
be sued in its new name .... 6&0 !m. 9ur. %1-%, citing cases.7
! mere change in the name of a corporation, either b# the legislature or b# the
corporators or stoc/holders under legislative authorit#, does not, generall#
spea/ing, affect the identit# of the corporation, nor in an# wa# affect the rights,
privileges, or obligations previousl# ac;uired or incurred b# it. Indeed, it has been
said that a change of name b# a corporation has no more effect upon the identit#
of the corporation than a change of name b# a natural person has upon the identit#
of such person. The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a
new corporation, nor the successor of the original one, but remains and continuesto be the original corporation. It is the same corporation with a different name,
and its character is in no respect changed. ... 61 Fletcher, C#clopedia of the aw of
"rivate Corporations, %%-%%=, citing cases.7
The change in the name of a corporation has no more effect upon its identit# as a
corporation than a change of name of a natural person has upon his identit#. It
does not affect the rights of the corporation, or lessen or add to its obligations.
3n-land. H oe v. &orton, && M. E >. &0, 9ur. =&, &% . 9. ()ch. &*.
:nited States. H 8etropolitan &at. Ban5 v. Cla--ett, && ?.2. =%+, &% 2. Ct. 1+,
0= ?.2. 6. ed.7 *&.
Ala/ama. H 'om/ v. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co., &+1 !la. =&, & 2o. 1+@ &orth
Birmin-ham 'um/er Co. v. Sims, &= !la. ==, * 2o. *.
Connecticut . H 4rinity Church v. ?all , %% Com. &%=.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 64/105
2llinois. H 8t. Palatine Academy v. @leinschnit< %* III, &00@ St. 'ouis etc. %. Co.
v. 8iller , 0 Ill. &@ %eadin- v. =edder, 11 III. *+.
2ndiana. H %osenthal v. 8adison etc., Plan5 %oad Co., &+ Ind. 0=*.
@entuc5y. H Cahill v. Bi--er, * . Mon. %&&@ =ilhite v. Convent of $ood Shepherd , & #. %=&, * 2. >. &0*.
8aryland. Phinney v. Sheppard 7 3noch Pratt ?ospital , ** Md. 100, % !tl.
=*, writ of error dismissed, & ?.2. &+, %+ 2. Ct. =0, ?.2. 6. ed.7 %+.
8issouri. H ean v. 'a 8otte 'ead Co., = Mo. =%0.
&e/ras5a. Carlon v. City Sav. Ban5 , *% $eb. =*%, &** $. >. 00. &ew 6or5
First Soc of 8.3. Church v. Brownell , = Aun 1.
Pennsylvania. Com. v. Pitts/ur-h, & "a. 2t. %*.
South Carolina. H South Carolina 8ut 2ns. Co. v. Price 1 2.C. %+, = 2.(. &0.
;ir-inia. H =ilson v. Chesapea5e etc., B. Co., %& 8ratt 1=@ =ri-ht(Caesar
4o/acco Co. v. ?oen,&+= :a. 0%, = 2.(. 0+.
=ashin-ton. H @in- v. 2lwaco B. etc., Co., & >ash. &%. %0 "ac. %.
=isconsin. %acine Country Ban5 v. Ayers, &% >is. =&%.
The fact that the corporation b# its old name ma/es a format transfer of its
propert# to the corporation b# its new name does not of itself show that the
change in name has affected a change in the identit# of the corporation. Palfrey v.
Association for Belief, etc., &&+ a. =%, 0 2o. 1++. The fact that a corporation
organi3ed as a state ban/ afterwards becomes a national ban/ b# compl#ing with
the provisions of the $ational an/ing !ct, and changes its name accordingl#, has
no effect on its right to sue upon obligations or liabilities incurred to it b# its
former name. Michigan Ins. an/ v. (ldred &0 ?.2. %0, &% 2. Ct. =+, 01 ?.2.
6. ed.7 &1%.
! deed of land to a church b# a particular name has been held not to be affected
b# the fact that the church afterwards too/ a different name. Cahill v. igger, * .
Mon 6/#7 %&&.
! change in the name of a corporation is not a divestiture of title or such a change
as re;uires a regular transfer of title to propert#, whether real or personal, from the
corporation under one name to the same corporation under another
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 65/105
name. 8cClos5ey v. oherty, #. 0++, 0+ 2. >. 1. 6& !merican and (nglish
!nnotated Cases &%%-&%0.7
!s was ver# aptl# said in Pacific Ban5 v. e %o 0 Cal. =0*, 5The changing of the
name of a corporation is no more the creation of a corporation than the changing
of the name of a natural person is the begetting of a natural person. The act, in both cases, would seem to be what the language which we use to designate it
imports H a change of name, and not a change of being.
Aaving arrived at the above conclusion, >e have agree with appellant's pose that the lower court
also erred in holding that it is not the right part# in interest to sue defendants-appellees. 4 !s
correctl# pointed out b# appellant, the approval b# the stoc/holders of the amendment of its
articles of incorporation changing the name 5The Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance Co.,
td.5 to 5"hilippine First Insurance Co., Inc.5 on March *, &1&, did not automaticall# change
the name of said corporation on that date. To be effective, 2ection &* of the Corporation aw,
earlier ;uoted, re;uires that 5a cop# of the articles of incorporation as amended, dul# certified to
be correct b# the president and the secretar# of the corporation and a majorit# of the board of
directors or trustees, shall be filed with the 2ecurities E ()change Commissioner5, and it is only
from the time of such filin- , that 5the corporation shall have the same powers and it and the
members and stoc/holders thereof shall thereafter be subject to the same liabilities as if such
amendment had been embraced in the original articles of incorporation.5 It goes without sa#ing
then that appellant rightl# acted in its old name when on Ma# &=, &1&, it entered into the
indemnit# agreement, !nne) !, with the defendant-appellees@ for onl# after the filing of the
amended articles of incorporation with the 2ecurities E ()change Commission on Ma# %1,
&1&, did appellant legall# ac;uire its new name@ and it was perfectl# right for it to file the
present case In that new name on <ecember 1, &1&. 2uch is, but the logical effect of the change
of name of the corporation upon its actions.
!ctions brought b# a corporation after it has changed its name should be brought
under the new name although for the enforcement of rights e)isting at the time the
change was made. 'om/ v. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co., &+1 !la. =&, & 2o.
1+G &ewlan v. 'om/ard :niversity, 1% III. &=@ 4homas v. ;isitor of Frederic5
County School , 8ill E 9 6Md.7 0**@ elaware, etc., %. Co. v. 4ric5 , %0 $. 9. .
0%&@ &orthum/erland Country Ban5 v. 3yer , 1+ "a. 2t. 01@ =ilson v. Chesapea5e
etc., B. Co., %& 8ratt 6:a.7 1=.
The change in the name of the corporation does not affect its right to bring anaction on a note given to the corporation under its former name. Cum/erland
Colle-e v. 2sh, %%. Cal. 1&@ &orthwestern Colle-e v. Schwa-ler, 0 Ia. =. 6&
!merican and (nglish !nnotated Cases &%0.7
In conse;uence, >e hold that the lower court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint. >e ta/e
this opportunit#, however, to e)press the Court's feeling that it is apparent that appellee's position
is more technical than otherwise. $owhere in the record is it seriousl# pretended that the
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 66/105
indebtedness sued upon has alread# been paid. If appellees entertained an# fear that the# might
again be made liable to Je/ Tong in Fire E Marine Insurance Co. td., or to someone else in its
behalf, a cursor# e)amination of the records of the 2ecurities E ()change Commission would
have sufficed to clear up the fact that Je/ Tong in had just changed its name but it had not
ceased to be their creditor. (ver#one should reali3e that when the time of the courts is utili3ed for
cases which do not involve substantial ;uestions and the claim of one of the parties, therein is based on pure technicalit# that can at most dela# onl# the ultimate outcome necessaril# adverse
to such part# because it has no real cause on the merits, grave injustice is committed to
numberless litigants whose meritorious cases cannot be given all the needed time b# the courts.
>e address this appeal once more to all members of the bar, in particular, since it is their
bounden dut# to the profession and to our countr# and people at large to help ease as fast as
possible the clogged doc/ets of the courts. et us not wait until the people resort to other means
to secure speed#, just and ine)pensive determination of their cases.
>A(B(F4B(, judgment of the lower court is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent herewith >ith costs against appellees.
G.R. No. L-2)351 = 2), 1977
&NIERSAL #ILLS C!R"!RA$I!N, petitioner,
vs.
&NIERSAL $E$ILE #ILLS, INC., respondent.
3mi-dio $. 4anuatco for petitioner.
Pica<o, Santayana, %eyes, 4ayao 7 Alfonso for respondent.
ARRED!, J.:
!ppeal from the order of the 2ecurities and ()change Commission in 2.(.C. Case $o. &+,
entitled In the Matter of the :niversal 4etile 8ills, 2nc. vs. :niversal 8ills Corporation, a
petition to have appellant change its corporate name on the ground that such name is
5confusingl# and deceptivel# similar5 to that of appellee, which petition the Commission
granted.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 67/105
!ccording to the order, 5the ?niversal Te)tile Mills, Inc. was organ on <ecember %, &=0, as a
te)tile manufacturing firm for which it was issued a certificate of registration on 9anuar# *, &=.
The ?niversal Mills Corporation, on the other hand, was registered in this Commission on
4ctober %, &=, under its original name, ?niversal Aosier# Mills Corporation, having as its
primar# purpose the 5manufacture and production of hosieries and wearing apparel of all /inds.5
4n Ma# %, &10, it filed an amendment to its articles of incorporation changing its name to?niversal Mills Corporation, its present name, for which this Commission issued the certificate
of approval on 9une &+, &10.
The immediate cause of this present complaint, however, was the occurrence of a fire which
gutted respondent's spinning mills in "asig, Bi3al. "etitioner alleged that as a result of this fire
and because of the similarit# of respondent's name to that of herein complainant, the news items
appearing in the various metropolitan newspapers carr#ing reports on the fire created uncertaint#
and confusion among its ban/ers, friends, stoc/holders and customers prompting petitioner to
ma/e announcements, clarif#ing the real Identit# of the corporation whose propert# was burned.
"etitioner presented documentar# and testimonial evidence in support of this allegation.
4n the other hand, respondent's position is that the names of the two corporations
are not similar and even if there be some similarit#, it is not confusing or
deceptive@ that the onl# reason that respondent changed its name was because it
e)panded its business to include the manufacture of fabrics of all /inds@ and that
the word 'te)tile' in petitioner's name is dominant and prominent enough to
distinguish the two. It further argues that petitioner failed to present evidence of
confusion or deception in the ordinar# course of business@ that the onl# supposed
confusion proved b# complainant arose out of an e)traordinar# occurrence H a
disastrous fire. 6pp. &1-E&, Becord.7
?pon these premises, the Commission heldG
From the facts proved and the jurisprudence on the matter, it appears necessar#
under the circumstances to enjoin the respondent ?niversal Mills Corporation
from further using its present corporate name. 9udging from what has alread#
happened, confusion is not onl# apparent, but possible. It does not matter that the
instance of confusion between the two corporate names was occasioned onl# b# a
fire or an e)traordinar# occurrence. It is precisel# the dut# of this Commission to
prevent such confusion at all times and under all circumstances not onl# for the
purpose of protecting the corporations involved but more so for the protection of the public.
In toda#'s modern business life where people go b# tradenames and corporate
images, the corporate name becomes the more important. This Commission
cannot close its e#es to the fact that usuall# it is the sound of all the other words
composing the names of business corporations that stic/s to the mind of those
who deal with them. The word 5te)tile5 in ?niversal Te)tile Mills, Inc.' can not
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 68/105
possibl# assure the e)clusion of all other entities with similar names from the
mind of the public especiall# so, if the business the# are engaged in are the same,
li/e in the instant case.
This Commission further ta/es cogni3ance of the fact that when respondent filed
the amendment changing its name to ?niversal Mills Corporation, itcorrespondingl# filed a written underta/ing dated 9une =, &10 and signed b# its
"resident, Mr. Mariano Co/iat, promising to change its name in the event that
there is another person, firm or entit# who has obtained a prior right to the use of
such name or one similar to it. That promise is still binding upon the corporation
and its responsible officers. 6pp. &-&*, Becord.7
It is obvious that the matter at issue is within the competence of the 2ecurities and ()change
Commission to resolve in the first instance in the e)ercise of the jurisdiction it used to possess
under Commonwealth !ct %* as amended b# Bepublic !ct &+== to administer the application
and enforcement of all laws affecting domestic corporations and associations, reserving to the
courts onl# conflicts of judicial nature, and, of course, the 2upreme Court's authorit# to review
the Commissions actuations in appropriate instances involving possible denial of due process and
grave abuse of discretion. Thus, in the case at bar, there being no claim of denial of an#
constitutional right, all that >e are called upon to determine is whether or not the order of the
Commission enjoining petitioner to its corporate name constitutes, in the light of the
circumstances found b# the Commission, a grave abuse of discretion.
>e believe it is not. Indeed, it cannot be said that the impugned order is arbitrar# and capricious.
Clearl#, it has rational basis. The corporate names in ;uestion are not Identical, but the# are
indisputabl# so similar that even under the test of 5reasonable care and observation as the public
generall# are capable of using and ma# be e)pected to e)ercise5 invo/ed b# appellant, >e areapprehensive confusion will usuall# arise, considering that under the second amendment of its
articles of incorporation on !ugust &, &1, appellant included among its primar# purposes the
5manufacturing, d#eing, finishing and selling of fabrics of all /inds5 in which respondent had
been engaged for more than a decade ahead of petitioner. Factuall#, the Commission found
e)istence of such confusion, and there is evidence to support its conclusion. 2ince respondent is
not claiming damages in this proceeding, it is, of course, immaterial whether or not appellant has
acted in good faith, but >e cannot perceive wh# of all names, it had to choose a name alread#
being used b# another firm engaged in practicall# the same business for more than a decade
enjo#ing well earned patronage and goodwill, when there are so man# other appropriate names it
could possibl# adopt without arousing an# suspicion as to its motive and, more importantl#, an#degree of confusion in the mind of the public which could mislead even its own customers,
e)isting or prospective. "remises considered, there is no warrant for our interference.
!s this is purel# a case of injunction, and considering the time that has elapsed since the facts
complained of too/ place, this decision should not be deemed as foreclosing an# further remed#
which appellee ma# have for the protection of its interests.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 69/105
>A(B(F4B(, with the reservation alread# mentioned, the appealed decision is affirmed. Costs
against petitioners.
G.R. No. L-15429 December 1, 1919
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 70/105
&Y SI&LI!NG, #ARIAN! LI#A", GAC& &NG IENG, EDILER$! CALI$! /
&Y CH! YEE, petitioners,vs.$HE DIREC$!R !F C!##ERCE AND IND&S$RY, respondent.
@incaid and Per5ins for petitioners. Attorney($eneral Paredes for respondent.
!HNS!N, J.:
The purpose of this action is to obtain the writ of mandamus to re;uire the respondentto file and re-ister , upon the pa#ment of the lawful fee, articles of incorporation, and to issue tothe petitioners as the incorporators of a certain corporation to be /nown as 52iuliong #CompaNia, Inc.,5 a certificate under the seal of the office of said respondent, certif#ing that the
articles of incorporation have been dul# filed and registered in his office in accordance with thelaw.
To the petition the respondent demurred and the cause was finall# submitted upon the petitionand demurrer.
The important facts necessar# for the solution of the ;uestion presented, which are found in the petition, ma# be stated as followsG
&. That prior to the presentation of the petition the petitioners had been associated together as partners, which partnership was /nown as 5mercantil regular colectiva, under the st#le and firm
name of 52iuliong # Cia.@5
%. That the petitioners herein, who had theretofore been members of said partnership of 52iuliong# Cia.,5 desired to dissolve said partnership and to form a corporation composed of the same persons as incorporators, to be /nown as 52iulong # CompaNia, Incorporada@5
0. That the purpose of said corporation, 52iuliong # Cia., Inc.,5 is 6a7 to ac;uire the business of the partnership theretofore /nown as 2iuliong E Co., and 6b7 to continue said business with someof its objects or purposes@
. That an e)amination of the articles of incorporation of the said 52iuliong # CompaNia,
Incorporada5 6()hibit !7 shows that it is to be organi3ed for the following purposesG
6a7 The purchase and sale, importation and e)portation, of the products of the countr# as well asof foreign countries@
6/7 To discount promissor# notes, bills of e)change, and other negotiable instruments@
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 71/105
6c7 The purchase and sale of bills of e)change, bonds, stoc/s, or 5participaciones de sociedadesmercantiles e industriales Ojoint account of mercantile and industrial associationsP,5 and of allclasses of mercantile documents@ 5comisiones OcommissionsP@5 5consignacionesOconsignmentsP@5
6d 7 To act as agents for life, marine and fire insurance companies@ lawphi!.net
6e7 To purchase and sell boats of all classes 5# fletamento de los mismos Oand charterage of sameP@5 and
6 f 7 To purchase and sell industrial and mercantile establishments.
>hile the articles of incorporation of 52iuliong # Cia., Inc.5 states that its purpose is to ac;uireand continue the business, with some of its objects or purposes, of 2iuliong E Co., it will befound upon an e)amination of the purposes enumerated in the proposed articles of incorporationof 52iuliong # Cia., Inc.,5 that some of the purposes of the original partnership of 52iuliong #
Cia.5 have been omitted. For e)ample, the articles of partnership of 52iuliong # Cia.5 gave saidcompan# the authorit# to purchase and sell all classes 5de fincas rusticas # urbanas Oof rural andcit# real estateP5 as well as the right to act as agents for the establishment of an# other businesswhich it might esteem convenient for the interests of 5la compaNia Othe compan#P.5 6()hibit C7.
The respondent in his argument in support of the demurrer contends 6a7 that the proposed articlesof incorporation presented for file and registr# permitted the petitioners to engage in a businesswhich had for its end more than one purpose@ 6 /7 that it permitted the petitioners to engage in the ban/ing business, and 6c7 to deal in real estate, in violation of the !ct of Congress of 9ul# &,&+%.
The petitioners, in repl# to said argument of the respondent, while insisting that said proposedarticles of incorporation do not permit it to enter into the ban/ing business nor to engage in the purchase and sale of real estate in violation of said !ct of Congress, e)pressl# renounced in opencourt their right to engage in such business under their articles of incorporation, even though saidarticles might be interpreted in a wa# to authori3e them to so to do. That renouncement on the part of the petitioners eliminates from the purposes of said proposed corporation 6of 52iuliong #Cia., Inc.57 an# right to engage in the ban/ing business as such, or in the purchase and sale of real estate.
>e come now to the consideration of the principal ;uestion raised b# the respondent, to witG thatthe proposed articles of incorporation of 52iuliong # Cia., Inc.,5 permits it to engage in a business
with more than one purpose.
If upon an e)amination of the articles of incorporation we find that its purpose is to engage in a business with butone principal purpose, then that contention of the respondent will have beenanswered and it will be unnecessar# to discuss at length the ;uestion whether or not acorporation organi3ed for commercial purposes in the "hilippine Islands can be organi3ed for more than one purpose.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 72/105
The attorne# for the respondent, at the time of the argument, admitted in open court thatcorporations in the "hilippine Islands might be organi3ed for both the 5importation ande)portation5 of merchandise and that there might be no relation between the /ind of merchandiseimported with the class of merchandise e)ported.
Beferring again to be proposed articles of incorporation, a cop# of which is united with theoriginal petition and mar/ed ()hibit !, it will be seen that the onl# purpose of said corporationare those enumerated in subparagraphs 6a7, 6/7, 6c7, 6d 7, 6e7 and 6 f 7 of paragraph above. >hilesaid articles of incorporation are somewhat loosel# drawn, it is clear from a reading of the samethat the principal purpose of said corporation is to engage in a mercantile /usiness, with the power to do and perform the particular acts enumerated in said subparagraphs above referred to.
>ithout discussing or deciding at this time whether a corporation organi3ed under the laws of the"hilippine Islands ma# be organi3ed for more than one purpose, we are of the opinion and sodecide that a corporation ma# be organi3ed under the laws of the "hilippine Islandsfor mercantile purposes, and to engage in such incidental /usiness as may /e
necessary and advisa/le to -ive effect to, and aid in, the successful operation and conduct of the principal /usiness.!awphi!.net
In the present case we are full# persuaded that all of the power and authority included in the
articles of incorporation of Siulion- y Cia., 2nc.,5 enumerated above in paragraph 6()hibit !7are onl# incidental to the principal purpose of said proposed incorporation, to witG mercantile
/usiness. The purchase and sale, importation and e)portation of the products of the countr#, aswell as of foreign countries, might ma/e it necessar# to purchase and discount promissor# notes, bills of e)change, bonds, negotiable instruments, stoc/, and interest in other mercantile andindustrial associations. It might also become important and advisable for the successful operationof the corporation to act as agent for insurance companies as well as to bu#, sell and e;uip boats
and to bu# and sell other establishments, and industrial and mercantile businesses.
>hile we have arrived at the conclusion that the proposed articles of incorporation do notauthori3e the petitioners to engage in a business with more than one purpose, we do not mean to be understood as having decided that corporations under the laws of the "hilippine Islands ma#not engage in a business with more than one purpose. 2uch an interpretation might wor/ a greatinjustice to corporations organi3ed under the "hilippine laws. 2uch an interpretation would giveforeign corporations, which are permitted to be registered under the laws here and which ma# beorgani3ed for more than one purpose, a great advantage over domestic corporations. >e do not believe that it was the intention of the legislature to give foreign corporations such an advantageover domestic corporations.
Considering the particular purposes and objects of the proposed articles of incorporation whichare speciall# enumerated above, we are of the opinion that it contains nothing which violates inthe slightest degree an# of the provisions of the laws of the "hilippine Islands, and the petitionersare, therefore, entitled to have such articles of incorporation filed and re-istered as pra#ed for b#them and to have issued to them a certificate under the seal of the office of the respondent,setting forth that such articles of incorporation have been dul# filed in his office. 62ec. &&, !ct $o. &=.7
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 73/105
Therefore, the petition pra#ed for is hereb# granted, and without an# finding as to costs, it is soordered.
Arellano, C.J., 4orres and Avance9a, JJ., concur.
Se'r(e !'88o6
S$REE$, J., concurringG
The petitioners in this case are desirous of forming a corporation to ta/e over and continue a business which for a number of #ears has been conducted in the cit# of Manila as an ordinar#collective mercantile partnership under the name of 52iuliong # CompaNia.5 To this end it isnecessar# that the articles of incorporation should be filed in the office of the <irector of Commerce and Industr#, who, it appears, has withheld approval of the articles submitted to himand has refused to file the same in his office.
The position ta/en b# the <irector of Commerce and Industr# is that the articles of the proposedcorporation state more than one corporate purpose, contrar# to the provisions of !ct $o. &=6the Corporation aw7. In order to ascertain whether this contention is sound it becomesnecessar# to e)amine the provisions contained in the proposed articles in relation with there;uirements of the !ct mentioned.
The purposes for which the corporation is to be formed are stated in the second clause of the proposed articles in the following languageG
2econd. That the object for which said corporation is organi3ed areG to ac;uire the
business of the regular partnership 52iuliong # CompaNia,5 and to continue operating said business in all its parts, and incidental to the principal object, the corporation shall have powers to transact the followingG the bu#ing and selling, importation and e)portation, of native as well as foreign merchandise@ the discount of promissor# notes, bills of e)changeand other negotiable instruments@ the bu#ing and selling of bills of e)change, bonds,shares, and interests in mercantile and industrial partnerships@ commissions@consignments@ life, maritime, and fire insuranceG the bu#ing and selling of vessels of all
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 74/105
/inds and charterage of same@ and the bu#ing and selling of industrial or mercantile plants.
This language is substantiall# a reproduction of the fourth clause of the partnership articles under which the business of 2iuliong E Compan# is being now conducted, as ma# be seen b# a
comparison with the wording of said fourth clause, which is as followsG
Fourth. The object of the partnership shall be the continuation of all the business of the partnership 52iuliong # CompaNia5 which is dissolved on this date, 9une 0+, &&1, or rather the bu#ing and selling, the importation and e)portation, of native as well as foreign products@ the bu#ing and selling is bills of e)change and of all /inds of commercialdocuments@ commissions@ consignments@ maritime and fire insurance@ the bu#ing andselling of all /inds of rural and cit# real estate, as well as vessels of all /inds and their charterage@ and the manager is hereb# authori3ed to organi3e an# other /ind of businesswhich he ma# deem convenient for the compan#'s interest.
It must be admitted that the second clause of the proposed articles of incorporation is e)pressedin a wa# which invites criticism@ and if I m# be permitted so to suggest the provision would have been better conceived if it had started off something li/e thisG
The general object of this corporation is to engage in commercial activities, such as the bu#ingand selling of merchandise and commodities of ever# /ind@ the importation and e)portationthereof@ the conduct of the business of commission merchants, consignees, and insuranceagencies@ the bu#ing and selling of boats and the chartering thereof, as well as the bu#ing andselling of industrial and mercantile plants@ etc., etc.
In setting out the corporate purpose with a view to defining the legitimate range of the faculties
of the corporation, it is undesirable to state that its primar# purpose is to ta/e over the business of some e)isting concern. ?ndoubtedl# a corporation ma# obtain its capital and draw its resourcesfrom a prior enterprise, but it ac;uires such business b# transfer@ and the nature of the activitiesof the older business has no bearing on the faculties of the new corporation. !ll the powers that acorporation can lawfull# e)ercise are derived from the state b# virtue of the laws governing thecreation and conduct of corporations.
$ow, what are limits upon the activities for which a corporation ma# be created The answer isto be found, if an#where, in the Corporation aw. The first chapter of that law deals withcorporations in general and contains the provisions common to all corporations. In the secondchapter are found various special provisions applicable to particular forms of corporate activities.
4f these there are several varieties, to wit, railroad corporations, savings and mortgage ban/s, ban/ing corporations, trust corporations, domestic insurance corporations, religious corporations,colleges and institutions of learning, and building and loan corporations.
It is obvious that no single corporation can be permitted to e)ercise the mi)ed functions of morethan one of these classes@ and the <irector of Commerce and Industr# would be clearl# actingwithin his power in rejecting an# proposed articles of a corporation which confers or appears toconfer powers particularl# appropriate to more than one of these forms of corporate enterprise.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 75/105
!side from the lines that are laid down in the fundamental classification contained in theCorporation aw, there seems to be no limit upon the legitimate activities of corporate enterprise.For instance, a corporation organi3ed for commercial purposes can lawfull# engage in an# one of the thousand or more activities which ma# be imagined under the head of commercial@ but itmust abstain from activities peculiar to the forms of corporate enterprise for which special
provisions are made.
This implies that the word 5purpose5 as used in the e)pression 5the purpose for which thecorporation is formed,5 in subsection % of section 1 of the Corporation aw, ma# properl# beconceived as including the plural as well as the singular. ut the purposes, when there are morethan one, must be capable of being lawfull# combined, that is not obno)ious to the classificationcreated b# the law.
It is not necessar#, and indeed will rarel# be found desirable, to attempt to set out in the articlesof incorporation the multitude of activities in which the corporation can engage incidentall#, asreasonabl# necessar# to accomplish the purpose or purposes for which the corporation was
primaril# formed. There is general authorit# for the e)ercise of all such implied powers insection &0 of the Corporation aw, and the# need not be e)pressed.
Beturning now to the second clause of the proposed articles of incorporation for 52iuliong #CompaNia, Incorporated,5 I entertain a doubt as to the propriet# of admitting into that documentthe words 5discounts of notes, bills, and other negotiable documents5 and 5the bu#ing and sellingof bills, bonds, stoc/s, and shares of mercantile and industrial partnership, as well as mercantiledocuments of ever# sort.5 The reason simpl# is that in so far as it is necessar# to engage in theseactivities for the accomplishment of the general purposes of the corporation, it ma# all be done inthe e)ercise of the implied power e)pressed in section &0@ and the insertion into the articles of the words ;uoted ma# give rise to the inference that the incorporators ma# desire to engage in a
line of business appropriate onl# to corporations created for ban/ing purposes. 62ee sec. &&1 of !ct $o. &=.7 4n the other hand, it ma# be said that the activities e)pressed in the words ;uotedare those peculiar to the business of stoc/-bro/ers@ and one reason is apparent wh# the businessof stoc/-bro/ing might not be lawfull# combined under one corporate chapter with the other mercantile activities mentioned in the second clause of the articles.
4n the whole, as I understand the opinion written b# 9ustice 9ohnson, this court intends to holdthat the second clause of the proposed articles, when propert# interpreted, means that thecompan# to be formed intends primaril# to dedicate itself to industrial and mercantile activities,as its principal object and that the other activities mentioned are purel# subordinate. I have nospecial criticism to ma/e of this view@ and inasmuch as the interpretation which the court thus places upon the proposed charter removes the possibilit# that the corporation ma#, under the protection thereof, engage in illegitimate lines of enterprise, I am content to e)press m#concurrence in the result reached b# the court. ut I reall# thin/ the proposed articles ought to beamended.
M!C4M, 9., concurs in the result, reserving his opinion concerning the suggestion in thethird paragraph from the last of the principal decision.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 76/105
G.R. No. L-2223) Febrr 1), 19*7
CLAECILLIA RADI! SYS$E#, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
H!N. AG&S$IN AN$ILL!N, 6 C8( /:e o; (<e #8c8'= Cor( o; C: /e !ro
C8(
/ NE@ CAGAYAN GR!CERY, respondents-appellees.
B. C. Padua for petitioner and appellant.
Pa/lo S. %eyes for respondents and appellees.
REGALA, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis 4riental dismissing the
petition of the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem to prohibit the Cit# 9udge of Caga#an de 4ro from ta/ing
cogni3ance of Civil Case $o. &+* for damages.
It appears that on 9une %%, &10, the $ew Caga#an 8rocer# filed a complaint against the
Clavecilla Badio 2#stem alleging, in effect, that on March &%, &10, the following message,
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 77/105
addressed to the former, was filed at the latter's acolod ranch 4ffice for transmittal thru its
branch office at Caga#an de 4roG
$(C!8B4 C!8!J!$ <( 4B4 6C!:(CI!7
B(?BT( >!2A(< $4T !:!I!( B(FI$(< T>($TJ FIFTJ IF !8B((!(2A! 2AI" !T(B B("J "4A!$8
The Caga#an de 4ro branch office having received the said message omitted, in
delivering the same to the $ew Caga#an 8rocer#, the word 5$4T5 between the words
5>!2A(<5 and 5!:!I!(,5 thus changing entirel# the contents and purport of the
same and causing the said addressee to suffer damages. !fter service of summons, the
Clavecilla Badio 2#stem filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it
states no cause of action and that the venue is improperl# laid. The $ew Caga#an
8rocer# interposed an opposition to which the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem filed its
rejoinder. Thereafter, the Cit# 9udge, on 2eptember &*, &10, denied the motion to
dismiss for lac/ of merit and set the case for hearing.!DwphE!.9t
Aence, the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem filed a petition for prohibition with preliminar# injunction
with the Court of First Instance pra#ing that the Cit# 9udge, Aonorable !gustin !ntillon, be
enjoined from further proceeding with the case on the ground of improper venue. The
respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition but this was opposed b# the petitioner. ater,
the motion was submitted for resolution on the pleadings.
In dismissing the case, the lower court held that the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem ma# be sued either
in Manila where it has its principal office or in Caga#an de 4ro Cit# where it ma# be served, as
in fact it was served, with summons through the Manager of its branch office in said cit#. Inother words, the court upheld the authorit# of the cit# court to ta/e cogni3ance of the
case.!DwphE!.9t
In appealing, the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem contends that the suit against it should be filed in
Manila where it holds its principal office.
It is clear that the case for damages filed with the cit# court is based upon tort and not upon a
written contract. 2ection & of Bule of the $ew Bules of Court, governing venue of actions in
inferior courts, provides in its paragraph 6b7 607 that when 5the action is not upon a written
contract, then in the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may /e served with summons.5 6(mphasis supplied7
2ettled is the principle in corporation law that the residence of a corporation is the place where
its principal office is established. 2ince it is not disputed that the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem has its
principal office in Manila, it follows that the suit against it ma# properl# be filed in the Cit# of
Manila.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 78/105
The appellee maintain, however, that with the filing of the action in Caga#an de 4ro Cit#, venue
was properl# laid on the principle that the appellant ma# also be served with summons in that
cit# where it maintains a branch office. This Court has alread# held in the case of Cohen vs.
Ben-uet Commercial Co., 'td., 0 "hil. =%1@ that the term 5ma# be served with summons5 does
not appl# when the defendant resides in the "hilippines for, in such case, he ma# be sued onl# in
the municipalit# of his residence, regardless of the place where he ma# be found and served withsummons. !s an# other corporation, the Clavecilla Badio 2#stem maintains a residence which is
Manila in this case, and a person can have onl# one residence at a time 62ee !lcantara vs.
2ecretar# of the Interior, 1& "hil. =@ (vangelists vs. 2antos, *1 "hil. 0*7. The fact that it
maintains branch offices in some parts of the countr# does not mean that it can be sued in an# of
these places. To allow an action to be instituted in an# place where a corporate entit# has its
branch offices would create confusion and wor/ untold inconvenience to the corporation.
It is important to remember, as was stated b# this Court in 3van-elista vs. Santos, et al., supra,
that the la#ing of the venue of an action is not left to plaintiff's caprice because the matter is
regulated b# the Bules of Court. !ppl#ing the provision of the Bules of Court, the venue in thiscase was improperl# laid.
The order appealed from is therefore reversed, but without prejudice to the filing of the action in
>hich the venue shall be laid properl#. >ith costs against the respondents-appellees.
G.R. No. L-23*0* = 29, 19*)
ALHA#RA CIGAR CIGARE$$E #AN&FAC$&RING C!#"ANY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
SEC&RI$IES ECHANGE C!##ISSI!N, respondent.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 79/105
$am/oa and $am/oa for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor $eneral for respondent.
SANCHE+, J.:
To the ;uestion H Ma# a corporation e)tend its life b# amendment of its articles of incorporation effected during the three-#ear statutor# period for li;uidation when its original
term of e)istence had alread# e)pired H the answer of the 2ecurities and ()change
Commissioner was in the negative. 4ffshoot is this appeal.
That problem emerged out of the following controlling factsG
"etitioner !lhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Compan#, Inc. 6hereinafter referred to
simpl# as Alham/ra7 was dul# incorporated under "hilippine laws on 9anuar# &=, &&%. # its
corporate articles it was to e)ist for fift# 6=+7 #ears from incorporation. Its term of e)istence
e)pired on 9anuar# &=, &1%. 4n that date, it ceased transacting business, entered into a state of
li;uidation.
Thereafter, a new corporation. H !lhambra Industries, Inc. H was formed to carr# on the
business of !lhambra.
4n Ma# &, &1%, !lhambra's stoc/holders, b# resolution named !ngel 2. 8amboa trustee to ta/e
charge of its li;uidation.
4n 9une %+, &10 H within !lhambra's three-#ear statutor# period for li;uidation - Bepublic !ct
0=0& was enacted into law. It amended 2ection &* of the Corporation aw@ it empowered
domestic private corporations to e)tend their corporate life be#ond the period fi)ed b# thearticles of incorporation for a term not to e)ceed fift# #ears in an# one instance. "revious to
Bepublic !ct 0=0&, the ma)imum non-e)tendible term of such corporations was fift# #ears.
4n 9ul# &=, &10, at a special meeting, !lhambra's board of directors resolved to amend
paragraph 5Fourth5 of its articles of incorporation to e)tend its corporate life for an additional
fift# #ears, or a total of &++ #ears from its incorporation.
4n !ugust %1, &10, !lhambra's stoc/holders, representing more than two-thirds of its
subscribed capital stoc/, voted to approve the foregoing resolution. The 5Fourth5 paragraph of
!lhambra's articles of incorporation was thus altered to readG
F4?BTA. That the term for which said corporation is to e)ist is fift# 6=+7 #ears from and
after the date of incorporation, and for an additional period of fifty G0*H years thereafter.
4n 4ctober %*, &10, !lhambra's articles of incorporation as so amended certified correct b# its
president and secretar# and a majorit# of its board of directors, were filed with respondent
2ecurities and ()change Commission 62(C7.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 80/105
4n $ovember &*, &10, 2(C, however, returned said amended articles of incorporation to
!lhambra's counsel with the ruling that Bepublic !ct 0=0& 5which too/ effect onl# on 9une %+,
&10, cannot be availed of b# the said corporation, for the reason that its term of e)istence had
alread# e)pired when the said law too/ effect in short, said law has no retroactive effect.5
4n <ecember 0, &10, !lhambra's counsel sought reconsideration of 2(C's ruling aforesaid,refiled the amended articles of incorporation.
4n 2eptember *, &1, 2(C, after a conference hearing, issued an order den#ing the
reconsideration sought.
!lhambra now invo/es the jurisdiction of this Court to overturn the conclusion below.&
&. !lhambra relies on Bepublic !ct 0=0&, which amended 2ection &* of the Corporation aw.
>ell it is to ta/e note of the old and the new statutes as the# are framed. 2ection &*, prior to and
after its modification b# Bepublic !ct 0=0&, covers the subject of amendment of the articles of
incorporation of private corporations. ! provision thereof which remains unaltered is that a
corporation ma# amend its articles of incorporation 5b# a majorit# vote of its board of directors
or trustees and ... b# the vote or written assent of the stoc/holders representing at least two-thirds
of the subscribed capital stoc/ ... 5
ut prior to amendment b# Bepublic !ct 0=0&, an e)plicit prohibition e)isted in 2ection &*,
thusG
... Provided, however , That the life of said corporation shall not be e)tended b# said
amendment be#ond the time fi)ed in the original articlesG ...
This was displaced b# Bepublic !ct 0=0& which enfranchises all private corporations to e)tend
their corporate e)istence. Thus incorporated into the structure of 2ection &* are the followingG
... Provided, however , That should the amendment consist in e)tending the corporate life,
the e)tension shall not e)ceed fift# #ears in an# one instanceG "rovided, further, That the
original articles, and amended articles together shall contain all provisions re;uired b#
law to be set out in the articles of incorporationG ...
!s we loo/ in retrospect at the facts, we find theseG From 9ul# &= to 4ctober %*, &10, when
!lhambra made its attempt to e)tend its corporate e)istence, its original term of fift# #ears had
alread# e)pired 69anuar# &=, &1%7@ it was in the midst of the three-#ear grace period statutoril#
fi)ed in 2ection of the Corporation aw, thusG .
2(C. . (ver# corporation whose charter e)pires b# its own limitation or is annulled b#
forfeiture or otherwise, or whose corporate e)istence for other purposes is terminated in
an# other manner, shall nevertheless be continued as a bod# corporate for three #ears
after the time when it would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecutin- and
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 81/105
defendin- suits /y or a-ainst it and of ena/lin- it -radually to settle and close its affairs,
to dispose of and convey its property and to divide its capital stoc5, /ut not for the
purpose of continuin- the /usiness for which it was esta/lished.%
"lain from the language of the provision is its meaningG continuance of a 5dissolved5 corporation
as a bod# corporate for three #ears has for its purpose the final closure of its affairs, and nootherI the corporation is specificall# enjoined from 5continuing the business for which it was
established5. The li;uidation of the corporation's affairs set forth in 2ection became necessar#
precisel# because its life had ended. For this reason alone, the corporate e)istence and juridical
personalit# of that corporation to do business ma# no longer be e)tended.
>orth bearing in mind, at this juncture, is the basic development of corporation law.
The common law rule, at the beginning, was rigid and infle)ible in that upon its dissolution, a
corporation became legall# dead for all purposes. 2tatutor# authori3ations had to be provided for
its continuance after dissolution 5for limited and specified purposes incident to complete
li;uidation of its affairs5.0 Thus, the moment a corporation's right to e)ist as an 5artificial person5
ceases, its corporate powers are terminated 5just as the powers of a natural person to ta/e part in
mundane affairs cease to e)ist upon his death5. There is nothing left but to conduct, as it were,
the settlement of the estate of a deceased juridical person.
%. Bepublic !ct 0=0&, amending 2ection &* of the Corporation aw, is silent, it is true, as to
when such act of e)tension ma# be made. ut even with a superficial /nowledge of corporate
principles, it does not ta/e much effort to reach a correct conclusion. For, implicit in 2ection
heretofore ;uoted is that the privilege given to prolon- corporate life under the amendment must
be e)ercised before the e)pir# of the term fi)ed in the articles of incorporation.
2ilence of the law on the matter is not hard to understand. 2pecificit# is not reall# necessar#. The
authorit# to prolong corporate life was inserted b# Bepublic !ct 0=0& into a section of the law
that deals with the power of a corporation to amend its articles of incorporation. 6For, the manner
of prolongation is through an amendment of the articles.7 !nd it should be clearl# evident that
under 2ection no corporation in a state of li;uidation can act in an# wa#, much less amend its
articles, 5for the purpose of continuing the business for which it was established5.
!ll these dilute !lhambra's position that it could revivif# its corporate life simpl# because when
it attempted to do so, !lhambra was still in the process of li;uidation. It is surel# impermissible
for us to stretch the law H that merel# empowers a corporation to act in li;uidation H to injecttherein the power to e)tend its corporate e)istence.
0. $ot that we are alone in this view. Fletcher has writtenG 52ince the privilege of e)tension is
purel# statutor#, all of the statutor# conditions precedent must be complied with in order that the
e)tension ma# be effectuated. !nd, generall# these conditions must be complied with, and the
steps necessar# to effect the e)tension must be ta/en,durin- the life of the corporation, and
/efore the epiration of the term of eistence as ori-inal fied /y its charter or the -eneral law,
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 82/105
since, as a rule, the corporation is ipso facto dissolved as soon as that time epires. 2o where the
e)tension is b# amendment of the articles of incorporation, the amendment must /e adopted
/efore that time. !nd, similarl#, the filing and recording of a certificate of e)tension after that
time cannot relate bac/ to the date of the passage of a resolution b# the stoc/holders in favor of
the e)tension so as to save the life of the corporation. The contrar# is true, however, and the
doctrine of relation will appl#, where the dela# is due to the neglect of the officer with whom thecertificate is re;uired to be filed, or to a wrongful refusal on his part to receive it. !nd statutes in
some states specificall# provide that a renewal ma# be had within a specified time before or after
the time fi)ed for the termination of the corporate e)istence5.=
The logic of this position is well e)pressed in a fours;uare case decided b# the Court of !ppeals
of entuc/#.1There, pronouncement was made as followsG
... ut section =1& 6section %&7 provides that, when an# corporation e)pires b# the
terms of its articles of incorporation, it ma# be thereafter continued to act for the purpose
of closing up its business, but for no other purpose. The corporate life of the Aome
uilding !ssociation e)pired on Ma# 0, &+=. !fter that date, b# the mandate of the
statute, it could continue to act for the purpose of closing up its business, but for no other
purpose. The proposed amendment was not made until 9anuar# &1, &+*, or nearl# three
#ears after the corporation e)pired b# the terms of the articles of incorporation. =hen the
corporate life of the corporation was ended, there was nothin- to etend. Aere it was
proposed nearl# three #ears after the corporate life of the association had e)pired to
revivif# the dead bod#, and to ma/e that relate bac/ some two #ears and eight months. In
other words, the association for two #ears and eight months had onl# e)isted for the
purpose of winding up its business, and, after this length of time, it was proposed to
revivif# it and ma/e it a live corporation for the two #ears and eight months daring which
it had not been such.
The law gives a certain length of time for the filing of records in this court, and provides
that the time ma# be e)tended b# the court, but under this provision it has uniforml# been
held that when the time was e)pired, there is nothing to e)tend, and that the appeal must
be dismissed... 2o, when the articles of a corporation have e)pired, it is too late to adopt
an amendment e)tending the life of a corporation@ for, the corporation having
e)pired, this is in effect to create a new corporation ...5
True it is, that the !labama 2upreme Court has stated in one case.* that a corporation empowered
b# statute torenew its corporate e)istence ma# do so even after the e)piration of its corporate life, provided renewal is ta/en advantage of within the e)tended statutor# period for purposes of
li;uidation. That ruling, however, is inherentl# wea/ as persuasive authorit# for the situation at
bar for at least two reasonsG First . That case was a suit for mandamus to compel a former
corporate officer to turn over boo/s and records that came into his possession and control b#
virtue of his office. It was there held that such officer was obliged to surrender his boo/s and
records even if the corporation had alread# e)pired. The holding on the continued e)istence of
the corporation was a mere dictum. Second . !labama's law is different. Corporations in that state
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 83/105
were authori3ed not onl# to e)tend but also to renew their corporate e)istence.4hat very
case defined the word 5renew5 as follows@ 5To ma/e new again@ to restore to freshness@ to ma/e
new spirituall#@ to regenerate@ to begin again@ to recommence@ to resume@ to restore to e)istence,
to revive@ to re-establish@ to recreate@ to replace@ to grant or obtain an e)tension of >ebster's $ew
International <ict.@ 0 C#c. &00+@ Carter v. Broo5lyn 'ife 2ns. Co., &&+ $.J. &=, %&, %%, & $.(.
01@ = C.9. 0. 2ec5.
4n this point, we again draw from FletcherG 5There is a broad distinction between the e)tension
of a charter and the grant of a new one. To renew a charter is to revive a charter which has
e)pired, or, in other words, 5to give a new e)istence to one which has been forfeited, or which
has lost its vitalit# b# lapse of time5. To 5e)tend5 a charter is 5to increase the time for the
e)istence of one which would otherwise reach its limit at an earlier period5.&+ $owhere in our
statute H 2ection &*, Corporation aw, as amended b# Bepublic !ct 0=0& H do we find the
word 5renew5 in reference to the authorit# given to corporations to protract their lives. 4ur law
limits itself to etension of corporate e)istence. !nd, as so understood, e)tension ma# be
made only before the term provided in the corporate charter e)pires.
!lhambra draws attention to another case&& which declares that until the end of the e)tended
period for li;uidation, a dissolved corporation 5does not become an e)tinguished entit#5. ut this
statement was obviousl# lifted out of conte)t. That case dissected the ;uestion whether or not
suits can be commenced b# or against a corporation within its li;uidation period. >hich was
answered in the affirmative. For, the corporation still e)ists for the settlement of its affairs.
People, e rel. vs. $reen,&% also invo/ed b# !lhambra, is as unavailing. There, although the
corporation amended its articles to e)tend its e)istence at a time when it had no legal authorit#
#et, it adopted the amended articles later on when it had the power to e)tend its life and durin-
its ori-inal term when it could amend its articles.
The foregoing notwithstanding, !lhambra falls bac/ on the contention that its case is arguabl#
within the purview of the law. It sa#s that before cessation of its corporate life, it could not have
e)tended the same, for the simple reason that Bepublic !ct 0=0& had not then become law. It
must be remembered that Bepublic !ct 0=0& too/ effect on 9une %+, &10, while the original
term of !lhambra's e)istence e)pired before that date H on 9anuar# &=, &1%. The mischief that
flows from this theor# is at once apparent. It would certainl# open the gates for all defunct
corporations H whose charters have e)pired even long before Bepublic !ct 0=0& came into
being H to resuscitate their corporate e)istence.
. !lhambra brings into argument Bepublic !ct &0%, which amends 2ection &1 of the
Insurance !ct, now reading as followsG !DwphE!.9t
2(C. &1. !n# provision of law to the contrar# notwithstanding, ever# domestic life
insurance corporation, formed for a limited period under the provisions of its articles of
incorporation, ma# e)tend its corporate e)istence for a period not e)ceeding fift# #ears in
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 84/105
an# one instance b# amendment to its articles of incorporation on or before the e)piration
of the term so fi)ed in said articles ...
To be observed is that the foregoing statute H unli/e Bepublic !ct 0=0& H e)pressl# authori3es
domestic insurance corporations to e)tend their corporate e)istence 5on or before the e)piration
of the term5 fi)ed in their articles of incorporation. Bepublic !ct &0% was approved on 9une %%,&=, long before the passage of Bepublic !ct 0=0& in &10. Congress, !lhambra points out,
must have been aware of Bepublic !ct &0% when it passed Bepublic !ct 0=0&. 2ince the phrase
5on or before5, etc., was omitted in Bepublic !ct 0=0&, which contains no similar limitation, it
follows, according to !lhambra, that it is not necessar# to e)tend corporate e)istence on or
before the e)piration of its original term.
That Bepublic !ct 0=0& stands mute as to when e)tention of corporate e)istence ma# be made,
assumes no relevance. >e have alread# said, in the face of a familiar precept, that a defunct
corporation is bereft of an# legal facult# not otherwise e)pressl# sanctioned b# law.
Illuminating here is the e)planator# note of A.. &, later Bepublic !ct 0=0& H now in
dispute. Its first paragraph states that 5Bepublic !ct $o. &0% allows the automatic e)tension of
the corporate e)istence of domestic life insurance corporations upon amendment of their articles
of incorporation on or before the e)piration of the terms fi)ed b# said articles5. The succeeding
lines are decisiveG 5This is a good law, a sane and sound one. 4here appears to /e no valid
reason why it should not /e made to apply to other private corporations .&0
The situation here presented is not one where the law under consideration is ambiguous, where
courts have to put in harness e)trinsic aids such as a loo/ at another statute to disentangle doubts.
It is an elementar# rule in legal hermeneutics that where the terms of the law are clear, no
statutor# construction ma# be permitted. ?pon the basic conceptual scheme under whichcorporations operate, and with 2ection of the Corporation aw particularl# in mind, we find
no vagueness in 2ection &*, as amended b# Bepublic !ct 0=0&. !s we view it, b# directing
attention to Bepublic !ct &0%, !lhambra would see/ to create obscurit# in the law@ and, with
that, as/ of us a ruling that such obscurit# be e)plained. This, we dare sa#, cannot be done.
The pari materia rule of statutor# construction, in fact, commands that statutes must be
harmoni3ed with each other.& 2o harmoni3ing, the conclusion is clear that 2ection &* of the
Corporation aw, as amended b# Bepublic !ct 0=0& in reference to e)tensions of corporate
e)istence, is to be read in the same light as Bepublic !ct &0%. >hich means that domestic
corporations in general, as with domestic insurance companies, can e)tend corporate e)istenceonl# on or before the e)piration of the term fi)ed in their charters.
=. !lhambra pleads for munificence in interpretation, one which brushes technicalities aside.
ases for this posture are that Bepublic !ct 0=0& is a remedial statute, and that e)tension of
corporate life is beneficial to the econom#.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 85/105
!lhambra's stance does not induce assent. ()pansive construction is possible only when there is
something to e)pand. !t the time of the passage of Bepublic !ct 0=0&, !lhambra's corporate life
had alread# e)pired. It had overstepped the limits of its limited e)istence. $o life there is to
prolong.
esides, a new corporation H !lhambra Industries, Inc., with but slight change instoc/holdings&= H has alread# been established. Its purpose is to carr# on, and it actuall# does
carr# on,&1 the business of the dissolved entit#. The beneficial-effects argument is off the mar/.
The wa# the whole case shapes up then, the onl# possible drawbac/s of !lhambra might be that,
instead of the new corporation 6!lhambra Industries, Inc.7 being written off, the old one
6!lhambra Cigar E Cigarette Manufacturing Compan#, Inc.7 has to be wound up@ and that the
old corporate name cannot be retained full# in its e)act form.& >hat is important though is that
the word Alham/ra, the name that counts Oit has goodwillP, remains.
F4B TA( B(!24$2 8I:($, the ruling of the 2ecurities and ()change Commission of
$ovember &*, &10, and its order of 2eptember *, &1, both here under review, are hereb#
affirmed.
Costs against petitioner !lhambra Cigar E Cigarette Manufacturing Compan#, Inc. 2o ordered.
BG.R. No. L-7231. #rc< 2), 195*.
ENG&E$ C!NS!LIDA$ED #INING C!., Petitioner , 6. #ARIAN! "INEDA, 8 <86c'c8( 6 Secr8(8e6 / Ec<:e Comm8668oer, Respondent . C!NS!LIDA$ED
#INES, INC., Intervenor .
D E C I S I ! N
REYES, . . L., J.:
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 86/105
!ppeal under Bule 0 from a decision of the 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner, den#ingthe right of a sociedad anonima to e)tend its corporate e)istence b# amendment of its originalarticles of association, or alternativel#, to reform and continue e)isting under the Corporationaw 6!ct &=7 be#ond the original period.
The Petitioner , the enguet Consolidated Mining Co. 6hereafter termed RenguetS for short7,
was organi3ed on 9une %,&+0, as a sociedad anonima regulated b# !rticles &=& et se;., of the2panish Code of Commerce of &**1, then in force in the "hilippines. The articles of associatione)pressl# provided that it was organi3ed for a term of fift# 6=+7 #ears. In &+1, the governing"hilippine Commission enacted !ct &=, commonl# /nown as the Corporation aw,establishing in the islands the !merican t#pe of juridical entities /nown as corporation, to ta/eeffect on !pril &, &+1. 4f its enactment, this Court said in its decision in Aarden vs. enguetConsolidated Mining Co., =* "hil., &&, at pp. &=-&1, and &Gchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R>hen the "hilippine Islands passed to the sovereignt# of the ?nited 2tates, the attention of the"hilippine Commission was earl# drawn to the fact there is no entit# in 2panish law e)actl#corresponding to the motion of the corporation in (nglish and !merican law@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#and in the "hilippine ill, approved 9ul# &, &+1, the Congress of the?nited 2tates inserted certain provisions, under the head of Franchises, which were intended tocontrol the lawma/ing power in the "hilippine Islands in the matter of granting of franchises, privileges and concessions. These provisions are found in sections and = of the !ct. The provisions of section have been superseded b# section %* of the !ct of Congress of !ugust%, &&1, but in section = there is a provision referring to mining corporations, which stillremains the law, as amended. This provision, in its original form, reads asfollowsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar# cralaw it shall be unlawful for an# member of a corporationengaged in agriculture or mining and for an# corporation organi3ed for an# purpose e)ceptirrigation to be in an# wise interested in an# other corporation engaged in agriculture or inmining.
?nder the guidance of this and certain other provisions thus enacted b# Congress, the "hilippineCommission entered upon the enactment of a general law authori3ing the creation of corporations in the "hilippine Islands. This rather elaborate piece of legislation is embodied inwhat is called our Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &= of the "hilippine Commission7. The evident purpose of the commission was to introduce the !merican corporation into the "hilippine Islandsas the standard commercial entit# and to hasten the da# when the sociedad anonima of the2panish law would be obsolete. That statute is a sort of codification of !merican corporate law.S
R!s it was the intention of our lawma/ers to stimulate the introduction of the !mericancorporation into the "hilippine law in the place of the sociedad anonima, it was necessar# toma/e certain adjustment resulting from the continued co-e)istence, for a time, of the two formsof commercial entities. !ccordingl#, in section = of the Corporation aw, a provision is found
ma/ing the sociedad anonima subject to the provisions of the Corporation aw so far as such provisions ma# be applicableU and giving to the sociedades anonimas previousl# created in theIslands the option to continue business as such or to reform and organi3e under the provisions of the Corporation aw. !gain, in section && of the Corporation aw, the Code of Commerce isrepealed in so far as it relates to sociedades anonimas. The purpose of the commission inrepealing this part of the Code of Commerce was to compel commercial entities thereafter organi3ed to incorporate under the Corporation aw, unless the# should prefer to adopt someform or other of the partnership. To this provision was added another to the effect that e)isting
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 87/105
sociedades anonimas, which elected to continue their business as such, instead of reforming andreorgani3ing under the Corporation aw, should continue to be governed b# the laws that were inforce prior to the passage of this !ct in relation to their organi3ation and method of transacting business and to the rights of members thereof as between themselves, but their relations to the public and public officials shall be governed b# the provisions of this !ct.UR
2pecificall#, the two sections of !ct $o. &= referring to sociedades anonimas then alread#e)isting, provide as followsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R2(C. =. !n# corporation or a sociedad anonima formed, organi3ed, and e)isting under thelaws of the "hilippines on the date of the passage of this !ct, shall be subject to the provisionshereof so far as such provisions ma# be applicable and shall be entitled at its option either tocontinue business as such corporation or to reform and organi3e under and b# virtue of the provisions of this !ct, transferring all corporate interests to the new corporation which, if a stoc/ corporation, is authori3ed to issue its shares of stoc/ at par to the stoc/holders or members of theold corporation according to their interests.S
R2(C. &&. The Code of Commerce, in so far as it relates to corporation or sociedades
anonimas, and all other !cts or parts of !cts in conflict or inconsistent with this !ct, are hereb#repealed with the e)ception of !ct $umbered fift#-two, entitled !n !ct providing for e)aminations of ban/ing institutions in the "hilippines, and for reports b# their officers,U asamended, and !ct $umbered 2i) hundred si)t#-seven, entitled !n !ct prescribing the methodof appl#ing to governments of municipalities, e)cept the cit# of Manila and of provinces for franchises to contract and operate street railwa#, electric light and power and telephone lines, theconditions upon which the same ma# be granted, certain powers of the grantee of said franchises,and of grantees of similar franchises under special !ct of the Commission, and for other purposes.U "rovided, however, That nothing in this !ct contained shall be deemed to repeal thee)isting law relating to those classes of associations which are termed sociedades colectivas, andsociedades de cuentas en participacion, as to which association the e)isting law shall be deemed
to be still in force@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#!nd provided, further, That e)isting corporationsor sociedades anonimas, lawfull# organi3ed as such, which elect to continue their business assuch sociedades anonimas instead of reforming and reorgani3ing under and b# virtue of the provisions of this !ct, shall continue to be governed b# the laws that were in force prior to the passage of this !ct in relation to their organi3ation and method of transacting business and to therights of members thereof as between themselves, but their relations to the public and publicofficials shall be governed b# the provisions of this !ct.S
!s the e)piration of its original =+ #ear term of e)istence approached, the oard of <irectors of enguet adopted in &1 a resolution to e)tend its life for another =+ #ears from 9ul# 0, &1and submitted it for registration to the %espondent 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner. ?ponadvice of the 2ecretar# of 9ustice 64p. $o. =, 2er. &&7 that such e)tension was contrar# to
law, the registration was denied. The matter was dropped, allegedl# because the stoc/holders of enguet did not approve of the <irectorsU action.
2ome si) #ears later in &=0, the shareholders of enguet adopted a resolution empowering the<irector to Reffectuate the e)tension of the Compan#Us business life for not less than %+ and notmore than =+ #ears, and this b# either 6&7 an amendment to the !rticles of !ssociation or Charter of this Compan# or 6%7 b# reforming and reorgani3ing the Compan# as a "hilippine Corporation,
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 88/105
or 607 b# both or 67 b# an# other means.S !ccordingl#, the oard of <irectors on Ma# %, &=0,adopted a resolution to the following effect H
Re It
Besolved, that the Compan# be reformed, reorgani3ed and organi3ed under the provisions of
section = and other provisions of the "hilippine Corporation aw as a "hilippine corporationwith a corporate life and corporate powers as set forth in the !rticles of Incorporation attachedhereto as 2chedule IU and made a part hereof b# this reference@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and
e It
F?BTA(B B(24:(<, that an# five or more of the following shareholders of the Compan# beand the# hereb# are authori3ed as instructed to act for and in behalf of the share holders of theCompan# and of the Compan# as Incorporators in the reformation, reorgani3ation andorgani3ation of the Compan# under and in accordance with the provisions aforesaid of said"hilippine Corporation aw, and in such capacit#, the# are hereb# authori3ed and instructed toe)ecute the aforesaid !rticles of Incorporation attached to these Minutes as 2chedule IU hereof,with such amendments, deletion and additions thereto as an# five or more of those so acting shalldeem necessar#, proper, advisable or convenient to effect prompt registration of said !rticlesunder "hilippine aw@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and five or more of said Incorporators arehereb# further authori3ed and directed to do all things necessar#, proper, advisable or convenientto effect such registration.S
In pursuance of such resolution, enguet submitted in 9une, &=0, to the 2ecurities and()change Commissioner, for alternative registration, twodocumentsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar# 6&7 Certification as to the Modification of 6the articles of association of7 the enguet Consolidated Mining Compan#, e)tending the term of its e)istence toanother fift# #ears from 9une &=, &=0@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and 6%7 articles of incorporation, covering its reformation or reorgani3ation as a corporation in accordance with
section = of the "hilippine Corporation aw.Bel#ing mainl# upon the adverse opinion of the 2ecretar# of 9ustice 64p. $o. &*+, s. &=07, the2ecurities and ()change Commissioner denied the registration andruledGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
6&7 That the enguet, as sociedad anonima, had no right to e)tend the original term of corporatee)istence stated in its !rticles of !ssociation, b# subse;uent amendment thereof adopted after enactment of the Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &=7@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and
6%7 That enguet, b# its conduct, had chosen to continue as sociedad anonima, under section =of !ct $o. &=, and could no longer e)ercise the option to reform into a corporation, speciall#since it would indirectl# produce the effect of e)tending its life.
This ruling is the subject of the present appeal.
Petitioner enguet contendsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
6&7 That the proviso of section &* of the Corporation aw to the effect H
Rthat the life of said corporation shall not be e)tended b# amendment be#ond the time fi)ed inthe original articles.S
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 89/105
does not appl# to sociedades anonimas alread# in e)istence at the passage of the law,li/e Petitioner herein@
6%7 That to appl# the said restriction imposed b# section &* of the Corporation aw tosociedades anonimas alread# functioning when the said law was enacted would be in violation of constitutional inhibitions@
607 That even assuming that said restriction was applicable to it, enguet could still e)ercise theoption of reforming and reorgani3ing under section = of the Corporation aw, thereb# prolonging its corporate e)istence, since the law is silent as to the time when such option ma# bee)ercised or availed of.
The first issue arises because the Code of Commerce of &**1 under which enguet wasorgani3ed, contains no prohibition 6to e)tend the period of corporate e)istence7, e;uivalent tothat set forth in section &* of the Corporation aw. $either does it e)pressl# authori3e thee)tension. ut the te)t of !rticle %%0, readingGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R!BT. %%0. !fter the termination of the period for which commercial associations areconstituted, it shall not be understood as e)tended b# the implied or presumed will of themembers@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and if the members desire to continue in association, the#shall draw up new articles, subject to all the formalities prescribed for their creation as providedin !rticle &&.S 6Code of Commerce.7
would seem to impl# that the period of e)istence of the sociedad anonimas 6or of an# other commercial association for that matter7 ma# be e)tended if the partners or members so agree before the e)piration of the original period.
>hile the Code of Commerce, in so far as sociedades anonimas are concerned, was repealed b#!ct $o &=, enguet claims that article %%0 is still operative in its favor under the last provisoof section && of the Corporation law 6ante, p. to the effect that e)isting sociedades anonimaswould continue to be governed b# the law in force before !ct &=,
Rin relation to their organi3ation and method of transacting business and to the rights of membersamong themselves, but their relations to the public and public officials shall be governed b# the provisions of this !ct.S
enguet contends that the period of corporate life relates to its organi3ation and the rights of itsmembers inter se, and not to its relations to the public or public officials.
>e find this contention untenable.
The term of e)istence of association 6partnership or sociedad anonima7 is coterminous with their possession of an independent legal personalit#, distinct from that of their component members.>hen the period e)pires, the sociedad anonima loses the power to deal and enter into further
legal relations with other persons@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#it is no longer possible for it toac;uire new rights or incur new obligations, have onl# as ma# be re;uired b# the process of li;uidating and winding up its affairs. # the same to/en, its officers and agents can no longer represent it after the e)piration of the life term prescribed, save for settling its business. $ecessaril#, therefore, third persons or strangers have an interest in /nowing the duration of the juridical personalit# of the sociedad anonima, since the latter cannot be dealt with after that period@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#wherefore its prolongation or cessation is a matter directl#involving the compan#Us relations to the public at large.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 90/105
4n the importance of the term of e)istence set in the articles of association of commercialcompanies under the 2panish Code of Commerce, <. oren3o enito # (ndar, professor of mercantile law in the ?niversidad Central de Madrid, has this to sa#Gchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
Ra duracion de la 2ociedad. H a necesidad de consignar este re;uisito en el contrato socialtiene un valor analogo al ;ue dijimos tenia el mismo al tratar de las compaNias colectivas, aun
cuando respecto de las anonimas no ha#a de tenerse en cuenta para nada lo ;ue dijimos entoncesacerca de la trascendencia ;ue ello tiene para los socios@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#por;ue noe)istiendo en las anonimas la serie de responsibilidades de caracter personal ;ue afectan a lossocios colectivos, es claro ;ue la duracion de la sociedad importa conocerla a los socios # losterceros, por;ue ella marca al limite natural del desenvolvimiento de la empresa constituida # elcomien3o de la li;uidacion de la sociedad.S 60 enito, <erecho Mercantil, %%-%0.7
RInteresa, pues, la fijacion de la vida de la compaNia, desenvolviendose con normalidad #regularidad, tanto a los asociados como a los terceros. ! a;uellos, por;ue su libertad economica,en cierto modo limitada por la e)istencia del contrato de compaNia, se recobra despues dereali3ada, mas o menos cumplidamente, la finalidad comun perseguida@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar## a los terceros, por;ue les advierte el momento en ;ue, e)tinguida lacompaNia, no cabe # a la creacion con ella de nuevas relaciones juridicas, de ;ue na3canreciprocamente derechos # obligaciones, sino solo la li;uidacion de los negocios hasta entoncesconvenidos, sin otra e)cepcion ;ue la ;ue luego mas adelante habremos de seNalarS. 60 enito,<erecho Mercantil, p. %=.7
The 2tate and its officers also have an obvious interest in the term of life of associations, sincethe conferment of juridical capacit# upon them during such period is a privilege that is derivedfrom statute. It is obvious that no agreement between associates can result in giving rise to a newand distinct personalit#, possessing independent rights and obligations, unless the law itself shalldecree such result. !nd the 2tate is naturall# interested that this privilege be enjo#ed onl# under the conditions and not be#ond the period that it sees fit to grant@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and,
particularl#, that it be not abused in fraud and to the detriment of other parties@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#and for this reason it has been ruled that Rthe limitation 6of corporatee)istence7 to a definite period is an e)ercise of control in the interest of the publicS 62mith vs.(astwood >ire Manufacturing Co., 0 !tl. =1*7.
>e cannot assent to the thesis of enguet that its period of corporate e)istence has relation to itsRorgani3ationS. The latter term is defined in >ebsterUs International <ictionar#asGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
RThe e)ecutive structure of a business@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#the personnel of management,with its several duties and places in administration@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#the various persons who conduct a business, considered as a unit.S
The legal definitions of the term Rorgani3ationS are concordant with that givenaboveGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R4rgani3e or organi3ation,U as used in reference to corporations, has a well-understood meaning,which is the election of officers, providing for the subscription and pa#ment of the capital stoc/,the adoption of b#-laws, and such other steps as are necessar# to endow the legal entit# with thecapacit# to transact the legitimate business for which it was created. >altson vs. 4liver, 0+ ".&%, &0, an. &+, 00 !m. 2t. Bep. 0==@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#Tope/a ridge Co. vs.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 91/105
Cummings, 0 an. ==, @ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#Aunt vs. ansas E M. ridge Co., &&an. &%, 0@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#!spen >ater E ight Co., vs. Cit# of !spen, 0 ".%*, 0+, 1 Colo. !pp. &%@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#$emaha Coal E Mining Co., vs. 2ettle 0*". *0, *, = an. %.
?nder a statute providing that, until articles of incorporation should be recorded, the corporation
should transact no business e)cept its own organi3ation, it is held that the term Rorgani3ationSmeans simpl# the process of forming and arranging into suitable disposition the parties who areto act together in, and defining the objects of, the compound bod#, and that this process, evenwhen complete in all its parts, does not confer a franchise either valid or defective, but, on thecontrar#, it is onl# the act of the individuals, and something else must be done to secure thecorporate franchise. !bbott vs. 4maha 2melting E Befining Co. $eb. &1, %&.S 60+ >ordsand "hrases, p. %*%.7
It is apparent from the foregoing definitions that the term Rorgani3ationS relates merel# to thes#stemati3ation and orderl# arrangement of the internal and managerial affairs and organs of the Petitioner enguet, and has nothing to do with the prorogation of its corporate life.
From the double fact that the duration of its corporate life 6and juridical personalit#7 has evidentconnection with the Petitioner Us relations to the public, and that it bears none to the Petitioner Usorgani3ation and method of transacting business, we derive the conclusion that the prohibitioncontained in section &* of the Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &=7 against e)tension of corporatelife b# amendment of the original articles was designed and intended to appl# to RcompaNiasanonimasS that, li/e Petitioner enguet, were alread# e)isting at the passage of said law. Thisconclusion is reinforced b# the avowed polic# of the law to hasten the da# when compaNiasanonimas would be e)tinct, and replace them with the !merican t#pe of corporation 6Aarden vs.enguet Consolidated Mining Co., supra7, for the indefinite prorogation of the corporation life of sociedades anonimas would maintain the unnecessar# dualit# of organi3ational t#pes instead of reducing them to a single one@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and what is more, it would confer
upon these sociedades anonimas, whose obsolescence was sought, the advantageous privilege of perpetual e)istence that the new corporation could not possess.
4f course, the retroactive application of the limitations on the terms of corporate e)istence couldnot be made in violation of constitutional inhibitions speciall# those securing e;ual protection of the laws and prohibiting impairment of the obligation of contracts. It needs no argument to showthat if !ct $o. &= allowed e)isting compaNias anonimas to be governed b# the old law inrespect to their organi3ation, methods of transacting business and the rights of the membersamong themselves, it was precisel# in deference to the vested rights alread# ac;uired b# theentit# and its members at the time the Corporation aw was enacted. ut we do not agreewith Petitioner enguet 6and here lies the second issue in this appeal7 that the possibilit# toe)tend its corporate life under the Code of Commerce constituted a right alread# vested when
!ct $o. &= was adopted. !t that time, enguetUs e)istence was well within the =+ #ears periodset in its articles of association@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and its members had not entered intoan# agreement that such period should be e)tended. It is safe to sa# that none of the members of enguet anticipated in &+1 an# need to reach an agreement to increase the term of its corporatelife, barel# three #ears after it had started. The prorogation was purel# speculative@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#a mere possibilit# that could not be ta/en for granted. It was as #etconditional, depending upon the ultimate decision of the members and directors. The# mightagree to e)tend enguetUs e)istence be#ond the original =+ #ears@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#or
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 92/105
again the# might not. It must be remembered that in &+1, the success of enguet in its miningventures was b# no means so certain as to warrant continuation of its operations be#ond the =+#ears set in its articles. The records of this Court show that enguet ran into financial difficultiesin the earl# part of its e)istence, to the e)tent that, as late as &&0, ten #ears after it was found,0+&,&++ shares of its capital stoc/ 6with a par value of V& per share7 were being offered for sale
at %= centavos per share in order to raise the sum of "=,+++ that was needed to rehabilitate thecompan# 6Aanlon vs. Aausermann and eam, + "hil., 17. Certainl# the prolongation of thecorporate e)istence of enguet in &+1 was merel# a possibilit# in futuro, a contingenc# that didnot fulfill the re;uirements of a vested right entitled to constitutional protection, defined b# thisCourt in alboa vs. Farrales, =& "hil., *, =+%, as followsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R:ested right is some right or interest in the propert# which has become fi)ed and established,and is no longer open to doubt or controvers#,S
R! vestedU right is defined to be an immediate fi)ed right of present or future enjo#ment, andrights are vestedU in contradistinction to being e)pectant or contingentS 6"earsall vs. 8reat $orthern B. Co., &1& ?. 2. 11, + . (d. *0*7.
In Corpus 9uris 2ecundum we findGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#RBights are vested when the right to enjo#ment, present or prospective, has become the propert#of some particular person or persons as a present interest. The right must be absolute, complete,and unconditional, independent of a contingenc#, and a mere e)pectanc# of future benefit, or acontingent interest in propert# founded on anticipated continuance of e)isting laws, does notconstitute a vested right. 2o, inchoate rights which have not been acted on are not vested.S6&1 C.J. 2. %&-%&=.7
2ince there was no agreement as #et to e)tend the period of enguetUs corporate e)istence6be#ond the original =+ #ears7 when the Corporation aw was adopted in &+1, neither enguetnor its members had an# actual or vested right to such e)tension at that time. Therefore, when the
Corporation aw, b# section &*, forbade e)tensions of corporate life, neither enguet nor itsmembers were deprived of an# actual or fi)ed right constitutionall# protected.
To hold, as Petitioner enguet as/s, that the legislative power could not deprive enguet or itsmembers of the possibilit# to enter at some indefinite future time into an agreement to e)tendenguetUs corporate life, solel# because such agreements were authori3ed b# the Code of Commerce, would be tantamount to sa#ing that the said Code was irrepealable on that point. It isa well settled rule that no person has a vested interest in an# rule of law entitling him to insistthat it shall remain unchanged for his benefit. 6$ew Jor/ C. B. Co. vs. >hite, 1& . (d 6?.2.711@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#Mondou vs. $ew Jor/ $. A. E A. B. Co., =1 . (d. 0%@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#Baine# vs. ?. 2., =* . (d. 1&@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#ill# Co. vs.2aunders, &%= !B. &0+*@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#2hea vs. 4lson, &&& !B. *7.
RThere can be no vested right in the continued e)istence of a statute or rule of the common lawwhich precludes its change or repeal, nor in an# omission to legislate on a particular matter or subject. !n# right conferred b# statute ma# be ta/en awa# b# statute before it has become vested, but after a right has vested, repeal of the statute or ordinance which created the right does not andcannot affect much right.S 6&1 C.J. 2. %%%-%%0.7
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 93/105
It is a general rule of constitutional law that a person has no vested right in statutor# privilegesand e)emptionsS 6rearl# 2chool vs. >ard, %+& $J. 0=*, + B! $2. &%&=@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#also, Coole#, Constitutional imitations, th ed., p. =17.
It is not amiss to recall here that after !ct $o. &= the egislature found it advisable to impressfurther restrictions upon the power of corporations to deal in public lands, or to hold real estate
be#ond a ma)imum area@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and to prohibit an# corporation fromendeavouring to control or hold more than &= per cent of the voting stoc/ of an agricultural or mining corporation 6!ct $o. 0=&*7. These prohibitions are so closel# integrated with our public polic# that Commonwealth !ct $o. %& sought to e)tend such restrictions to associations of all/inds. It would be subversive of that polic# to enable enguet to prolong its peculiar status of sociedad anonimas, and enable it to cast doubt and uncertaint# on whether it is, or not, subject tothose restrictions on corporate power, as it once endeavoured to do in the previous case of Aarden vs. enguet Mining Corp. =* "hil., &.
2tress has been laid upon the fact that the CompaNia Maritima 6li/e enguet, a sociedad anonimaestablished before the enactment of the Corporation aw7 has been twice permitted to e)tend itscorporate e)istence b# amendment of its articles of association, without objection from theofficers of the defunct ureau of Commerce and Industr#, then in charge of the enforcement of the Corporation aws, although the e)act ;uestion was never raised then. e that as it ma#, it is awell established rule in this jurisdiction that the government is never estopped b# mista/e or error on the part of its agentsS 6"ineda vs. Court of First Instance of Ta#abas, =% "hil., *+0, *+7,and that estopped cannot give validit# to an act that is prohibited b# law or is against public polic# 6(ugenio vs. "erdido, 6 "hil., &, Ma# &, &==@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#& !m. 9ur.*+%7@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#so that the %espondent , 2ecurities and ()changeCommissioner, was not bound b# the rulings of his predecessor if the# be inconsistent with law.Much less could erroneous decisions of e)ecutive officers bind this Court and induce it tosanction an unwarranted interpretation or application of legal principles.
>e now turn to the third and last issue of this appeal, concerning the e)ercise of the optiongranted b# section = of the Corporation aw to ever# sociedad anonima Rformed, organi3ed ande)isting under the laws of the "hilippines on the date of the passage of this !ctS to either continue business as such sociedad anonima or to reform and organi3e under the provisions of the Corporation aw. Petitioner - Appellant enguet contends that as the law does not determinethe period within which such option ma# be e)ercised, enguet ma# e)ercise it at an# timeduring its corporate e)istence@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and that in fact on 9une %%, &=0, itchose to reform itself into a corporation for a period of =+ #ears from that date, filing thecorresponding papers and b#-laws with the %espondent Commissioner of 2ecurities and()change registration@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#but the latter refused to accept them as belatedl# made.
The Petitioner Us argument proceeds from the une)pressed assumption that enguet, as sociedadanonima, had not e)ercised the option given b# section = of the Corporation aw until &=0.This we find to be incorrect. ?nder that section, b# continuing to do business as sociedadanonima, enguet in fact rejected the alternative to reform as a corporation under !ct $o. &=.It will be noted from the te)t of section = 6;uoted earlier in this opinion7 that no special act or manifestation is re;uired b# the law from the e)isting sociedades anonimas that prefer to remainand continue as such. It is when the# choose to reform and organi3e under the Corporation awthat the# must, in the words of the section, Rtransfer all corporate interests to the new
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 94/105
corporationS. Aence if the# do not so transfer, the sociedades anonimas affected are to beunderstood to have elected the alternative Rto continue business as such corporationS 6sociedadanonima7 %
The election of enguet to remain a sociedad anonima after the enactment of the Corporationaw is evidence, not onl# b# its failure, from &+1 to &=0, to adopt the alternative to transfer its
corporate interests to a new corporation, as re;uired b# section =@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#italso appears from positive acts. Thus around &00, enguet claimed and defended in court itsac;uisition of shares of the capital stoc/ of the alatoc Mining Compan#, on the ground that as asociedad anonima it 6enguet7 was not a corporation within the purview of the laws prohibiting amining corporation from becoming interested in another mining corporation 6Aarden vs. enguetMining Corp., =* "hil., p. &7. (ven in the present proceedings, enguet has urged its right toamend its original articles of association as Rsociedad anonimaS and e)tend its life as such under the provisions of the 2panish Code of Commerce. 2uch appeals to privileges as RsociedadanonimaS under the Code of &**1 necessaril# impl# that enguet has rejected the alternative of reforming under the Corporation aw. !s %espondent CommissionerUs order, now under appeal,has stated H
R! sociedad anonima could not claim the benefit of both, but must have to choose one anddiscard the other. If it elected to become a corporation it could not continue as a sociedadanonima@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and if it choose to remain as a sociedad anonima, it couldnot become a corporation.S
Aaving thus made its choice, enguet ma# not now go bac/ and see/ to change its position andadopt the reformation that it had formerl# repudiated. The election of one of several alternativesis irrevocable once made 6as now e)pressl# recogni3ed in article + of the new Civil Code of the "hilippines7Gchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar# such rule is inherent in the nature of the choice, its purpose being to clarif# and render definite the rights of the one e)ercising the option, so thatother persons ma# act in conse;uence. >hile successive choices ma# be provided there is
nothing in section = of the Corporation aw to show or hint that a sociedad anonima ma# ma/emore than one choice thereunder, since onl# one option is provided for.
>hile no e)press period of time is fi)ed b# the law within which sociedades anonimas ma# electunder section = of !ct $o. &= either to reform or to retain their status ;uo, there are powerfulreasons to conclude that the legislature intended such choice to be made within a reasonable timefrom the effectivit# of the !ct. To enable a sociedad anonima to choose reformation when itsstipulated period of e)istence is nearl# ended, would be to allow it to enjo# a term of e)istencefar longer than that granted to corporations organi3ed under the Corporation aw@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#in enguetUs case, =+ #ears as sociedad anonima, and another =+ #ears asan !merican t#pe of corporation under !ct &=@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#a resultincompatible with the avowed purpose of the !ct to hasten the disappearance of the sociedades
anonimas. Moreover, such belated election, if permitted, would enable sociedades anonimas toreap the full advantage of both t#pes of organi3ation. Finall#, it would permit sociedadesanonimas to prolong their corporate e)istence indirectl# b# belated reformation into corporationsunder !ct $o. &=, when the# could not do so directl# b# amending their articles of association.
Much stress is laid upon allegedl# improper motives on the part of the intervenor, ConsolidatedMines, Inc., in supporting the orders appealed from, on the ground that intervenor see/s toterminate enguetUs operating contract and appropriate the profits that are the result of enguetUs
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 95/105
efforts in developing the mines of the intervenor. 2uffice it to sa# that whatever such motivesshould be, the# are wholl# irrelevant to the issues in this appeal, that e)clusivel# concern thelegal soundness of the order of the %espondent 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner rejectingthe claims of the enguet Consolidated Mining Compan# to e)tend its corporate life.
$either are we impressed b# the prophesies of economic chaos that would allegedl# ensure with
the cessation of enguetUs activities. If its mining properties are reall# susceptible of profitableoperation, ine)orable economic laws will ensure their e)ploitation@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#if,on the other hand, the# can no longer be wor/ed at a profit, then catastrophe becomes inevitable,whether or not Petitioner enguet retains corporate e)istence.
2ustaining the opinions of the %espondent 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner and of the2ecretar# of 9ustice, we rule thatGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
6&7 The prohibition contained in section &* of !ct $o. &=, against e)tending the period of corporate e)istence b# amendment of the original articles, was intended to appl#, and does appl#,to sociedades anonimas alread# formed, organi3ed and e)isting at the time of the effectivit# of the Corporation aw 6!ct $o. &=7 in &+1@
6%7 The statutor# prohibition is valid and impairs no vested rights or constitutional inhibitionwhere no agreement to e)tend the original period of corporate life was perfected before theenactment of the Corporation aw@
607 ! sociedad anonima, e)isting before the Corporation aw, that continues to do business assuch for a reasonable time after its enactments, is deemed to have made its election and ma# notsubse;uentl# claim to reform into a corporation under section = of !ct $o. &=.
In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed. Costs against Petitioner - Appellant enguet Consolidated Mining Compan#.
"/8==, #o(emor, Ree6, A. Lbr/or, Coce'c8o / E/ec8, JJ., cocr.
Se'r(e !'88o6
PARAS, C.J., dissenting:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Petitioner , enguet Consolidated Mining Compan#, was organi3ed as a sociedad anonimaon 9une %, &+0, under the provisions of the Code of Commerce, and its term as fi)ed in thearticles of association was fift# #ears. It has been a leading enterprise, long and widel# reputed tohave pioneered in and boosted the mining industr#, distributed profits among its shareholders,and given emplo#ment to thousands. To be more appro)imatel# e)act, the Petitioner has /ept onits pa#rolls over four thousand Filipino emplo#ees who have about twent# thousand dependents.The ta)es and other dues paid b# it to the 8overnment have been in enormous amounts. It has
alwa#s been subject to such supervision and control of 8overnment officials as are prescribed b#law.
>hen, therefore, the Petitioner on 9une 0, &=0, presented all necessar# documents tothe %espondent , the 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner, with a view to the e)tension of itsterm as a sociedad anonima for a period of fift# #ears from 9une &=, &=0@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#when on 9une %%, &=0, it filed with said %espondent the necessar# articlesof incorporation and other documents, with a view to reforming itself as a corporation under the
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 96/105
Corporation aw for a period of fift# #ears from 9une %%, &=0, followed b# the filing on 9ul#%%, &=0, of the corresponding b#-laws@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and when on 4ctober %,&=0, the %espondent issued an order den#ing the registration of the instruments as well for e)tension as for reformation, Petitioner Us corporate life was being snapped out with suchlightning abruptness as undoubtedl# to spell damage and prejudice not so much to its
shareholders as to its beneficiaries H thousands of emplo#ees and their dependents H and evento the 8overnment which stands to lose a good source of revenue.
The Petitioner contends 6&7 that the %espondent had the ministerial dut# of registering thedocuments presented either for e)tension of Petitioner Us term as a sociedad anonima or for itsreformation under the Corporation aw, in the absence 6as in this case7 of an# pretense that saiddocuments are formall# defective or that Petitioner Us purposes are unlawful@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#and 6%7 that as the Petitioner had organi3ed as a sociedad anonima under the Code of Commerce, it has ac;uired a vested right which cannot subse;uentl# be affected or ta/en awa# b# the Corporation aw enacted on !pril &, &+1. I would not dwell upon thesecontentions, because I hold that, even under the provisions of the Corporation aw,the Petitioner ma# either e)tend its life as a sociedad anonima or reform as a corporation.
2ection = of the Corporation aw providesGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R!n# corporation or sociedad anonima formed, organi3ed and e)isting under the laws of the"hilippine Islands and lawfull# transacting business in the "hilippine Islands on the date of the passage of this !ct, shall be subject to the provisions hereof so far as such provisions ma# beapplicable and shall be entitled at its option either to continue business as such corporation or toreform and organi3e under, and b# virtue of the provisions of this !ct, transferring all corporateinterests to the new corporation which, if a stoc/ corporation, is authori3ed to issue its shares of stoc/ at par to the stoc/holders or members of the old corporation according to their interests.S
?pon the other hand, section && reads as followsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
RThe Code of Commerce, in so far as it relates to corporations or sociedades anonimas, and allother or parts of !cts in conflict or inconsistent with this !ct, are hereb# repealed cralaw !nd provided, further, That e)isting corporations or sociedades anonimas lawfull# organi3ed as such,which elect to continue their business as such sociedades anonimas instead of reforming andreorgani3ing under and b# virtue of the provisions of this !ct, shall continue to be governed b#the laws that were in force prior to the passage of this !ct in relation to their organi3ation andmethod of transacting business and to the rights of members thereof as between themselves, buttheir relations to the public and public officials shall be governed b# the provisions of this !ct.S
It is noteworth# that section = has not limited the optional continuance of a sociedad anonima toits une)pired term, and section && e)pressl# allows a sociedad anonima which has elected tocontinue its business as such to be governed b# the laws in force prior to the enactment of the
Corporation aw in relation to its organi3ation and method of transacting business and to therights of members as between themselves. It is admitted that the Code of Commerce, whilecontaining no e)press provision allowing it, does not prohibit a sociedad anonima frome)tending its term@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and commentators 8a# de Montella 6Tratado"ractico de 2ociedad Marcantiles H CompaNias !nonimas, Tomo II, p. %*=7 and Cesar :ivante6Tratado de <erecho Mercantil, pp. %=, %=*7 have observed that a sociedad anonima ma# prolong its corporate duration b# amendment of its articles of association before the e)piration of the term.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 97/105
>hen a business or commercial association is organi3ed, the members are naturall# interested in/nowing not onl# their rights and obligations but also the duration of their legal relations. >hileRorgani3ationS in a strict sense ma# refer to formalities li/e election of officers, adoption of b#-laws, and subscription and pa#ment of capital stoc/, it cannot be spo/en of or conceived in awider sense without necessaril# involving the specification of the term of the entit# formed.
()tension of corporation life is thus essentiall# an incident of Rorgani3ationS and, in an# event, amatter directl# affecting or in relation to the rights of the shareholders as between themselves,within the contemplation of section &&, and should accordingl# be governed b# the Code of Commerce. !s pointed out b# the 2upreme Court of >#oming in the case of <rew vs. ec/with,6&& ". %d. *7, e)tension Rmerel# involves an additional privilege to carr# out the business of enterprise underta/en b# the corporation,S and is Rbut an enlargement of the enterpriseunderta/en b# the corporation.S It is true that the duration of a sociedad anonima is of someconcern to the public and public officials who ought to /now the time when it will cease to e)istand its business will be wound up. $otice to the world is however served b# the registrationof Petitioner Us articles of association as a sociedad anonima or articles of incorporation as areformed corporation with the 2ecurities and ()change Commission.
>hen section && mentions Rrelations to the public and public officialsS as being governed b#the provisions of the Corporation aw, the idea is obviousl# more to enable the 8overnment toenforce its powers of supervision, inspection and investigation, than to restrict the freedom of thecorporate entit# as to organi3ational or substantive rights of members as between themselves. Inone of the public hearings conducted b# the "hilippine Commission before the enactment of theCorporation aw, Commissioner Ide pertinentl# e)pressed, R4f course, whether the#6sociedades7 come under the new law or not the# would be subject to inspection, regulations, ande)amination for the purpose of protecting the communit#.S The !ttorne# 8eneral in turn heldthat sociedades anonimas, although governed b# the Code of Commerce, are subject to thee)amination provided in section = of the Corporation aw 6= 4p. !tt#. 8en. %7. In thisconnection, the Petitioner has admittedl# subjected itself to the provisions of the Corporation
aw.
In Aarden vs. enguet Consolidated Mining Co., =* "hil., &&, it wasremar/edGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar# RThe purpose of the commission in repealing this part of the Code of Commerce was to compel commercial entities thereafter organi3ed to incorporateunder the Corporation aw, unless the# should prefer to adopt some form or other of the partnership.S This Court alread# indicated that the commercial entities compelled to incorporateunder the Corporation aw were those organi3ed after its enactment.
2ection 1, subsection , of the Corporation aw provides that the term for which corporationsshall e)ist shall not e)ceed fift# #ears@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#section &* provides that thelife of a corporation shall not be e)tended b# amendment be#ond the time fi)ed in the original
articles@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and section && provides that upon the issuance b# the2ecurities and ()change Commissioner of the certificate of incorporation, the persons organi3ingthe corporation shall constitute a bod# politic and corporate for the term specified in the articlesof incorporation, not e)ceeding fift# #ears. The corporations contemplated are those defined insection %% H corporations organi3ed under the Corporation aw. The# cannot be sociedadesanonimas formed under the Code of Commerce and licensed to continue as such in virtue of sections = and &&. 4therwise the words Ror sociedad anonimaS would have been added to theterm RcorporationS in section &*, as was done in sections = and &&. ! similar observation was
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 98/105
made in Aarden vs. enguet Consolidated Mining Co., supraGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar# Rutwhen the word corporation is used in the sense of sociedad anonima and close discrimination isnecessar#, it should be associated with the 2panish e)pression sociedad anonima either in parenthesis or connected b# the word orU. This latter device was adopted in sections = and &&of the Corporation aw.S
The citation from 0 enito, <erecho Mercantil, p. %=, invo/ed in the majorit# decision, to theeffect that the duration of a sociedad anonima is of interest both to its members and to third persons, is clearl# an authorit# for our conclusions that the e)tension of Petitioner Us term is inrelation Rto the rights of members thereof as between themselves.S 2ection && does not sa# thata sociedad anonima shall be governed b# the provisions of the Corporation aw when the matter involved affects not onl# Rthe rights of members thereof as between themselvesS but also Rthe public and public officials.S
>e are also of the opinion that alternativel#, under section =, the Petitioner ma# elect to reformand organi3e under the Corporation aw, transferring all its corporate interests to the newcorporation. Contrar# to the ruling of the %espondent , we are convinced that, as no period wasfi)ed within which it should e)ercise the option either of continuing as a sociedad anonima or reforming and organi3ing under the Corporation aw, the Petitioner was entitled to have itsarticles of incorporation and b#-laws presented respectivel# on 9une %% and 9ul# %%, &=0,registered b# the %espondent . 2ection = did not ta/e awa# Petitioner Us right to e)haust its termas a sociedad anonima, alread# vested before the enactment of the Corporation aw, but merel#granted it the choice to organi3e as a regular corporation, instead of e)tending its life as asociedad anonima. The onl# limitation imposed is that prescribed in section &&, namel#, that if asociedad anonima elects to continue its business as such, it shall be governed b# the prior law inrelation to its organi3ation and method of transacting business and to the rights of its members as between themselves, and b# the provisions of the Corporation aw as to its relations to the public and public officials. If the intention were to fi) a period for reformation, the law wouldhave e)pressl# so provided, in the same wa# that section & fi)es two #ears during which acorporation should formall# organi3e and commence the transaction of its business, otherwise itscorporate powers would cease@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#section fi)es three #ears from thedissolution of a corporation within which it ma# clear and settle its affairs@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#and section * fi)es the same period of three #ears within which acorporation ma# conve# its properties to a trustee for the benefit of its stoc/holders and other interested persons.
It is not correct to argue that the Petitioner is not entitled to elect to continue as a sociedadanonima and at the same time reform and organi3e as a regular corporation, because when itcontinued as a sociedad anonima after the passage of the Corporation aw and during its fullterm of fift# #ears, it merel# e)ercised a right it theretofore had@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#and
the Petitioner can be said properl# to have availed itself of the other option onl# when in 9une&=0 it filed the necessar# papers of incorporation under the Corporation aw. It is li/ewise notaccurate to contend that, as the %espondent ruled, the Petitioner could reform as and be a regular corporation at most onl# for the remainder of its term as a sociedad anonima. 2ection =, inallowing a sociedad anonima to reform and organi3e under the Corporation aw, also authori3esthe transfer of its corporate interests to the new corporation. This RnewS corporation should havethe advantage of the prescribed ma)imum duration, regardless of the original term of the old or substituted entit#. There is no basis for the criticism that, if the Petitioner were allowed to e)haust
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 99/105
its full term as a sociedad anonima, and afterwards to reform as a regular corporation for another fift# #ears, it would have a span of life twice as long as that granted to corporations organi3edunder the Corporation aw. The simple reason is that the Petitioner was alread# a corporateentit# before the enactment of the Corporation aw, with a fi)ed duration under its originalarticles of association. It was clearl# not in parit# with an# corporation organi3ed under and
coming into e)istence after the effectivit# of the Corporation aw which has no choice on thematter and can therefore have onl# the prerogative granted b# said law, H no more no less.
The %espondent has suggested that the Petitioner , if desirous of continuing its business, ma#organi3e a new corporation H a suggestion which need not be made because no one would probabl# thin/ of den#ing it that right. ut we cannot see an# cogent reason or practical purposefor the suggestion. In the first place, the filing of Petitioner Us articles of incorporation and b#-laws in 9ul#, &=0, in effect amounted to the formation of a new corporation. To re;uire more isto give greater importance to form than to substance. In the second place, the public and publicofficials ma# not as a matter of fact be adversel# affected b# allowing the Petitioner to reform,instead of re;uiring it technicall# to form a new corporation. It will ac;uire no greater rights or obligations b# simple reformation than b# newl# organi3ing another corporation. Conversel#, the
public and public officials will ac;uire no greater benefit or control b# re;uiring the Petitioner toform a new corporation, than b# allowing it to reform. !nd as alread# stated, whatever interestthe public and public officials ma# have in determining the duration of a sociedad anonima or an# corporation for that matter, is ampl# protected b# registration in the 2ecurities and ()changeCommission.
The %espondent and the intervenor, Consolidated Mines, Inc., have tried to show thatthe Petitioner holds or owns interests in eight mining companies, in violation of section &0,subsection = of the Corporation aw, in that it has operating contracts with the intervenor andseven other mining companies, besides owning the majorit# shares in alatoc Mining Co. Thismatter has not merited an# attention or favorable comment in the majorit# decision, and rightl#of course. (ven so, we ma# observe that the alleged violation was not the subject of an# finding b# the %espondent , nor relied upon in his order of denial@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#thatthe Petitioner has denied the charge@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#that the holding b#the Petitioner of shares of stoc/ in alatoc Mining Co., if reall# illegal, ma# loo/ into onl# in a;uo warranto proceeding instituted b# the 8overnment@ chan roblesvirtualawlibrar#that at an#rate the Petitioner has alwa#s been read# and willing to dispose of said shares and, in a proper proceeding, it should be given reasonable time to do so, as this Court gave the "hilippine 2ugar (states a period of si) months after final decision within which to Rli;uidate, dissolve andseparate absolutel# in ever# respect and in all of its relations, complained of in the petition, withthe Ta#abas and Compan#S 68overnment vs. "hilippine 2ugar (states Co., 0* "hil., &=7.
>ith special reference to the intervenor, it ma# be of some moment to /now the antecedents and
nature of business relations e)isting between it and the Petitioner , at least to demonstrate therighteousness of the position of one or the other even from a factual point of view. The followinge)cerpts from R Petitioner Us Bepl# to a portion of IntervenorUs riefS are in pointGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R>hat has happened in our case is that prior to the e)ecution of the 4perating !greement of 9ul#, &0, the stoc/holders, directors, and officers of the intervenor, Consolidated Mines, Inc., didnot want to ris/ one centavo of their own funds for the development of their chrome ore miningclaims in ambales province, and proposed to the Petitioner herein, enguet Consolidated
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 100/105
Mining Compan#, to e)plore, develop and operate their mining claims, enguet to furnish all thefunds that might be necessar#, and to e)plore, develop, mine and concentrate and mar/et all the pa# are found on or within paid claims or propertiesU, the intervenor, Consolidated Mines, Inc.,and the Petitioner , enguet Consolidated Mining Compan#, after the latter had reimbursed itself for all its advances, to divide half and half the e)cess of receipts over disbursements. enguet
agreed to it, and advanced appro)imatel# three million pesos, one-half thereof before the war,and the other half after the war 6the intervenorUs properties having been destro#ed during thewar7. "aragraph LII of the intervenorUs complaint in the civil action instituted b# it againstenguet in the Court of First Instance of Manila, $o. &*0*, and to which counsel for theintervenor refer in page = of their brief, ma/es mention of the large sums of mone# that enguetadvanced, as followsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
Initial advances amounting to appro)imatel# "&,=++,+++ made b# efendant during the first phases of said 4perating !greement which had been full# reimbursed to it before the war, end of the amounts li/ewise advanced b# it 6enguet7 for rehabilitation amounting to close"&,=++,+++.++.U
R>hile enguet ris/ed and poured appro)imatel# three million pesos 6"0,+++,+++7 into theventure, and while enguet was loo/ing for, and establishing, a mar/et for intervenorUs chromeore, the intervenor, Consolidated Mines, Inc., considered the said 4perating !greement of 9ul# ,&0, as valid. $ow that enguetUs efforts have been crowned with success, and enguet hasestablished a mar/et for intervenorUs chrome ore, the intervenor claims that its said operating!greement of 9ul# , &0, with the Petitioner , enguet, is contrar# to law because enguet has become interested in intervenorUs chrome ore mining claims 6although the agreement e)pressl#states that enguet has no interest therein7, and objects to the registration of the documentswhich enguet filed with the %espondent 2ecurities and ()change Commissioner, e)tending itslife as a sociedad anonima, and reforming itself s a corporation, in accordance with the provisions of section = of the Corporation aw.
R?nder the foregoing facts, the intervenor, Consolidated Mines, Inc., cannot be heard tocomplain against enguet. $o court can give now a helping hand to the intervenor, which claimsthat enguet no longer lives, and wants to /eep for itself all the products of enguetUs effortsafter the latter ris/ed into the venture appro)imatel# three million pesos 6"0,+++,+++7.S
The foregoing considerations ma# not constitute a legal justification for ruling thatthe Petitioner should be allowed either to e)tend its life as a sociedad anonima or to reform andorgani3e under the provisions of the Corporation aw, but the# ma# aid in resolvingin Petitioner Us favor and doubt as to the clarit# or definiteness of sections = and && of theCorporation aw regarding its right to e)ercise either option in the manner claimed b# it.
The same result ma# be arrived at if, in addition, we bear in mind the possible economic harm
that ma# be brought about b# the affirmance of the order complained of. This aspect isade;uatel# touched in Petitioner Us brief, as followsGchanroblesvirtuallawlibrar#
R&. ! loss of emplo#ment in the aguio district b# about ,+++ Filipino and a loss of directliving from the enguet operation supplied to %+,+++, that is, the ,+++ emplo#ed and their dependents.
R6a7 This would be calamit# to the district of the highest order which could ver# well produce asnow balling depression which could react all over the "hilippine Islands.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 101/105
R%. osses of direct and indirect ta)es to the "hilippine 8overnment in an e)tremel# large #earl#amount.
R0. $o one would be able to continue the enguet and alatoc mines in operation should ali;uidation of enguet ta/e place because the net profits after labor and material costs and ta)esin the last two #ears or more from the gold mining operations have not warranted their continued
operation as independent units. The profits in &=0 certainl# do not warrant it. It is merel# a caseof ta/ing gold out of the ground in order to pa# for labor, materials and ta)es with ver# littlereturn to the stoc/holders and on the huge investment made in the reconstruction since &1.
R6a7 The relief provided b# the elimination of the & per cent ()cise Ta), the per centCompensating Ta) and the lowering of the ()traction Ta), when counter-balanced againstconsistentl# increasing costs from month to month up to this ver# month, is now nothing but anoffsetting item against constantl# increasing costs.S
For whatever persuasive effect it ma# have, we cannot help calling attention to the fact that thereare onl# about nine sociedades anonimas in the countr#, foremost among them being CompaNiaMaritima, which have e)isted for #ears and along with the Petitioner figured prominentl# in our
economic development. CompaNia Maritima, in particular, has been twice allowed to e)tend itslife b# amendment of its articles of incorporation. It ma# be argued that if there was an officialmista/e in acceding to the e)tension of the term of CompaNia Maritima, the same should notwarrant the commission of another mista/e. ut it will go to show that sections = and && of theCorporation aw are, on the points herein involved, of doubtful construction@ chanroblesvirtualawlibrar#and it is for this reason that we had to advert hereinabove to the somewhatune;uitable position of the intervenor and to the possible adverse effect on "hilippine econom#of the abrupt termination of Petitioner Us corporate e)istence.
# and large, it is m# considered opinion that the %espondent Us order of denial dated 4ctober %,&=0, should be reversed and the %espondent ordered to register at least the documents presented b# the Petitioner , reforming and organi3ing itself as a corporation under the provisions of the
Corporation aw. This would be in line with the polic# of doing awa# with sociedad anonimas,at the same time saving Rthe goose that la#s the golden egg.S
:o / (86( A:e=o, JJ., cocr.
G.R. No. 9321 Se'(ember 24, 1914
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 102/105
N!RER$! AS&NCI!N, E$ AL., petitioners-appellants,
vs.
#AN&EL DE YRIAR$E, respondent-appellee.
8odesto %eyes for appellants.
Attorney($eneral ;illamor for appellee.
#!RELAND, J.:
This is an action to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the chief of the division of achieves of
the ()ecutive ureau to file a certain articles of incorporation.
The chief of the division of archives, the respondent, refused to file the articles of incorporation,
hereinafter referred to, upon the ground that the object of the corporation, as stated in the articles,
was not lawful and that, in pursuance of section 1 of !ct $o. &=, the# were not registerable.
The proposed incorporators began an action in the Court of First Instance of the cit# of Manila to
compel the chief of the division of archives to receive and register said articles of incorporation
and to do an# and all acts necessar# for the complete incorporation of the persons named in the
articles. The court below found in favor of the defendant and refused to order the registration of
the articles mentioned, maintaining ad holding that the defendant, under the Corporation aw,
had authorit# to determine both the sufficienc# of the form of the articles and the legalit# of the
object of the proposed corporation. This appeal is ta/en from that judgment.
The first ;uestion that arises is whether or not the chief of the division of archives has authorit#,
under the Corporation for registration, to decide not onl# as to the sufficienc# of the form of the
articles, but also as to the lawfulness of the purpose of the proposed corporation.
It is strongl# urged on the part of the appellants that the duties of the defendant are purel#
ministerial and that he has no authorit# to pass upon the lawfulness of the object for which the
incorporators propose to organi3e. $o authorities are cited to support this proposition and we are
of the opinion that it is not sound.
2ection 1 of the Corporation aw reads in part as followsG
Five or more persons, not e)ceeding fifteen, a majorit# of whom are residents of the
"hilippine Islands, ma# form a private corporation for an# lawful purpose b# filing with
the division of archives, patents, cop#rights, and trademar/s if the ()ecutive ureau
articles of incorporation dul# e)ecuted and ac/nowledged before a notar# public, . . . .
2impl# because the duties of an official happens to be ministerial, it does not necessaril# follow
that he ma# not, in the administration of his office, determine ;uestions of law. >e are of the
opinion that it is the dut# of the division of archives, when articles of incorporation are presented
for registration, to determine whether the objects of the corporation as e)pressed in the articles
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 103/105
are lawful. >e do not believe that, simpl# because articles of incorporation presented foe
registration are perfect in form, the division of archives must accept and register them and issue
the corresponding certificate of incorporation no matter what the purpose of the corporation ma#
be as e)pressed in the articles. >e do not believe it was intended that the division of archives
should issue a certificate of incorporation to, and thereb# put the seal of approval of the
8overnment upon, a corporation which was organi3ed for base of immoral purposes. That suchcorporation might later, if it sought to carr# out such purposes, be dissolved, or its officials
imprisoned or itself heavil# fined furnished no reason wh# it should have been created in the first
instance. It seems to us to be not onl# the right but the dut# of the divisions of archives to
determine the lawfulness of the objects and purposes of the corporation before it issues a
certificate of incorporation.
It having determined that the division of archives, through its officials, has authorit# to determine
not onl# the sufficienc# as to form of the articles of incorporation offered for registration, but
also the lawfulness of the purposes of leads us to the determination of the ;uestion whether or
not the chief of the division of archives, who is the representative thereof and clothed b# it withauthorit# to deal subject to mandamus in the performance of his duties.
>e are of the opinion that he ma# be mandamused if he act in violation of law or if he refuses,
undul#, to compl# with the law. >hile we have held that defendant has power to pass upon the
lawfulness of the purposes of the proposed corporation and that he ma#, in the fulfillment of his
duties, determine the ;uestion of law whether or not those purposes are lawful and embraced
within that class concerning which the law permits corporations to be formed, that does not
necessaril# mean, as we have alread# intimated, that his duties are not ministerial. 4n the
contrar#, there is no incompatibilit# in holding, as we do hold, that his duties are ministerial and
that he has no authorit# to e)ercise discretion in receiving and registering articles of
incorporation. Ae ma# e)ercise judgment H that is, the judicial function H in the determinationof the ;uestion of law referred to, but he ma# not use discretion. The ;uestion whether or not the
objects of a proposed corporation are lawful is one that can be decided one wa# onl#. If he err in
the determination of that ;uestion and refuse to file articles which should be filed under the law,
the decision is subject to review and correction and, upon proper showing, he will be ordered to
file the articles. This is the same /ind of determination which a court ma/es when it decides a
case upon the merits, the court ma/es when it decides a case upon the merits. >hen a case is
presented to a court upon the merits, the court can decide onl# one wa# and be right. !s a matter
of law, there is onl# one wa# and be right. !s a matter of law, there is onl# one course to pursue.
In a case where the court or other official has discretion in the resolution of a ;uestion, then,
within certain limitations, he ma# decide the ;uestion either wa# and still be right. <iscretion, itma# be said generall#, is a facult# conferred upon a court or other official b# which he ma#
decide a ;uestion either wa# and still be right. The power conferred upon the division of archives
with respect to the registration of articles of incorporation is not of that character. It is of the
same character as the determination of a lawsuit b# a court upon the merits. It can be decided
onl# one wa# correctl#.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 104/105
If, therefore, the defendant erred in determining the ;uestion presented when the articles were
offered for registration, then that error will be corrected b# this court in this action and he will be
compelled to register the articles as offered. If, however, he did not commit an error, but decided
that ;uestion correctl#, then, of course, his action will be affirmed to the e)tent that we will den#
the relief pra#ed for.
The ne)t ;uestion leads us to the determination of whether or not the purposes of the corporation
as stated in the articles of incorporation are lawful within the meaning of the Corporation aw.
The purpose of the incorporation as stated in the articles isG 5That the object of the corporation is
6a7 to organi3e and regulate the management, disposition, administration and control which the
barrio of "ulo or 2an Miguel or its inhabitants or residents have over the common propert# of
said residents or inhabitants or propert# belonging to the whole barrio as such@ and 6 /7 to use the
natural products of the said propert# for institutions, foundations, and charitable wor/s of
common utilit# and advantage to the barrio or its inhabitants.5
The municipalit# of "asig as recogni3ed b# law contains within its limits several barrios or small
settlements, li/e "ulo or 2an Miguel, which have no local government of their own but are
governed b# the municipalit# of "asig through its municipal president and council. The president
and members of the municipal council are elected b# a general vote of the municipalit#, the
;ualified electors of all the barrios having the right to participate.
The municipalit# of "asig is a municipal corporation organi3ed b# law. It has the control of all
propert# of the municipalit#. The various barrios of the municipalit# have no right to own or hold
propert#, the# not being recogni3ed as legal entities b# an# law. The residents of the barrios
participate in the advantages which accrue to the municipalit# from public propert# and receive
all the benefits incident to residence in a municipalit# organi3ed b# law. If there is an# public propert# situated in the barrio of "ulo or 2an Miguel not belonging to the general government or
the province, it belongs to the municipalit# of "asig and the sole authorit# to manage and
administer the same resides in that municipalit#. ?ntil the present laws upon the subject are
charged no other entit# can be the owner of such propert# or control or administer it.
The object of the proposed corporation, as appears from the articles offered for registration, is to
ma/e of the barrio of "ulo or 2an Miguel a corporation which will become the owner of and
have the right to control and administer an# propert# belonging to the municipalit# of "asig
found within the limits of that barrio. This clearl# cannot be permitted. 4therwise municipalities
as now established b# law could be deprived of the propert# which the# now own andadminister. (ach barrio of the municipalit# would become under the scheme proposed, a separate
corporation, would ta/e over the ownership, administration, and control of that portion of the
municipal territor# within its limits. This would disrupt, in a sense, the municipalities of the
Islands b# dividing them into a series of smaller municipalities entirel# independent of the
original municipalit#.
7/23/2019 Corporation Cases 3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corporation-cases-3 105/105
>hat the law does not permit cannot be obtained b# indirection. The object of the proposed
corporation is clearl# repugnant to the provisions of the Municipal Code and the governments of
municipalities as the# have been organi3ed thereunder. 6!ct $o. *%, "hilippine Commission.7
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.