Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23145
FERNANDO, J.:
Confronted by an obstinate and adamant refusal of the domiciliary
administrator, the County Trust Company of New York, United
States of America, of the estate of the deceased Idonah Slade
Perkins, who died in New York City on March 27, 1960, to
surrender to the ancillary administrator in the Philippines the stock
certificates owned by her in a Philippine corporation, Benguet
Consolidated, Inc., to satisfy the legitimate claims of local
creditors, the lower court, then presided by the Honorable Arsenio
Santos, now retired, issued on May 18, 1964, an order of this
tenor: "After considering the motion of the ancillary administrator,
dated February 11, 1964, as well as the opposition filed by the
Benguet Consolidated, Inc., the Court hereby (1) considers as lost
for all purposes in connection with the administration and
liquidation of the Philippine estate of Idonah Slade Perkins the
stock certificates covering the 33,002 shares of stock standing in
her name in the books of the Benguet Consolidated, Inc., (2)
orders said certificates cancelled, and (3) directs said corporation
to issue new certificates in lieu thereof, the same to be delivered
by said corporation to either the incumbent ancillary administrator
or to the Probate Division of this Court."1
From such an order, an appeal was taken to this Court not by the
domiciliary administrator, the County Trust Company of New York,
but by the Philippine corporation, the Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
The appeal cannot possibly prosper. The challenged order
represents a response and expresses a policy, to paraphrase
Frankfurter, arising out of a specific problem, addressed to the
attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies, with
full and ample support from legal doctrines of weight and
significance.
The facts will explain why. As set forth in the brief of appellant
Benguet Consolidated, Inc., Idonah Slade Perkins, who died on
March 27, 1960 in New York City, left among others, two stock
certificates covering 33,002 shares of appellant, the certificates
being in the possession of the County Trust Company of New
York, which as noted, is the domiciliary administrator of the estate
of the deceased.2 Then came this portion of the appellant's brief:
"On August 12, 1960, Prospero Sanidad instituted ancillary
administration proceedings in the Court of First Instance of
Manila; Lazaro A. Marquez was appointed ancillary administrator,
and on January 22, 1963, he was substituted by the appellee
Renato D. Tayag. A dispute arose between the domiciary
administrator in New York and the ancillary administrator in the
Philippines as to which of them was entitled to the possession of
the stock certificates in question. On January 27, 1964, the Court
of First Instance of Manila ordered the domiciliary administrator,
County Trust Company, to "produce and deposit" them with the
ancillary administrator or with the Clerk of Court. The domiciliary
administrator did not comply with the order, and on February 11,
1964, the ancillary administrator petitioned the court to "issue an
order declaring the certificate or certificates of stocks covering the
33,002 shares issued in the name of Idonah Slade Perkins by
Benguet Consolidated, Inc., be declared [or] considered as lost."3
It appears that on May 1, 1953, Ang Pue and Tan Siong, both
Chinese citizens, organized the partnership Ang Pue & Company
for a term of five years from May 1, 1953, extendible by their
mutual consent. The purpose of the partnership was "to maintain
the business of general merchandising, buying and selling at
The appellate court had ruled that the SEC had both jurisdiction
and authority to look into the decision of the petitioner PSE,
pursuant to Section 3 3 of the Revised Securities Act in relation to
Section 6(j) and 6(m) 4 of P.D. No. 902-A, and Section 38(b) 5 of
the Revised Securities Act, and for the purpose of ensuring fair
administration of the exchange. Both as a corporation and as a
stock exchange, the petitioner is subject to public respondent's
jurisdiction, regulation and control. Accepting the argument that
the public respondent has the authority merely to supervise or
regulate, would amount to serious consequences, considering
that the petitioner is a stock exchange whose business is
impressed with public interest. Abuse is not remote if the public
respondent is left without any system of control. If the securities
act vested the public respondent with jurisdiction and control over
all corporations; the power to authorize the establishment of stock
exchanges; the right to supervise and regulate the same; and the
power to alter and supplement rules of the exchange in the listing
or delisting of securities, then the law certainly granted to the
public respondent the plenary authority over the petitioner; and
the power of review necessarily comes within its authority.
All in all, the court held that PALI complied with all the
requirements for public listing, affirming the SEC's ruling to the
effect that:
. . . the Philippine Stock Exchange has acted
in an arbitrary and abusive manner in
disapproving the application of PALI for listing
of its shares in the face of the following
considerations:
1. PALI has clearly and admittedly complied
with the Listing Rules and full disclosure
requirements of the Exchange;
2. In applying its clear and reasonable
standards on the suitability for listing of
shares, PSE has failed to justify why it acted
differently on the application of PALI, as
compared to the IPOs of other companies
similarly situated that were allowed listing in
the Exchange;
3. It appears that the claims and issues on
the title to PALI's properties were even less
serious than the claims against the assets of
the other companies in that, the assertions of
the Marcoses that they are owners of the
disputed properties were not substantiated
enough to overcome the strength of a title to
properties issued under the Torrens System
as evidence of ownership thereof;
4. No action has been filed in any court of
competent jurisdiction seeking to nullify
PALI's ownership over the disputed
properties, neither has the government
instituted recovery proceedings against these
properties. Yet the import of PSE's decision in
denying PALI's application is that it would be
PALI, not the Marcoses, that must go to court
to prove the legality of its ownership on these
properties before its shares can be listed.
In addition, the argument that the PALI properties belong to the
Military/Naval Reservation does not inspire belief. The point is,
the PALI properties are now titled. A property losses its public
character the moment it is covered by a title. As a matter of fact,
the titles have long been settled by a final judgment; and the final
decree having been registered, they can no longer be re-opened
considering that the one year period has already passed. Lastly,
the determination of what standard to apply in allowing PALI's
application for listing, whether the discretion method or the
system of public disclosure adhered to by the SEC, should be
addressed to the Securities Commission, it being the government
agency that exercises both supervisory and regulatory authority
over all corporations.
On August 15, 19961 the PSE, after it was granted an extension,
filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, taking exception
to the rulings of the SEC and the Court of Appeals. Respondent
PALI filed its Comment to the petition on October 17, 1996. On
the same date, the PCGG filed a Motion for Leave to file a
Petition for Intervention. This was followed up by the PCGG's
Petition for Intervention on October 21, 1996. A supplemental
Comment was filed by PALI on October 25, 1997. The Office of
the Solicitor General, representing the SEC and the Court of
Appeals, likewise filed its Comment on December 26, 1996. In
answer to the PCGG's motion for leave to file petition for
intervention, PALI filed its Comment thereto on January 17, 1997,
whereas the PSE filed its own Comment on January 20, 1997.
On February 25, 1996, the PSE filed its Consolidated Reply to the
comments of respondent PALI (October 17, 1996) and the
Solicitor General (December 26, 1996). On May 16, 1997, PALI
filed its Rejoinder to the said consolidated reply of PSE.
PSE submits that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
SEC had authority to order the PSE to list the shares of PALI in
the stock exchange. Under presidential decree No. 902-A, the
powers of the SEC over stock exchanges are more limited as
compared to its authority over ordinary corporations. In
connection with this, the powers of the SEC over stock exchanges
under the Revised Securities Act are specifically enumerated, and
these do not include the power to reverse the decisions of the
stock exchange. Authorities are in abundance even in the United
States, from which the country's security policies are patterned, to
the effect of giving the Securities Commission less control over
stock exchanges, which in turn are given more lee-way in making
the decision whether or not to allow corporations to offer their
stock to the public through the stock exchange. This is in accord
with the "business judgment rule" whereby the SEC and the
courts are barred from intruding into business judgments of
corporations, when the same are made in good faith. the said rule
precludes the reversal of the decision of the PSE to deny PALI's
listing application, absent a showing of bad faith on the part of the
PSE. Under the listing rules of the PSE, to which PALI had
previously agreed to comply, the PSE retains the discretion to
accept or reject applications for listing. Thus, even if an issuer has
complied with the PSE listing rules and requirements, PSE retains
the discretion to accept or reject the issuer's listing application if
the PSE determines that the listing shall not serve the interests of
the investing public.
Moreover, PSE argues that the SEC has no jurisdiction over
sequestered corporations, nor with corporations whose properties
are under sequestration. A reading of Republic of the Philippines
vs. Sadiganbayan, G.R. No. 105205, 240 SCRA 376, would
reveal that the properties of PALI, which were derived from the
Ternate Development Corporation (TDC) and the Monte del Sol
Development Corporation (MSDC). are under sequestration by
the PCGG, and subject of forfeiture proceedings in the
Sandiganbayan. This ruling of the Court is the "law of the case"
between the Republic and TDC and MSDC. It categorically
obtained a judgment against him from the trial court and the said
judgment has long been final and executory.
GANCAYCO, J.:
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-67626 April 18, 1989
JOSE REMO, JR., petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and E.B.
MARCHA TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., represented by
APIFANIO B. MARCHA, respondents.
Orbos, Cabusora, Dumlao & Sta. Ana for petitioner.
SYLLABUS
1. COMMERCIAL LAW; CORPORATION; DEFINED. A
corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its
stockholders. While not in fact and in reality a person, the law
treats a corporation as though it were a person by process of
fiction or by regarding it as an artificial person distinct and
separate
from
its
individual
stockholders.
2. ID.; ID.; INSTANCES WHEN CORPORATE FICTION MAY BE
DISREGARDED. The corporate fiction or the notion of legal
entity may be disregarded when it "is used to defeat public
convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime" in
which instances "the law will regard the corporation as an
association of persons, or in case of two corporations, will merge
them into one." The corporate fiction may also be disregarded
when it is the "mere alter ego or business conduit of a person."
There are many occasions when this Court pierced the corporate
veil because of its use to protect fraud and to justify wrong.
3. ID.; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS; PROMISSORY NOTE;
PERSON NOT A SIGNATORY THERETO CANNOT BE BOUND
THEREBY. The promissory note was signed by Coprada to
guarantee the payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase
price out of the proceeds of a loan he supposedly sought from the
DBP. The word "WE" in the said promissory note must refer to the
corporation which Coprada represented in the execution of the
note and not its stockholders or directors. Petitioner did not sign
the said promissory note so he cannot be personally bound
thereby.
4. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; CHATTEL MORTGAGE; HAS A
PRIOR LIEN AGAINST THE PACTO DE RETRO SALE. The
sale of the two units are not inherently fraudulent as the 13 units
were sold through a deed of absolute sale to Akron so that the
corporation is free to dispose of the same. Of course, it was
stipulated that in case of default in payment to private respondent
of the balance of the consideration, a chattel mortgage lien shall
be constituted on the 13 units. Nevertheless, said mortgage is a
prior lien as against the pacto de retro sale of the 2 units.
5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FRAUD; MUST BE
ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. If
the private respondent is the victim of fraud in this transaction, it
has not been clearly shown that petitioner had any part or
participation in the perpetration of the same. Fraud must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. If at all, the
principal character on whom fault should be attributed is Feliciano
Coprada, the President of Akron, whom private respondent dealt
with personally all through out. Fortunately, private respondent
the understanding between Mrs. Gruenberg and plaintiffappellant that the Transfer of Rights/Deed of Assignment will
be signed only upon receipt of cash payment; thus they
agreed that if the payment be in check, they will meet at a
bank designated by plaintiff-appellant where they will encash
the check and sign the Transfer of Rights/Deed. However,
plaintiff-appellant informed Mrs. Gruenberg of the alleged
availability of the check, by phone, only after banking hours.
On the basis of the evidence, the court a quo rendered the
judgment appealed from[,] dismissing plaintiff-appellant's
complaint, ruling that:
The issue to be resolved is: whether plaintiff had
the right to compel defendants to execute a deed
of absolute sale in accordance with the agreement
of February 14, 1989: and if so, whether plaintiff is
entitled to damage.
As to the first question, there is no evidence to
show that defendant Nenita Lee Gruenberg was
indeed authorized by defendant corporation.
Motorich Sales, to dispose of that property
covered by T.C.T. No. (362909) 2876. Since the
property is clearly owned by the corporation.
Motorich Sales, then its disposition should be
governed by the requirement laid down in Sec. 40.
of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, to wit:
Sec. 40, Sale or other disposition of assets.
Subject to the provisions of existing laws on
illegal combination and monopolies, a
corporation may by a majority vote of its board
of directors . . . sell, lease, exchange,
mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of all or
substantially all of its property and assets
including its goodwill . . . when authorized by
the vote of the stockholders representing at
least two third (2/3) of the outstanding capital
stock . . .
No such vote was obtained by defendant
Nenita Lee Gruenberg for that proposed
sale[;] neither was there evidence to show
that the supposed transaction was ratified
by the corporation. Plaintiff should have
been on the look out under these
circumstances. More so, plaintiff himself
[owns] several corporations (tsn dated
August 16, 1993, p. 3) which makes him
knowledgeable on corporation matters.
Regarding the question of damages, the
Court likewise, does not find substantial
evidence to hold defendant Nenita Lee
Gruenberg liable considering that she did
not in anyway misrepresent herself to be
authorized by the corporation to sell the
property to plaintiff (tsn dated September
27, 1991, p. 8).
In the light of the foregoing, the
Court hereby renders judgment
DISMISSING the complaint at
instance for lack of merit.
[SG
D.]
[SG
D.]
the
the
the
21,
the
TRANSFEROR TRANSFEREE
[SGD.] [SGD.]
person that she had the authority, to sell its land or to receive the
earnest money. Neither was there any proof that Motorich ratified,
expressly or impliedly, the contract. Petitioner rests its argument
on the receipt which, however, does not prove the fact of
ratification. The document is a hand-written one, not a corporate
receipt, and it bears only Nenita Gruenberg's signature. Certainly,
this document alone does not prove that her acts were authorized
or ratified by Motorich.
Thus, the Court has consistently ruled that "[w]hen the fiction is
used as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as
vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention
of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or
generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which
the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or
stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its
consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals." 33
Art. 1318 of the Civil Code lists the requisites of a valid and
perfected contract: "(1) consent of the contracting parties; (2)
object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3)
cause of the obligation which is established." As found by the trial
court 21 and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 22 there is no
evidence that Gruenberg was authorized to enter into the contract
of sale, or that the said contract was ratified by Motorich. This
factual finding of the two courts is binding on this Court. 23 As the
consent of the seller was not obtained, no contract to bind the
obligor was perfected. Therefore, there can be no valid contract of
sale between petitioner and Motorich.
Second
Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Justified
Issue:
EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 84132-33 : December 10, 1990.]
192 SCRA 257
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND NEW AGRIX,
INC., Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, THE EXOFFICIO SHERIFF and GODOFREDO QUILING, in his
capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Calamba, Laguna,
Respondents.
DECISION
CRUZ, J.:
Applying these criteria to the case at bar, the Court finds first of all
that the interests of the public are not sufficiently involved to
warrant the interference of the government with the private
contracts of AGRIX. The decree speaks vaguely of the "public,
particularly the small investors," who would be prejudiced if the
corporation were not to be assisted. However, the record does not
state how many there are of such investors, and who they are,
and why they are being preferred to the private respondent and
other creditors of AGRIX with vested property rights.:-cralaw
On top of all this, New Agrix, Inc. was created by special decree
notwithstanding the provision of Article XIV, Section 4 of the 1973
Constitution, then in force, that:
The Court also feels that the decree impairs the obligation of the
contract between AGRIX and the private respondent without
justification. While it is true that the police power is superior to the
impairment clause, the principle will apply only where the contract
is so related to the public welfare that it will be considered
congenitally susceptible to change by the legislature in the
interest of the greater number. 5 Most present-day contracts are
of that nature. But as already observed, the contracts of loan and
mortgage executed by AGRIX are purely private transactions and
have not been shown to be affected with public interest. There
was therefore no warrant to amend their provisions and deprive
the private respondent of its vested property rights.
It is worth noting that only recently in the case of the Development
Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, 6 we sustained the preference in
payment of a mortgage creditor as against the argument that the
claims of laborers should take precedence over all other claims,
including those of the government. In arriving at this ruling, the
Court recognized the mortgage lien as a property right protected
by the due process and contract clauses notwithstanding the
20. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. The Philippine Legislature made up entirely
of Filipinos, representing the mandate of the Filipino people and
the guardian of their rights, acting under practically autonomous
powers, and imbued with a strong sense of Philippinism, has
desired for these Islands safety from foreign interlopers, the use
of the common property exclusively by its citizens and the citizens
of the United States, and protection for the common good of the
people.
21. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. Act No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature,
limiting certificates of the Philippine registry to vessels of domestic
ownership vested in some one or more of the following classes of
persons: (a) citizens or native inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands; (b) citizens of the United States residing in the Philippine
Islands; (c) any corporation or company composed wholly of
citizens of the Philippine Islands or of the United States or both, is
authorized by the Act of Congress of April 29, 1908, with its
specific delegation of authority to the Government of the
Philippine Islands to regulate the transportation of merchandise
and passengers between ports or places therein, and by the grant
by the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, of general legislative
power to the Philippine Legislature.
22. ID.; ID, ID.; ID. While the plaintiff, a corporation having
alien stockholders, is entitled to the protection afforded by the due
process of law and equal protection of the laws clause of the
Philippine Bill of Rights, yet Act No. 2761, in denying to
corporations such as the plaintiff the right to register vessels in
the Philippine coastwise trade, does not belong to that vicious
species of class legislation which must always be condemned, but
falls within authorized exceptions, notably, within the purview of
the police power.
23. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. Act No. 2761 does not violate the
provisions of paragraph 1 of section 3 of the Act of Congress of
August 29, 1916, providing "that no law shall be enacted in said
Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the
equal protection of the laws."cralaw virtua1aw library
24. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. Act No. 2761 is held to be valid and
constitutional.
MALCOLM, J.:
A writ of mandamus is prayed for by Smith, Bell & Co. (Ltd.),
against Joaquin Natividad, Collector of Customs of the port of
Cebu, Philippine Islands, to compel him to issue a certificate of
Philippine registry to the petitioner for its motor vessel Bato. The
Attorney-General, acting as counsel for respondent, demurs to
the petition on the general ground that it does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. While the facts are thus
admitted, and while, moreover, the pertinent provisions of law are
clear and understandable, and interpretative American
jurisprudence is found in abundance, yet the issue submitted is
not lightly to be resolved. The question, flatly presented, is,
whether Act. No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature is valid or,
more directly stated, whether the Government of the Philippine
Islands, through its Legislature, can deny the registry of vessels in
its coastwise trade to corporations having alien stockholders.
FACTS.
Smith, Bell & Co., (Ltd.), is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippine Islands. A majority of its
stockholders are British subjects. It is the owner of a motor vessel
known as the Bato built for it in the Philippine Islands in 1916, of
more than fifteen tons gross The Bato was brought to Cebu in the
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Upon application of the officers of the government named on the
margin1 hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Prosecutors
several judges2 hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges
issued, on different dates,3 a total of 42 search warrants
against petitioners herein4 and/or the corporations of which they
were officers,5 directed to the any peace officer, to search the
persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices,
warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession
of the following personal property to wit:
In fact, over thirty (30) years before, the Federal Supreme Court
had already declared:
If letters and private documents can thus be seized and
held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of
an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment,
declaring his rights to be secure against such searches
and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus
placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from
the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their
officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy
as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those
great principles established by years of endeavor and
suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in
the fundamental law of the land.19
This view was, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in
subsequent decisions on the same Federal Court. 20 After
reviewing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in Mapp
vs. Ohio (supra.):
. . . Today we once again examine the Wolf's
constitutional documentation of the right of privacy free
from unreasonable state intrusion, and after its dozen
years on our books, are led by it to close the only
courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by
official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right,
reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against
that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all
evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation
of the Constitution is, by that same authority,
inadmissible in a State.
Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has
been declared enforceable against the States through
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is
enforceable against them by the same sanction of
exclusion as it used against the Federal Government.
Were it otherwise, then just as without the Weeks rule
the assurance against unreasonable federal searches
and seizures would be "a form of words," valueless and
underserving of mention in a perpetual charter of
inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule
the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be
so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its
conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish
means of coercing evidence as not to permit this
Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty." At the time that the Court
held in Wolf that the amendment was applicable to the
States through the Due Process Clause, the cases of
this Court as we have seen, had steadfastly held that
as to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included
the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation of its
provisions. Even Wolf "stoutly adhered" to that
proposition. The right to when conceded operatively
enforceable against the States, was not susceptible of
destruction by avulsion of the sanction upon which its
protection and enjoyment had always been deemed
dependent under the Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne
Cases. Therefore, in extending the substantive
Upon the other hand, we are not satisfied that the allegations of
said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the contents of
the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in
support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or
conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the
petitioners; to warrant application of the views therein expressed,
should we agree thereto. At any rate, we do not deem it
necessary to express our opinion thereon, it being best to leave
the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the
future.
We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado
case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the warrants for
the search of three (3) residences of herein petitioners, as
specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are null and void;
that the searches and seizures therein made are illegal; that the
writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection with
the documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said
residences of herein petitioners is hereby made permanent; that
the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers
and other effects so seized in the aforementioned residences are
concerned; that the aforementioned motion for Reconsideration
and Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that the
petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for denied, as
regards the documents, papers and other effects seized in the
twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other premises enumerated
in the same Resolution, without special pronouncement as to
costs.
It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and
Sanchez, JJ., concur.
CASTRO, J., concurring and dissenting:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-32409. February 27, 1971.]
BACHE & CO. (PHIL.), INC. and FREDERICK E. SEGGERMAN,
Petitioners, v. HON. JUDGE VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, MISAEL P.
VERA, in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
ARTURO LOGRONIO, RODOLFO DE LEON, GAVINO
VELASQUEZ, MIMIR DELLOSA, NICANOR ALCORDO, JOHN
DOE, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE, and JOHN DOE, Respondents.
San Juan, Africa, Gonzales & San Agustin, for Petitioners.
Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General
Crispin V . Bautista, Solicitor Pedro A. Ramirez and Special
Attorney Jaime M. Maza for Respondents.
DECISION
VILLAMOR, J.:
be granted
virtual
to
for the
1aw
personally
following
library
examine
the
The description does not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec. 1, of
the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to
be seized.
In Stonehill, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Chief Justice Roberto
Concepcion, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for
the contested search warrants was compounded by the
description therein made of the effects to be searched for and
seized,
to
wit:chanrob1es
virtual
1aw
library
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents and/or paper showing all
business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance
sheets and related profit and loss statements.
"Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of
records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners
herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or
illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the
petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their
nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill
of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described
as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination
of general warrants."cralaw virtua1aw library
While the term "all business transactions" does not appear in
Search Warrant No. 2-M-70, the said warrant nevertheless tends
to defeat the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the
elimination of general warrants, for the language used therein is
so all-embracing as to include all conceivable records of petitioner
corporation, which, if seized, could possibly render its business
inoperative.
In Uy Kheytin, Et. Al. v. Villareal, etc., Et Al., 42 Phil. 886, 896, this
Court had occasion to explain the purpose of the requirement that
the warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched
and the things to be seized, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Both the Jones Law (sec. 3) and General Orders No. 58 (sec.
97) specifically require that a search warrant should particularly
describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the
things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described
in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that
unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made, that
abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct
interpretation of this constitutional provision is borne out by
American authorities."cralaw virtua1aw library
The purpose as thus explained could, surely and effectively, be
defeated under the search warrant issued in this case.
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to
be seized when the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow (People v. Rubio; 57 Phil. 384);
or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of
law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the
search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos, J.,); or when
the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation
to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2, Rule
126, Revised Rules of Court). The herein search warrant does not
conform to any of the foregoing tests. If the articles desired to be
seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the
applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those
articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of
search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen
such evidence. In this event, the description contained in the
herein disputed warrant should have mentioned, at least, the
dates, amounts, persons, and other pertinent data regarding the
receipts of payments, certificates of stocks and securities,
contracts, promissory notes, deeds of sale, messages and
communications, checks, bank deposits and withdrawals, records
of foreign remittances, among others, enumerated in the warrant.
Respondents contend that certiorari does not lie because
petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of respondent
Judges order of July 29, 1970. The contention is without merit. In
the first place, when the questions raised before this Court are the
same as those which were squarely raised in and passed upon by
the court below, the filing of a motion for reconsideration in said
court before certiorari can be instituted in this Court is no longer a
prerequisite. (Pajo, etc., Et. Al. v. Ago, Et Al., 108 Phil., 905). In
the second place, the rule requiring the filing of a motion for
reconsideration before an application for a writ of certiorari can be
entertained was never intended to be applied without considering
the circumstances. (Matutina v. Buslon, Et Al., 109 Phil., 140.) In
the case at bar time is of the essence in view of the tax
assessments sought to be enforced by respondent officers of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue against petitioner corporation, On
account of which immediate and more direct action becomes
necessary. (Matute v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 26 SCRA 768.)
Lastly, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the
deprivation of petitioners fundamental right to due process taints
the proceeding against them in the court below not only with
irregularity but also with nullity. (Matute v. Court of Appeals, Et Al.,
supra.)
It is next contended by respondents that a corporation is not
entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizures.
Again, we find no merit in the contention.
"Although, for the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion
that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of
a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress
passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse
to produce the books and papers of such corporation, we do not
J.B.L.,
J.,
concurs
with
Zaldivar,
Mr.
Justice
Fernando,
Barredo.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-27155 May 18, 1978
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, RITA GUECO TAPNIO, CECILIO
GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.
Medina, Locsin, Corua, & Sumbillo for petitioner.
Manuel Lim & Associates for private respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Upon failure of Rita Tapnio to pay her account with the Philippine
National Bank which was secured by a bond of the Philippine
American General Insurance Company, Inc. (PHILAMGEN), the
latter paid the same and then sued Rita Tapnio on their indemnity
agreement. Rita Tapnio filed a third party complaint against
petitioner Bank because, earlier, the bank, as mortgagee of her
sugar quota allocation for the year 1956-1957 at a reasonable
lease price and demanded parties to the lease contract to further
raise their consideration, the difference between the lease price
offered and that demanded by the Bank being a measly total of
P200.00. As a result thereof, Rita Tapnio failed to utilize her sugar
quota for that particular crop year and to realize an amount which
was more than enough to pay the balance of her indebtedness to
the bank which was secured and subsequently paid by the
bonding company. The trial court ordered the Philippine National
Bank to pay Rita Tapnio the same amounts she was ordered to
pay to the PHILAMGEN. This decision was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.
The Supreme Court found no reasonable basis for the Board of
Directors of petitioner Bank to disapprove the lease contract
because of the measly sum of P200.00 and ruled that although
the Bank had the ultimate authority of approving or disapproving
the proposed lease, since the sugar quota was mortgaged to it, it
still had the responsibility of observing, for the protection and
interest of the mortgagor, that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand in approving or
disapproving the lease of said sugar quota.
SYLLABUS
ANTONIO, J.:
Certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
Civil Case No. 34185, ordering petitioner, as third-party
defendant, to pay respondent Rita Gueco Tapnio, as third-party
plaintiff, the sum of P2,379.71, plus 12% interest per annum from
September 19, 1957 until the same is fully paid, P200.00
attorney's fees and costs, the same amounts which Rita Gueco
Tapnio was ordered to pay the Philippine American General
Insurance Co., Inc., to be paid directly to the Philippine American
General Insurance Co., Inc. in full satisfaction of the judgment
rendered against Rita Gueco Tapnio in favor of the former; plus
P500.00 attorney's fees for Rita Gueco Tapnio and costs. The
basic action is the complaint filed by Philamgen (Philippine
American General Insurance Co., Inc.) as surety against Rita
Gueco Tapnio and Cecilio Gueco, for the recovery of the sum of
P2,379.71 paid by Philamgen to the Philippine National Bank on
behalf of respondents Tapnio and Gueco, pursuant to an
indemnity agreement. Petitioner Bank was made third-party
defendant by Tapnio and Gueco on the theory that their failure to
pay the debt was due to the fault or negligence of petitioner.
The facts as found by the respondent Court of Appeals, in
affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, are
quoted hereunder:
Plaintiff executed its Bond, Exh. A, with defendant Rita
Gueco Tapnio as principal, in favor of the Philippine National
Bank Branch at San Fernando, Pampanga, to guarantee the
payment of defendant Rita Gueco Tapnio's account with said
Bank. In turn, to guarantee the payment of whatever amount
the bonding company would pay to the Philippine National
Bank, both defendants executed the indemnity agreement,
Exh. B. Under the terms and conditions of this indemnity
agreement, whatever amount the plaintiff would pay would
earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum, plus attorney's
fees in the amount of 15 % of the whole amount due in case
of court litigation.
The original amount of the bond was for P4,000.00; but the
amount was later reduced to P2,000.00.
It is not disputed that defendant Rita Gueco Tapnio was
indebted to the bank in the sum of P2,000.00, plus
accumulated interests unpaid, which she failed to pay
despite demands. The Bank wrote a letter of demand to
plaintiff, as per Exh. C; whereupon, plaintiff paid the bank on
September 18, 1957, the full amount due and owing in the
sum of P2,379.91, for and on account of defendant Rita
Gueco's obligation (Exhs. D and D-1).
Plaintiff, in turn, made several demands, both verbal
and written, upon defendants (Exhs. E and F), but to
no avail.
Defendant Rita Gueco Tapnio admitted all the
foregoing facts. She claims, however, when demand
was made upon her by plaintiff for her to pay her
debt to the Bank, that she told the Plaintiff that she
did not consider herself to be indebted to the Bank at
all because she had an agreement with one JacoboNazon whereby she had leased to the latter her
unused export sugar quota for the 1956-1957
agricultural year, consisting of 1,000 piculs at the rate
of P2.80 per picul, or for a total of P2,800.00, which
was already in excess of her obligation guaranteed
by plaintiff's bond, Exh. A. This lease agreement,
according to her, was with the knowledge of the
bank. But the Bank has placed obstacles to the
consummation of the lease, and the delay caused by
said obstacles forced 'Nazon to rescind the lease
contract. Thus, Rita Gueco Tapnio filed her thirdparty complaint against the Bank to recover from the
latter any and all sums of money which may be
adjudged against her and in favor of the plaitiff plus
moral damages, attorney's fees and costs.
Insofar as the contentions of the parties herein are
concerned, we quote with approval the following
findings of the lower court based on the evidence
presented at the trial of the case:
It has been established during the trial that
Mrs. Tapnio had an export sugar quota of
1,000 piculs for the agricultural year 19561957 which she did not need. She agreed to
allow Mr. Jacobo C. Tuazon to use said quota
for the consideration of P2,500.00 (Exh. "4"Gueco). This agreement was called a
contract of lease of sugar allotment.
At the time of the agreement, Mrs. Tapnio
was indebted to the Philippine National Bank
at
San
Fernando,
Pampanga.
Her
indebtedness was known as a crop loan and
was secured by a mortgage on her standing
crop including her sugar quota allocation for
the agricultural year corresponding to said
standing crop. This arrangement was
necessary in order that when Mrs. Tapnio
harvests, the P.N.B., having a lien on the
crop, may effectively enforce collection
against her. Her sugar cannot be exported
without sugar quota allotment Sometimes,
however, a planter harvest less sugar than
her quota, so her excess quota is utilized by
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-40324 October 5, 1988
JOSE O. SIA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
PADILLA, J.:
The facts in this ease are not disputed. As stated by the Court of
Appeals in its assailed decision, * dated 29 November 1974, rendered
in CA-G.R. No. 12602-CR, they are as follows:
... on October 31, 1963 Jose O. Sia (appellant herein),
President and General Manager of the Metal Manufacturing of
the Philippines, Inc. for and in its behalf, applied for and was
granted a Letter of Credit (Exhibit "A") with the Continental
Bank, Manila to cover the importation of One Hundred (100)
pieces of Safe-Deposit Locks No. 4440, complete with keys,
amounting Pl,979.06. A marginal deposit was made with the
Bank and the Letter of Credit was confirmed with its foreign
correspondent. Thereafter, appellant, for and in behalf of the
Metal Manufacturing of the Philippines, Inc., executed a trust
receipt (Exhibit "C") in favor of the Continental Bank, the
terms and conditions of which read, in part, as follows:
... and in consideration thereof, I/We HEREBY AGREE
TO HOLD SAID GOODS IN TRUST FOR THE SAID
BANK as its property with liberty to sell the same for its
account but without any authority to make any other
disposition whatsoever of the said goods or any part
thereof (or the proceeds thereof) either by way of
conditional sale, pledge or otherwise.
In case of sale I/We further agree to hand the
proceeds as soon as received to the Bank to
apply against the relative accept instance (as
described above) and for the payment of any
other indebtedness of mine/ours to Continental
Bank.
liable for estafa under paragraph l(b), Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, pursuant to the following provisions of PD 115
Sec. 13. Penalty clause.The failure of an
entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the
sale of the goods, documents or, instruments
covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the
amount owing to the entruster or as appears
in the trust receipt or to return said goods,
documents or instruments if they were not
sold or disposed of in accordance with the
terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the
crime of estafa, punishable under the
provisions of Article Three hundred and
fifteen, paragraph one of Act Numbered
Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as
amended, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code. If the violation or offense is
committed by a corporation, partnership,
association or other juridical entities, the
penalty provided for in this Decree shall be
imposed upon the directors, officers,
employees or other officials or persons
therein responsible for the offense, without
prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the
criminal offense. 3
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET
ASIDE. Defendant is ACQUITTED without prejudice to the
institution of a civil action against the Metal Manufacturing of the
Phil., Inc. for collection of the sum due plus damages if any. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
the
the
the
we
At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his
motorcycle. He entered the house of Gomez. While inside,
Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleago towed the motorcycle
outside to the center of the highway. Norberto, Jr., opened the
gasoline tank, spilled some fuel, lit a fire and burned the
motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze, the felons raved and
rejoiced. 12
Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto,
Jr. But the latter simply stepped backwards and executed a
thumbs-down signal. At this point, Edilberto asked the priest: "Ano
ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you want, Father)? Gusto mo,
Father, bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me, Father, to break
your head)?" Thereafter, in a flash, Edilberto fired at the head of
the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to the ground, his hands clasped
against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted Edilberto if that was the
only way he knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the remark,
Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3) times, kicked it
twice, and fired anew. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered the
head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter on the road. As
Norberto, Jr., flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers, his
brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of
their comrades-in-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate
the victim from possible assistance. 13
In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino
Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao contend
that the trial court erred in disregarding their respective defenses
of alibi which, if properly appreciated, would tend to establish that
there was no prior agreement to kill; that the intended victim was
Fr. Peter Geremias, not Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was only one
(1) gunman, Edilberto; and, that there was absolutely no showing
that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the victim despite
their proximity at the time to Edilberto.
But the evidence on record does not agree with the arguments of
accused-appellants.
On their defense of alibi, accused brothers Severino and Rudy
Lines claim that they were harvesting palay the whole day of 11
April 1985 some one kilometer away from the crime scene.
Accused Roger Bedao alleges that he was on an errand for the
church to buy lumber and nipa in M'lang, Cotabato, that morning
of 11 April 1985, taking along his wife and sick child for medical
treatment and arrived in La Esperanza, Tulunan, past noontime.
Interestingly, all appellants similarly contend that it was only after
they heard gunshots that they rushed to the house of Norberto
Manero, Sr., Barangay Captain of La Esperanza, where they were
joined by their fellow CHDF members and co-accused, and that it
was only then that they proceeded together to where the crime
took place at Km. 125.
It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi
must not only be at some other place but that it must also be
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission. 14
Considering the failure of appellants to prove the required
physical impossibility of being present at the crime scene, as can
be readily deduced from the proximity between the places where
accused-appellants were allegedly situated at the time of the
commission of the offenses and the locus criminis, 15 the defense
of alibi is definitely feeble. 16 After all, it has been the consistent
ruling of this Court that no physical impossibility exists in
instances where it would take the accused only fifteen to twenty
Q Rudy Lines.
A He also said "yes".
Q What do you mean "yes"?
A He also agreed and he was happy and said "yes" we
will kill him.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What about Efren Pleago?
A He also agreed and even commented
laughing "go ahead".
Q Roger Bedao, what was his reaction to that
suggestion that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter,
they will (sic) kill anybody provided he is an
Italian and if not, they will (sic) make Reynaldo
Deocades an example?
A He also agreed laughing.
Conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design being
sufficiently shown, the act of one is the act of all the other
conspirators,
and
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
becomes secondary. 30
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 128690 January 21, 1999
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC
BROADCASTING CORP, VIVA PRODUCTION, INC., and
VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
4. Tiger Command
7. Batang Matadero
5. Boy de Sabog
6. Lady Commando
8. Rebelyon
I hope you will consider this request of mine.
The other dramatic films have been offered to
us before and have been rejected because of
the ruling of MTRCB to have them aired at
9:00 p.m. due to their very adult themes.
As for the 10 titles I have choosen [sic] from
the 3 packages please consider including all
the other Viva movies produced last year. I
have quite an attractive offer to make.
Thanking you and with my warmest regards.
6 January 1992
(Signed)
Dear Vic,
Charo Santos-C
of the laws on the matter, the case would lose ground. 28 One who
makes use of his own legal right does no injury. 29 If damage
results front the filing of the complaint, it is damnum absque
injuria. 30 Besides, moral damages are generally not awarded in
favor of a juridical person, unless it enjoys a good reputation that
was debased by the offending party resulting in social humiliation.
31
certain which is the subject of the contract; and (3) cause of the
obligation, which is established. 38 A contract undergoes three
stages:
(a) preparation, conception, or generation,
which is the period of negotiation and
bargaining, ending at the moment of
agreement of the parties;
(b) perfection or birth of the contract, which is
the moment when the parties come to agree
on the terms of the contract; and
(c) consummation or death, which is the
fulfillment or performance of the terms agreed
upon in the contract. 39
Contracts that are consensual in nature are perfected upon mere
meeting of the minds, Once there is concurrence between the
offer and the acceptance upon the subject matter, consideration,
and terms of payment a contract is produced. The offer must be
certain. To convert the offer into a contract, the acceptance must
be absolute and must not qualify the terms of the offer; it must be
plain, unequivocal, unconditional, and without variance of any sort
from the proposal. A qualified acceptance, or one that involves a
new proposal, constitutes a counter-offer and is a rejection of the
original offer. Consequently, when something is desired which is
not exactly what is proposed in the offer, such acceptance is not
sufficient to generate consent because any modification or
variation from the terms of the offer annuls the offer. 40
When Mr. Del Rosario of VIVA met with Mr. Lopez of ABS-CBN at
the Tamarind Grill on 2 April 1992 to discuss the package of films,
said package of 104 VIVA films was VIVA's offer to ABS-CBN to
enter into a new Film Exhibition Agreement. But ABS-CBN, sent,
through Ms. Concio, a counter-proposal in the form of a draft
contract proposing exhibition of 53 films for a consideration of P35
million. This counter-proposal could be nothing less than the
counter-offer of Mr. Lopez during his conference with Del Rosario
at Tamarind Grill Restaurant. Clearly, there was no acceptance of
VIVA's offer, for it was met by a counter-offer which substantially
varied the terms of the offer.
ABS-CBN's reliance in Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals 41 and Villonco Realty Company v. Bormaheco, Inc., 42 is
misplaced. In these cases, it was held that an acceptance may
contain a request for certain changes in the terms of the offer and
yet be a binding acceptance as long as "it is clear that the
meaning of the acceptance is positively and unequivocally to
accept the offer, whether such request is granted or not." This
ruling was, however, reversed in the resolution of 29 March 1996,
43
which ruled that the acceptance of all offer must be unqualified
and absolute, i.e., it "must be identical in all respects with that of
the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds."
On the other hand, in Villonco, cited in Limketkai, the alleged
changes in the revised counter-offer were not material but merely
clarificatory of what had previously been agreed upon. It cited the
statement in Stuart v. Franklin Life Insurance Co. 44 that "a
vendor's change in a phrase of the offer to purchase, which
change does not essentially change the terms of the offer, does
not amount to a rejection of the offer and the tender of a counteroffer." 45 However, when any of the elements of the contract is
modified upon acceptance, such alteration amounts to a counteroffer.
The claim of RBS for actual damages did not arise from contract,
quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. It arose from the fact of filing
of the complaint despite ABS-CBN's alleged knowledge of lack of
cause of action. Thus paragraph 12 of RBS's Answer with
Counterclaim
and
Cross-claim
under
the
heading
COUNTERCLAIM specifically alleges:
12. ABS-CBN filed the complaint knowing
fully well that it has no cause of action RBS.
As a result thereof, RBS suffered actual
damages in the amount of P6,621,195.32. 56
Needless to state the award of actual damages cannot be
comprehended under the above law on actual damages. RBS
could only probably take refuge under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of
the Civil Code, which read as follows:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for tile
same.
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
It may further be observed that in cases where a writ of
preliminary injunction is issued, the damages which the defendant
may suffer by reason of the writ are recoverable from the
injunctive bond. 57 In this case, ABS-CBN had not yet filed the
required bond; as a matter of fact, it asked for reduction of the
bond and even went to the Court of Appeals to challenge the
order on the matter, Clearly then, it was not necessary for RBS to
file a counterbond. Hence, ABS-CBN cannot be held responsible
for the premium RBS paid for the counterbond.
Neither could ABS-CBN be liable for the print advertisements for
"Maging Sino Ka Man" for lack of sufficient legal basis. The RTC
issued a temporary restraining order and later, a writ of
preliminary injunction on the basis of its determination that there
existed sufficient ground for the issuance thereof. Notably, the
RTC did not dissolve the injunction on the ground of lack of legal
and factual basis, but because of the plea of RBS that it be
allowed to put up a counterbond.
As regards attorney's fees, the law is clear that in the absence of
stipulation, attorney's fees may be recovered as actual or
compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided
for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. 58
The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as
part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be
placed on the right to litigate. 59 They are not to be awarded every
time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award
attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and
equitable justification. 60 Even when claimant is compelled to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient
SYLLABUS
CITIZEN
IN
FAVOR
OF A FOREIGN
RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION CAN BE REGISTERED. In view of the
provisions of sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the Constitution
and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krivenko v.
The Register of Deeds of Manila, 44 Off. Gaz., 1211, a deed of
donation of a parcel of land executed by a Filipino citizen in favor
of a religious organization whose founder, trustees and
administrator are non-Filipinos, can not be admitted for
registration.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REFUSAL OF REGISTER OF DEEDS TO
REGISTER DEED OF DONATION IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF
FREEDOM OF RELIGION CLAUSE. The refusal of the
Register of Deeds to register said deed of donation is not violative
of the freedom of religion clause of Constitution (section 1 [7],
Article III), since land tenure is by no means indispensable to the
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession or worship; or
that one may not worship the Deity according to the dictates of his
own conscience unless upon land held in free simple.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal refused to accept
for record a deed of donation executed in due form on January
22, 1953, by Jesus Dy, a Filipino citizen, conveying a parcel of
residential land, in Caloocan, Rizal, known as lot No. 2, block 48D, PSD-4212, G.L.R.O. Record No. 11267, in favor of the
unregistered religious organization "Ung Siu Si Temple", operating
through three trustees all of Chinese nationality. The donation
was duly accepted by Yu Juan, of Chinese nationality, founder
and deaconess of the Temple, acting in representation and in
behalf of the latter and its trustees.
The refusal of the Registrar was elevated en Consultato the IVth
Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. On March 14,
1953, the Court upheld the action of the Rizal Register of Deeds,
saying:
The question raised by the Register of Deeds in the
above transcribed consulta is whether a deed of
donation of a parcel of land executed in favor of a
religious organization whose founder, trustees and
administrator are Chinese citizens should be registered
or not.
Not satisfied with the ruling of the Court of First Instance, counsel
for the donee Uy Siu Si Temple has appealed to this Court,
claiming: (1) that the acquisition of the land in question, for
religious purposes, is authorized and permitted by Act No. 271 of
the old Philippine Commission, providing as follows:
incorporators, a Filipino, was a mere trustee of his American coincorporators and that for that reason the subscribed capital stock
of the corporation was wholly American? For the mere formation
of the corporation such disclosure was not essential, and the
Corporation Law does not require it. The accused was, therefore,
under no obligation to make it. In the absence of such obligation
and of the alleged wrongful intent on the part of the accused, he
cannot legally be convicted of the crime of falsification for having
allegedly perverted the truth in a narration of facts.
3. FALSIFICATION; FALSE NARRATION FOR NOT REVEALING
A CERTAIN FACT, NOT PUNISHABLE IF THERE IS NO LEGAL
OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE THE TRUTH. It is essential to
the commission of this crime that the perversion of truth in a
narration of facts must be made with the wrongful intent of injuring
a third person and even if such wrongful intent is proven, still the
untruthful statement will not constitute criminal falsification if there
is no legal obligation on the part of the narrator to disclose the
truth. (U. S. v. Reyes, 1 Phil., 341; U. S. v. Lopez, 15 Phil., 515.)
Wrongful intent to injure a third person and obligation on the part
of the narrator to disclose the truth are thus essential to a
conviction for the crime of falsification under articles 171(4) and
172(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
REYES, J.:
A. Yes.
William H. Quasha, a member of the Philippine bar, was charged
in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of
falsification of a public and commercial document in that, having
been entrusted with the preparation and registration of the article
of incorporation of the Pacific Airways Corporation, a domestic
corporation organized for the purpose of engaging in business as
a common carrier, he caused it to appear in said article of
incorporation that one Arsenio Baylon, a Filipino citizen, had
subscribed to and was the owner of 60.005 per cent of the
subscribed capital stock of the corporation when in reality, as the
accused well knew, such was not the case, the truth being that
the owner of the portion of the capital stock subscribed to by
Baylon and the money paid thereon were American citizen whose
name did not appear in the article of incorporation, and that the
purpose for making this false statement was to circumvent the
constitutional mandate that no corporation shall be authorize to
operate as a public utility in the Philippines unless 60 per cent of
its capital stock is owned by Filipinos.
Found guilty after trial and sentenced to a term of imprisonment
and a fine, the accused has appealed to this Court.
The essential facts are not in dispute. On November 4,1946, the
Pacific Airways Corporation registered its articles of incorporation
with the Securities and Exchanged Commission. The article were
prepared and the registration was effected by the accused, who
was in fact the organizer of the corporation. The article stated that
the primary purpose of the corporation was to carry on the
business of a common carrier by air, land or water; that its capital
stock was P1,000,000, represented by 9,000 preferred and
100,000 common shares, each preferred share being of the par
value of p100 and entitled to 1/3 vote and each common share, of
the par value of P1 and entitled to one vote; that the amount
capital stock actually subscribed was P200,000, and the names of
the subscribers were Arsenio Baylon, Eruin E. Shannahan, Albert
W. Onstott, James O'Bannon, Denzel J. Cavin, and William H.
Quasha, the first being a Filipino and the other five all Americans;
that Baylon's subscription was for 1,145 preferred shares, of the
total value of P114,500, and for 6,500 common shares, of the total
par value of P6,500, while the aggregate subscriptions of the
American subscribers were for 200 preferred shares, of the total
par value of P20,000, and 59,000 common shares, of the total par
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
1.
CORPORATION
LAW;
SECONDARY
FRANCHISE;
MESSENGER SERVICE. The right to operate a messenger
and delivery service by virtue of a legislative enactment is a
secondary franchise.
2. ID.; ID.; SUBJECT TO EXECUTION SALE. A secondary
franchise is subject to levy and sale on execution together with all
the property necessary for the enjoyment thereof.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE. A secondary franchise and the
property necessary for its enjoyment can be sold under execution
only when such sale is especially decreed and ordered in the
judgment and it becomes effective only when such sale is
confirmed by the Court after due notice.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF SPECIAL
P50,000.00
5,706.14
c) Liquidated damages at 7%
3,330.58
per annum
d) Costs of suit
135.60
e) Attorney's fees
2,000.00
the Philippines, all of the capital stock of which was and has been
owned by American citizens, except one share with a par value of
P100 in the name of F. Capistrano, had a current account deposit
with the Philippine Trust Company, and as of December 29, 1941,
the balance in favor of said depositor was P34,827.74. The
Eastern Isles, Incorporated made a withdrawal of P204.37 which
was debited to said account on June 10, 1942.
On October 4, 1943, the Japanese Military Administration in the
Philippines issued an order requiring all deposit accounts of the
hostile people (including corporations) to be transferred to the
Bank of Taiwan, as the depository of the Japanese Military
Administration, which order the Philippine Trust Company was
specifically directed to comply with. On September 29, 1944, in
compliance with said order, the Philippine Trust Company
transferred and paid the credit balances of the current account
deposits of the Eastern Isles Import Corporation and of the
Eastern Isles, Inc. to the Bank of Taiwan.
April 9, 1948
SYLLABUS
1. INTERNATIONAL LAW; LAND WARFARE; THE HAGUE
REGULATIONS; UNFORESEEN CASES. The provisions of
the Hague Regulations, section III, on Military Authority over
Hostile Territory, which is a part of the Hague Convention
respecting the laws and customs of war on land, are intended to
serve as a general rule of conduct for the belligerents in their
relations with each other and with the inhabitants, but as it had
not been found possible then to concert regulations covering all
the circumstances which occur in practice, and on the other hand
it could not have been intended by the High Contracting Parties
that the unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written
undertaking, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military
commanders, it was agreed that "Until a complete code of the
laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it
expedient to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations
adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain
under the protection and the rule of the principles of international
law, as they result for the usages established among civilized
peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public
conscience."cralaw
virtua1aw
library
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHTS OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPANT
OVER ENEMY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. Before the
Hague Convention, it was the usage or practice to allow or permit
the confiscation or appropriation by the belligerent occupant not
only of public but also of private property of the enemy in a
said banks or the debts due them from their debtors, and thus
violate article 46 or any other article of the Hague Regulations. It
is true that, as to private personal properties of the enemy,
freezing, blocking or impounding thereof is sufficient for the
purpose of preventing their being used in aid of the enemy; but
with regard to the funds of commercial banks like the so-called
enemy banks, it was impossible or impracticable to attain the
purpose for which the freezing, blocking and impounding are
intended, without liquidating the said banks and collecting the
loans given by them to hundreds if not thousands of persons
scattered over the Islands. Without doing so, their assets or
money loaned to so many persons can not properly be
impounded or blocked, in order to prevent their being used in aid
to the enemy though the intervention of their very debtors, and
successfully wage economic as well as military war. That the
liquidation or winding up of the business of the China Banking
Corporation and other enemy banks did not constitute a
confiscation or appropriation of their properties or of the debts due
them from their debtors, but a mere sequestration of their assets
during the duration of the war for the purposes already stated, is
evidenced conclusively by the facts enumerated in the opinion.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; OWNERS OF PROPERTIES
SEQUESTRATED, HOW INDEMNIFIED. The fact that
Japanese Military authorities failed to pay the enemy banks the
balance of the money collected by the Bank of Taiwan from the
debtors of said banks, did not and could not change the
sequestration or impounding by them of the banks asset during
the war, into an outright confiscation or appropriation thereof.
Aside from the fact that it was physically impossible for the
Japanese Military authorities to do so because they were forcibly
driven out of the Philippines or annihilated by the forces of
liberation, following the readjustment of rights of private property
on land seized by the enemy provided by the Treaty of Versailles
and other peace treaties entered into at the close of the first
World War, the general principles underlying such arrangements
are that the owners of properties seized, sequestrated or
impounded who are nationals of the victorious belligerent are
entitled to receive compensation for the loss or damage inflicted
on their property by the emergency war measures taken by the
enemy, through their respective States or Government who may
officially intervene and demand the payment of the claim on
behalf of their nationals (VI Hackworth Digest of International Law,
pp. 232, 233; II Oppenheim, sixth edition, p. 263). Naturally, as
the Japanese war notes were issued as legal tender for payment
of all kinds at par with the Philippine peso, by the Imperial
Japanese Government, which in its proclamations of January 3,
1942, and February 1, 1942, "takes full responsibility for their
usage having the correct amount to back them up" (see said
Proclamations and their official explanation, O. T., IMA Vol. 1, pp.
39, 40), Japan is bound to indemnify the aggrieved banks for the
loss or damage on their property, in terms of Philippine peso or U.
S. dollars at the rate of one dollar for two pesos.
10. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; PAYMENT; PERSONS
AUTHORIZED
TO
RECEIVE"
;
LIQUIDATOR
OF
CORPORATION; CASE AT BAR. As the Japanese Military
Forces had power to sequestrate and impound the assets or
funds of the China Banking Corporation, and for that purpose to
liquidate it by collecting the debts due to said bank from its
debtors, and paying its creditors, and therefore to appoint the
Bank of Taiwan as liquidator with the consequent authority to
make the collection, it follows evidently that the payments by the
debtors to the Bank of Taiwan of their debts to the China Banking
Corporation have extinguished their obligation to the latter. Said
payments were made to a person, the Bank of Taiwan, authorized
to receive them in the name of the bank creditor under article
1162, of the Civil Code. Because it is evident the words "a person
authorized to receive it," as used therein, means not only a
person authorized by the same creditor, but also a person
occupant, may, and not infrequently, use his own currency, in the
occupied region. But this method may be found inconvenient if the
coverage for their national currency had already become
inadequate, and for that reason authorities are afraid of exposing
it to additional strain, and for that reason an occupant may not
replace the local currency by his own currency for all currency for
all purposes, and enforce its use not only for his own payment but
also for payments among inhabitants (paragraph 285). (3) Where
the regional currency has become inadequate and it is deemed
inadvisable by the occupant to expose his own currency to further
strain, new types of money may be created by the occupant. Such
new currency may have a new name and may be issued by
institution created for that purpose (paragraph 296). This last
method was the one adopted by Japan in this country, because
the coverage of the Philippine Treasury Certificate of the territory
occupied had become inadequate, for most if not all the said
coverage have been taken to the United States and many millions
of silver pesos were burried or thrown into the sea near
Corregidor, and Japan did not want to use her national currency,
and expose it to additional strains.
and sell its securities to the Filipino public, the real and ultimate
controversy here would actually call for the construction of the
constitutional provisions governing the disposition, utilization,
exploitation and development of our natural resources. And
certainly this is neither moot nor academic.
3. We now come to the meat of the controversy the "tie-up"
between SAN JOSE OIL on the one hand, and the respondent
SAN JOSE PETROLEUM and its associates, on the other. The
relationship of these corporations involved or affected in this case
is admitted and established through the papers and documents
which are parts of the records: SAN JOSE OIL, is a domestic
mining corporation, 90% of the outstanding capital stock of which
is owned by respondent SAN JOSE PETROLEUM, a foreign
(Panamanian) corporation, the majority interest of which is owned
by OIL INVESTMENTS, Inc., another foreign (Panamanian)
company. This latter corporation in turn is wholly (100%) owned
by PANTEPEC OIL COMPANY, C.A., and PANCOASTAL
PETROLEUM COMPANY, C.A., both organized and existing
under the laws of Venezuela. As of September 30, 1956, there
were 9,976 stockholders of PANCOASTAL PETROLEUM found in
49 American states and U.S. territories, holding 3,476,988 shares
of stock; whereas, as of November 30, 1956, PANTEPEC OIL
COMPANY was said to have 3,077,916 shares held by 12,373
stockholders scattered in 49 American state. In the two lists of
stockholders, there is no indication of the citizenship of these
stockholders,7 or of the total number of authorized stocks of each
corporation, for the purpose of determining the corresponding
percentage of these listed stockholders in relation to the
respective capital stock of said corporation.
Petitioner, as well as the amicus curiae and the Solicitor General8
contend that the relationship between herein respondent SAN
JOSE PETROLEUM and its subsidiary, SAN JOSE OIL, violates
the Petroleum Law of 1949, the Philippine Constitution, and
Section 13 of the Corporation Law, which inhibits a mining
corporation from acquiring an interest in another mining
corporation. It is respondent's theory, on the other hand, that far
from violating the Constitution; such relationship between the two
corporations is in accordance with the Laurel-Langley Agreement
which implemented the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution,
and that Section 13 of the Corporation Law is not applicable
because respondent is not licensed to do business, as it is not
doing business, in the Philippines.
Article XIII, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution provides:
SEC. 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the
public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and
other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the
State, and their disposition, exploitation, development,
or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least
sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by
such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease
or concession at the time of the inauguration of this
Government established under this Constitution. . . .
(Emphasis supplied)
In the 1946 Ordinance Appended to the Constitution, this right (to
utilize and exploit our natural resources) was extended to citizens
of the United States, thus:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section one, Article
Thirteen, and section eight, Article Fourteen, of the
foregoing Constitution, during the effectivity of the
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-42780
owner, and he may be taxed on its account at the place where the
property is although it is not the place of his own domicile and
even though he is not a citizen or resident of the state which
imposes the tax. But debts owing by corporations are obligations
of the debtors, and only possess value in the hands of the
creditors.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. Held: That the Collector of
Internal Revenue was justified in withholding income taxes on
dividends and interest on bonds and other indebtedness paid by a
resident corporation to non-resident corporations.
MALCOLM, J.:
This is an action brought by the Manila Gas Corporation against
the Collector of Internal Revenue for the recovery of P56,757.37,
which the plaintiff was required by the defendant to deduct and
withhold from the various sums paid it to foreign corporations as
dividends and interest on bonds and other indebtedness and
which the plaintiff paid under protest. On the trial court dismissing
the complaint, with costs, the plaintiff appealed assigning as the
principal errors alleged to have been committed the following:
1. The trial court erred in holding that the dividends paid
by the plaintiff corporation were subject to income tax in
the hands of its stockholders, because to impose the
tax thereon would be to impose a tax on the plaintiff, in
violation of the terms of its franchise, and would,
moreover, be oppressive and inequitable.
2. The trial court erred in not holding that the interest on
bonds and other indebtedness of the plaintiff
corporation, paid by it outside of the Philippine Islands
to corporations not residing therein, were not, on the
part of the recipients thereof, income from Philippine
sources, and hence not subject to Philippine income
tax.
The facts, as stated by the appellant and as accepted by the
appellee, may be summarized as follows: The plaintiff is a
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippine Islands. It
operates a gas plant in the City of Manila and furnishes gas
service to the people of the metropolis and surrounding
municipalities by virtue of a franchise granted to it by the
Philippine Government. Associated with the plaintiff are the
Islands Gas and Electric Company domiciled in New York, United
States, and the General Finance Company domiciled in Zurich,
Switzerland. Neither of these last mentioned corporations is
resident in the Philippines.
For the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, dividends in the sum of
P1,348,847.50 were paid by the plaintiff to the Islands Gas and
Electric Company in the capacity of stockholders upon which
withholding income taxes were paid to the defendant totalling
P40,460.03 For the same years interest on bonds in the sum of
P411,600 was paid by the plaintiff to the Islands Gas and Electric
Company upon which withholding income taxes were paid to the
defendant totalling P12,348. Finally for the stated time period,
interest on other indebtedness in the sum of P131,644,90 was
paid by the plaintiff to the Islands Gas and Electric Company and
the General Finance Company respectively upon which
withholding income taxes were paid to the defendant totalling
P3,949.34.
The approved doctrine is that no state may tax anything not within
its jurisdiction without violating the due process clause of the
constitution. The taxing power of a state does not extend beyond
its territorial limits, but within such it may tax persons, property,
income, or business. If an interest in property is taxed, the situs of
either the property or interest must be found within the state. If an
income is taxed, the recipient thereof must have a domicile within
the state or the property or business out of which the income
issues must be situated within the state so that the income may
be said to have a situs therein. Personal property may be
separated from its owner, and he may be taxed on its account at
the place where the property is although it is not the place of his
own domicile and even though he is not a citizen or resident of
the state which imposes the tax. But debts owing by corporations
are obligations of the debtors, and only possess value in the
hands of the creditors. (Farmers Loan Co. vs. Minnesota [1930],
280 U.S., 204; Union Refrigerator Transit Co. vs. Kentucky [1905],
199 U.S., 194 State Tax on Foreign held Bonds [1873, 15 Wall.,
300; Bick vs. Beach [1907], 206 U. S., 392; State ex rel.
Manitowoc Gas Co. vs. Wig. Tax Comm. [1915], 161 Wis., 111;
United States Revenue Act of 1932, sec. 143.)
FERNAN, J.:
In a sworn complaint dated July 23, 1984, Adelio C. Cruz charged
Quiterio L. Dalisay, Senior Deputy Sheriff of Manila, with
"malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and serious irregularities"
allegedly committed as follows:
1. Respondent sheriff attached and/or levied the money belonging
to complainant Cruz when he was not himself the judgment
debtor in the final judgment of NLRC NCR Case No. 8-12389-91
sought to be enforced but rather the company known as
"Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.," a duly registered
corporation; and,
2. Respondent likewise caused the service of the alias writ of
execution upon complainant who is a resident of Pasay City,
despite knowledge that his territorial jurisdiction covers Manila
only and does not extend to Pasay City.
In his Comments, respondent Dalisay explained that when he
garnished complainant's cash deposit at the Philtrust bank, he
was merely performing a ministerial duty. While it is true that said
writ was addressed to Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., yet it is
also a fact that complainant had executed an affidavit before the
Pasay City assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/president
of said corporation and, because of that declaration, the counsel
for the plaintiff in the labor case advised him to serve notice of
garnishment on the Philtrust bank.
On November 12, 1984, this case was referred to the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for investigation,
report and recommendation.
efficacy due to the fact that "no original survey nor plan
whatsoever" appears to have been submitted as a basis thereof
and that the Court of First Instance of Bulacan which issued the
decree of registration did not acquire jurisdiction over the land
registration case because no notice of such proceeding was given
to the members of the plaintiff corporation who were then in actual
possession of said properties; that as a consequence of the nullity
of the original title, all subsequent titles derived therefrom, such
as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4903 issued in favor of
Gregorio Araneta and Carmen Zaragoza, which was subsequently
cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7573 in the name of
Gregorio Araneta, Inc., Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4988
issued in the name of, the National Waterworks & Sewerage
Authority (NWSA), Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4986 issued in
the name of Hacienda Caretas, Inc., and another transfer
certificate of title in the name of Paradise Farms, Inc., are
therefore void. Plaintiff-appellant consequently prayed (1) that
Original Certificate of Title No. 466, as well as all transfer
certificates of title issued and derived therefrom, be nullified; (2)
that "plaintiff's members" be declared as absolute owners in
common of said property and that the corresponding certificate of
title be issued to plaintiff; and (3) that defendant-appellee
Gregorio Araneta, Inc. be ordered to pay to plaintiff the damages
therein specified.
On September 2, 1966, defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta,
Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that (1) the complaint states no cause of action; and (2)
the cause of action, if any, is barred by prescription and laches.
Paradise Farms, Inc. and Hacienda Caretas, Inc. filed motions to
dismiss based on the same grounds. Appellee National
Waterworks & Sewerage Authority did not file any motion to
dismiss. However, it pleaded in its answer as special and
affirmative defenses lack of cause of action by the plaintiffappellant and the barring of such action by prescription and
laches.
During the pendency of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff-appellant
filed a motion, dated October 7, 1966, praying that the case be
transferred to another branch of the Court of First Instance sitting
at Malolos, Bulacan, According to defendants-appellees, they
were not furnished a copy of said motion, hence, on October 14,
1966, the lower court issued an Order requiring plaintiff-appellant
to furnish the appellees copy of said motion, hence, on October
14, 1966, defendant-appellant's motion dated October 7, 1966
and, consequently, prayed that the said motion be denied for lack
of notice and for failure of the plaintiff-appellant to comply with the
Order of October 14, 1966. Similarly, defendant-appellee paradise
Farms, Inc. filed, on December 2, 1966, a manifestation
information the court that it also did not receive a copy of the
afore-mentioned of appellant. On January 24, 1967, the trial court
issued an Order dismissing the amended complaint.
On February 14, 1967, appellant filed a motion to reconsider the
Order of dismissal on the grounds that the court had no
jurisdiction to issue the Order of dismissal, because its request for
the transfer of the case from the Valenzuela Branch of the Court
of First Instance to the Malolos Branch of the said court has been
approved by the Department of Justice; that the complaint states
a sufficient cause of action because the subject matter of the
controversy in one of common interest to the members of the
corporation who are so numerous that the present complaint
should be treated as a class suit; and that the action is not barred
by the statute of limitations because (a) an action for the
reconveyance of property registered through fraud does not
prescribe, and (b) an action to impugn a void judgment may be
brought any time. This motion was denied by the trial court in its
Order dated February 22, 1967. From the afore-mentioned Order
and
3. Moral and
P500.000.00.
exemplary
damages
of
SYLLABUS
building in RTC Case No. 802-84-C, when the trial court opined
that she spent her own funds for the construction thereof. (CA
Rollo, pp. 17-18)
Were the petitioners denied due process of law in the lower
court?
After the cases were re-raffled to the sala of Presiding Judge
Odilon Bautista of Branch 37 the following events transpired:
On July 3, 1986, the lower court issued an Order setting the
hearing of the cases on July 21, 1986. Petitioner Rebecca V.
Roxas received a copy of the Order on July 15, 1986, while
petitioner Guillermo Roxas received his copy on July 18, 1986.
Atty. Conrado Manicad, the petitioners' counsel received another
copy of the Order on July 11, 1986. (Original Records, p. 260)
On motion of the respondent corporation's counsel, the lower
court issued an Order dated July 15, 1986 cancelling the July 21,
1986 hearing and resetting the hearing to August 11, 1986.
(Original records, 262-263) Three separate copies of the order
were sent and received by the petitioners and their counsel.
(Original Records, pp. 268, 269, 271)
A motion to cancel and re-schedule the August 11, 1986 hearing
filed by the respondent corporation's counsel was denied in an
Order dated August 8, 1986. Again separate copies of the Order
were sent and received by the petitioners and their counsel.
(Original Records, pp. 276-279)
At the hearing held on August 11, 1986, only Atty. Benito P. Fabie,
counsel for the respondent corporation appeared. Neither the
petitioners nor their counsel appeared despite notice of hearing.
The lower court then issued an Order on the same date, to wit:
ORDER
When these cases were called for
continuation of trial, Atty. Benito P. Fabie
appeared before this Court, however, the
defendants and their lawyer despite receipt of
the Order setting the case for hearing today
failed to appear. On Motion of Atty. Fabie,
further cross examination of witness Victoria
Vallarta is hereby considered as having been
waived.
The plaintiff is hereby given twenty (20) days
from today within which to submit formal offer
of evidence and defendants are also given
ten (10) days from receipt of such formal offer
of evidence to file their objection thereto.
In the meantime, hearing in these cases is
set to September 29, 1986 at 10:00 o'clock in
the morning. (Original Records, p. 286)
Copies of the Order were sent and received by the petitioners and
their counsel on the following dates Rebecca Boyer-Roxas on
August 20, 1986, Guillermo Roxas on August 26, 1986, and Atty.
Conrado Manicad on September 19, 1986. (Original Records, pp.
288-290)
documents, the draft was sent to his law office thru his
messenger; after signing the final copies, he caused the service
of a copy to the respondent corporation's counsel with the
instruction that the copy of the Court be filed; however, there was
a miscommunication between his secretary and messenger in
that the secretary mailed the copy for the respondent
corporation's counsel and placed the rest in an envelope for the
messenger to file the same in court but the messenger thought
that it was the secretary who would file it; it was only later on
when it was discovered that the copy for the Court has not yet
been filed and that such failure to file the motion for
reconsideration was due to excusable neglect and/or accident.
The motion for reconsideration contained the following
allegations: that on the date set for hearing (October 22, 1986),
he was on his way to Calamba to attend the hearing but his car
suffered transmission breakdown; and that despite efforts to
repair said transmission, the car remained inoperative resulting in
his absence at the said hearing. (Original Records, pp. 460-469)
On February 3, 1987, Atty. Manicad filed a motion for
reconsideration of the January 15, 1987 decision. He explained
that he had to file the motion because the receiving clerk refused
to admit the motion for reconsideration attached to the ex-parte
manifestation because there was no proof of service to the other
party. Included in the motion for reconsideration was a notice of
hearing of the motion on February 3, 1987. (Original Records, p.
476-A)
On February 4, 1987, the respondent corporation through its
counsel filed a Manifestation and Motion manifesting that they
received the copy of the motion for reconsideration only today
(February 4, 1987), hence they prayed for the postponement of
the hearing. (Original Records, pp. 478-479)
On the same day, February 4, 1987, the lower court issued an
Order setting the hearing on February 13, 1987 on the ground
that it received the motion for reconsideration late. Copies of this
Order were sent separately to the petitioners and their counsel.
The records show that Atty. Manicad received his copy on
February 11, 1987. As regards the petitioners, the records reveal
that Rebecca Boyer-Roxas did not receive her copy while as
regards Guillermo Roxas, somebody signed for him but did not
indicate when the copy was received. (Original Records, pp. 481483)
At the scheduled February 13, 1987 hearing, the counsels for the
parties were present. However, the hearing was reset for March 6,
1987 in order to allow the respondent corporation to file its
opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (Order dated
February 13, 1987, Original Records, p. 486) Copies of the Order
were sent and received by the petitioners and their counsel on the
following dates: Rebecca Boyer-Roxas on February 23, 1987;
Guillermo Roxas on February 23, 1987 and Atty. Manicad on
February 19, 1987. (Original Records, pp. 487, 489-490)
The records are not clear as to whether or not the scheduled
hearing on March 6, 1987 was held. Nevertheless, the records
reveal that on March 13, 1987, the lower court issued an Order
denying the motion for reconsideration.
The well-settled doctrine is that the client is bound by the
mistakes of his lawyer. (Aguila v. Court of First Instance of
Batangas, Branch I, 160 SCRA 352 [1988]; See also Vivero v.
Santos, et al., 98 Phil. 500 [1956]; Isaac v. Mendoza, 89 Phil. 279
[1951]; Montes v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 48 Phil. 640
[1926]; People v. Manzanilla, 43 Phil. 167 [1922]; United States v.
Dungca, 27 Phil. 274 [1914]; and United States v. Umali, 15 Phil.
with
petitioner's
ROMERO, J.:
It has been about a year since the Thai baht plummeted to a
record low and sparked the downspin of most of Asia's other
currencies including our very own peso. The Philippines has not
suffered as much from the full impact of the region's worst
financial turmoil when most neighboring economies are still
sluggishly inching their way towards recovery. Tested economic
initiatives often hailed for helping save the country from losing its
hard-earned gains cannot hide the fact that some businesses are
still going downhill in light of serious liquidity problems resulting
from said crisis. Private respondents' present predicament is one
such example and from which they now intend to free themselves.
The road to recovery seems elusive though. Private respondents'
bid to salvage their collapsing businesses by seeking suspension
of payments a statutory device allowing distressed debtors to
defer payment of their debts now faces a major hindrance as
petitioner challenges their recourse to said remedy.
The records disclose the following antecedent facts:
On September 16, 1997, private respondents EYCO Group of
Companies ("EYCO"), 1 Eulogio O. Yutingco, Caroline YutingcoYao, and Theresa T. Lao (the "Yutingcos"), all of whom are
controlling stockholders of the aforementioned corporations,
jointly filed with the SEC a Petition for the Declaration of
Suspension of Payment[s], Formation and Appointment of
Rehabilitation Receiver/Committee, Approval of Rehabilitation
Plan with Alternative Prayer for Liquidation and Dissolution of
Corporations 2 alleging, among other things, that "the present
and
Bank of Commerce
Westmont Bank
The other creditor Banks will be informed as often as
needed.
Without notifying the members of the consortium, petitioner,
however, decided to break away from the group by suing private
respondents in the regular courts. These cases are:
respect to the SEC's competence cannot override the fact that the
law mandates recourse thereto.
As to the issue of forum-shopping, we fully subscribe to the Court
of Appeals in ruling that such violation existed when it declared:
Finally, the charge that petitioner is guilty of forum
shopping which is the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause
cannot unceremoniously be glossed over. It is patent
that the instant petition and the pending motion to
dismiss before the SEC raise identical issues, namely,
lack of jurisdiction and the propriety of the suspension
of payments. 42 [Emphasis supplied].
Actually, even a simple perusal of the pleadings filed by petitioner
before this Court reveals that it has been continuously reiterating
the same arguments that it had earlier raised in its Motion to
Dismiss and in its Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court.
Hence, we do not see why the appellate court's decision on this
aspect should not be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. Finding neither reversible error nor grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the Court of Appeals, its decision dated December 22, 1997 is
AFFIRMED. Furthermore, the Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) issued by this Court in its resolution and order of January
6, 1998, is hereby LIFTED and/or DISSOLVED. However, the
Securities and Exchange Commission is directed to drop from the
petition for suspension of payments filed before it the names of
Eulogio O. Yutingco, Caroline Yutingco-Yao, and Theresa T. Lao
without prejudice to their filing a separate petition in the Regional
Trial Courts.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
SYLLABUS
1. CORPORATIONS; DISREGARD OF CORPORATE FICTION.
A corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity as a general
rule, and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears; but, when
the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience,
justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard
the corporation as an association of persons.
2. ID.; ID.; CONTROL BY ANOTHER CORPORATION. The
corporate entity is disregard where it is so organized and
controlled, and its affairs are so conducted, as to make it merely
an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another
corporation.
3. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; SALE PERFECTION OF
CONSENSUAL CONTRACT; LOCATION OF PROPERTY AND
PLACE OF DELIVERY IMMATERIAL; CASE AT BAR. While it
is true that when the contract was perfected in the Philippines the
pair of Atlas-Diesel Marine Engines were in Sweden and the
agreement was to deliver them C. I. F. Hongkong, the contract of
sale being consensual perfected by mere consent (Civil
Code, article 1445; 10 Manresa, 4th ed., p. 11), the location of the
property and the place of delivery did not matter in the question of
where the agreement was perfected.
4. ID.; ID.; PERFECTION OF, WHEN EXECUTED THROUGH
CORRESPONDENCE.
Contracts
executed
through
correspondence are completed from the time an answer is made
accepting the proposition or the conditions by which the latter may
be modified.
5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; INTERPRETATION BY
OFFICERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCHES NOT BINDING
ON COURTS; "STARE DECISIS" ; CASE AT BAR. The ruling
of the Secretary of Finance, Exhibit M, was not binding upon the
trial court, much less upon this tribunal, since the duty and power
of interpreting the laws is primarily a function of the judiciary.
Plaintiff cannot be excused from abiding by this legal principle,
nor can it properly be heard to say that it relied on the Secretarys
ruling and that, therefore, the courts should not now apply an
interpretation at variance therewith. The rule of stare decisis is
undoubtedly entitled to more respect in the construction of
xxx
xxx
OZAETA
any reason why all its officers should not reside and perform their
functions in the Philippines.
Other facts appearing from the evidence, and presently to be
stated, strengthen our conclusion, because they can only be
explained if the local entity is considered as a mere subsidiary,
branch or agency of the parent organization. Plaintiff charged the
parent corporation no more than actual cost without profit
whatsoever for merchandise allegedly of its own to complete
deficiencies of shipments made by said parent corporation (t.s.n.,
pp. 53, 54) a fact which could not conceivably have been the
case if plaintiff had acted in such transactions as an entirely
independent entity doing business for profit, of course with
the American concern. There has been no attempt even to
explain, if the latter situation really obtained, why these two
corporations should have thus departed from the ordinary course
of business. Plaintiff was charged by the American corporation
with the cost even of the latter's cable quotations from ought
that appears from the evidence, this can only be comprehended
by considering plaintiff as such a subsidiary, branch or agency of
the parent entity, in which case it would be perfectly
understandable that for convenient accounting purposes and the
easy determination of the profits or losses of the parent
corporation's Philippines should be charged against the Philippine
office and set off against its receipts, thus separating the accounts
of said branch from those which the central organization might
have in other countries. The reference to plaintiff by local banks,
under a standing instruction of the parent corporation, of unpaid
drafts drawn on Philippine customers by said parent corporation,
whenever said customers dishonored the drafts, and the fact that
the American corporation had previously advised said banks that
plaintiff in those cases was "fully empowered to instruct (the
banks) with regard to the disposition of the drafts and documents"
(t.s.n., p. 50), in the absence of any other satisfactory explanation
naturally give rise to the inference that plaintiff was a subsidiary,
branch or agency of the American concern, rather than an
independent corporation acting as a broker. For, without such
positive explanation, this delegation of power is indicative of the
relations between central and branch offices of the same
business enterprise, with the latter acting under instructions
already given by the former. Far from disclosing a real separation
between the two entities, particularly in regard to the transactions
in question, the evidence reveals such commongling and
interlacing of their activities as to render even incomprehensible
certain accounting operations between them, except upon the
basis that the Philippine corporation was to all intents and
purposes a mere subsidiary, branch, or agency of the American
parent entity. Only upon this basis can it be comprehended why it
seems not to matter at all how much profit would be allocated to
plaintiff, or even that no profit at all be so allocated to it, at any
given time or after any given period.
As already stated above, under the evidence the sales in the
Philippines of the railway materials, machinery and supplies
imported here by Koppel Industrial Car and Equipment Company
could have been as conviniently and efficiently transacted and
handled if not more so had said corporation merely
established a branch or agency in the Philippines and obtained
license to do business locally; and if it had done so and said sales
had been effected by such branch or agency, there seems to be
no dispute that the 1 per cent merchants' sales tax then in force
would have been collectible. So far as we can discover, there
would be only one, but very important, difference between the two
schemes a difference in tax liability on the ground that the
sales were made through another and distinct corporation, as
alleged broker, when we have seen that this latter corporation is
virtually owned by the former, or that they practically one and the
same, is to sanction a circumvention of our tax laws, and permit a
tax evasion of no mean proportions and the consequent
It appearing that the Order of this Court, in the aboveentitled case, dated February 18, 1957 (folios 134-166),
has become final and executory and the respondents
have failed to comply with the same, the said
respondents, namely, the La Campana Starch and
Coffee Factory or its manager or the person who has
charge of the management, and the administrator of the
Estate of Ramon Tantongco are hereby ordered to
comply with said order, within five days from receipt
hereof, particularly the following, to wit:
(a) To reinstate the persons named in the
said Order of February 18, 1957;
(b) To deposit the amount of P65,534.01 with
this Court.
With respect to possible back wages from August 28,
1957 as mentioned in the petition for contempt of
August 30, 1957, the same shall first be determined.
Failure to comply with this Order shall be directly dealt
with accordingly.
It would appear that petitioner Ricardo Tantongco failed to comply
with said order and so, as already stated, he was cited to appear
and to adduce evidence on his behalf to show why he should not
be punished for indirect contempt.
The facts in this case may be briefly narrated thus: Sometime in
June, 1951, members of the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
La Campana, a labor union to which were affiliated workers in the
La Campana Starch Factory and La Campana Coffee Factory,
two separate entities but under the one management, presented
demands for higher wages, and more privileges and benefits in
connection with their work. When the management failed and
refused to grant the demands, the Department of Labor
intervened; but failing to settle the controversy, it certified the
dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations on July 17, 1951,
where it was docketed as Case No. 584V. On the theory that the
laborers presenting the demands were only the ones working in
the coffee factory, said company filed through the management a
motion to dismiss claiming that inasmuch as there were only 14 of
them in said factory, the Court of Industrial Relations had no
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case. The motion was
denied by the Court of Industrial Relations, which said:
. . . There was only management for the business of
gawgaw and coffee with whom the laborers are dealing
regarding their work. Hence, the filing of action against
the La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory is proper
and justified.1wphl.nt
The order of denial was appealed to this Tribunal through
certiorari under G.R. No. L-5677. In disposing of the case, we
held:
As to the first ground, petitioners obviously do not
question the fact that the number of employees of the
La Campana Gaugau Packing involved in the case is
more than the jurisdictional number (31) required by
law, but they contend that the industrial court has no
jurisdiction to try case against La Campana Coffee
Factory Co. Inc. because the latter has allegedly only
14 laborers and only five of these are members of
Rule 88, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. On August 23, 1956, the
Court of Industrial Relations denied the motion to dismiss and
proceed to hear the incidental cases against the La Campana
entities.
On June 12, 1956, a partial decision was rendered in the main
case No. 584-V, which partial decision was elevated to us and is
still pending appeal. On February 18, 1957, the Court of Industrial
Relations issued an order in incidental Cases No. 584-V(1), V(2),
V(5) and V(6), directing the "management of the respondent
company and or the administrator of the Estate of Ramon
Tantongco", to reinstate the dismissed laborers mentioned therein
with back wages. This order of February 18, 1957, as well as the
order directing the inclusion of the administrator of the estate of
Ramon Tantongco as additional respondent in the incidental
cases, and the order denying the petition of the administrator to
dismiss said incidental cases were appealed to this tribunal
though certiorari. The appeal, however, was summarily dismissed
by this Court in its resolution of June 12, 1957, as follows:
This Court, deliberating upon the allegations of the
petition filed in case l-12355 (La Campana Starch
Coffee Factory et al. vs. Kaisahan ng Mga
Manggagawa sa la Campana, KKM, et al) for review, on
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Industrial
Relations referred to therein, and finding that there is no
merit in the petition, RESOLVE TO DISMISS the same.
The CIR order of February 18, ,1957, in the incidental cases Nos.
584-V to V(6), having become final and executory , the laborers
involved reported for work on August 28, 1957, but they were not
admitted by the management. Consequently, the union filed a
petition dated August 30, 1957, to hold respondents in said cases
for contempt. After hearing the CIR issued the order of September
30, 1957, subject of this petition, ordering "the La Campana
Starch and Coffee Factory or its manager or the person who has
charge of its management and the administrator of the estate of
Ramon Tantongco" to "reinstate the persons named in the order
of February 18, 1957" and "to deposit the amount of P65,534.01."
For refusal or failure to comply with said order, petitioner Ricardo
Tantongco was required to appear before the attorney of the CIR
in contempt proceedings. Petitioner now seeks to prohibit the CIR
from proceeding with the trial for contempt and to enjoin
respondent CIR from enforcing its order of September 30, 1957.
Petitioner contends that upon the death of Ramon Tantongco, the
claims of the laborers should have been dismissed and that said
claims should have been filed with the probate court having
jurisdiction over the administration proceedings of the estate of
Ramon Tantongco, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3, Section
21 of the Rules of Court and that the failure to file claims with the
administrator forever barred said claims as provided in Rule 87,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court, especially after the assets of the
estate had been distributed among the heirs, and petitioner had
ceased to be the administrator of the estate. As already stated
this same question was raised by petitioner in G.R. No. L-12355,
entitled "La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory and Ricardo
Tantongco, etc. vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La
Campana (KKM)," which, as already stated, was summarily
dismissed by this Court in a resolution dated June 12, 1957.
Consequently, said question may not again be raised in the
present case. Furthermore, it may be recalled that both in the
main case in the incidental cases No. 584-V to 584-V(6), Ramon
Tantongco was never a party. The party there was the La
Campana Starch and Coffee Factory by which name it was
sought to designate the two entities La Campana Starch Packing
and the La Campana Coffee Factory. Naturally, the claims
contained in said cases were not the claims contemplated by law
SYLLABUS
for P350,000.00 with the condition, among others, that the seller
(Villarama) "shall not for a period of 10 years from the date of this
sale, apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the
buyer."
Barely three months thereafter, or on March 6, 1959: a
corporation called Villa Rey Transit, Inc. (which shall be referred
to hereafter as the Corporation) was organized with a capital
stock of P500,000.00 divided into 5,000 shares of the par value of
P100.00 each; P200,000.00 was the subscribed stock; Natividad
R. Villarama (wife of Jose M. Villarama) was one of the
incorporators, and she subscribed for P1,000.00; the balance of
P199,000.00 was subscribed by the brother and sister-in-law of
Jose M. Villarama; of the subscribed capital stock, P105,000.00
was paid to the treasurer of the corporation, who was Natividad R.
Villarama.
In less than a month after its registration with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (March 10, 1959), the Corporation, on
April 7, 1959, bought five certificates of public convenience, fortynine buses, tools and equipment from one Valentin Fernando, for
the sum of P249,000.00, of which P100,000.00 was paid upon the
signing of the contract; P50,000.00 was payable upon the final
approval of the sale by the PSC; P49,500.00 one year after the
final approval of the sale; and the balance of P50,000.00 "shall be
paid by the BUYER to the different suppliers of the SELLER."
The very same day that the aforementioned contract of sale was
executed, the parties thereto immediately applied with the PSC
for its approval, with a prayer for the issuance of a provisional
authority in favor of the vendee Corporation to operate the service
therein involved.1 On May 19, 1959, the PSC granted the
provisional permit prayed for, upon the condition that "it may be
modified or revoked by the Commission at any time, shall be
subject to whatever action that may be taken on the basic
application and shall be valid only during the pendency of said
application." Before the PSC could take final action on said
application for approval of sale, however, the Sheriff of Manila, on
July 7, 1959, levied on two of the five certificates of public
convenience involved therein, namely, those issued under PSC
cases Nos. 59494 and 63780, pursuant to a writ of execution
issued by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case
No. 13798, in favor of Eusebio Ferrer, plaintiff, judgment creditor,
against Valentin Fernando, defendant, judgment debtor. The
Sheriff made and entered the levy in the records of the PSC. On
July 16, 1959, a public sale was conducted by the Sheriff of the
said two certificates of public convenience. Ferrer was the highest
bidder, and a certificate of sale was issued in his name.
Thereafter, Ferrer sold the two certificates of public convenience
to Pantranco, and jointly submitted for approval their
corresponding contract of sale to the PSC. 2 Pantranco therein
prayed that it be authorized provisionally to operate the service
involved in the said two certificates.
The applications for approval of sale, filed before the PSC, by
Fernando and the Corporation, Case No. 124057, and that of
Ferrer and Pantranco, Case No. 126278, were scheduled for a
joint hearing. In the meantime, to wit, on July 22, 1959, the PSC
issued an order disposing that during the pendency of the cases
and before a final resolution on the aforesaid applications, the
Pantranco shall be the one to operate provisionally the service
under the two certificates embraced in the contract between
Ferrer and Pantranco. The Corporation took issue with this
particular ruling of the PSC and elevated the matter to the
Supreme Court,3 which decreed, after deliberation, that until the
issue on the ownership of the disputed certificates shall have
Maybe.
Q.
What did you do with the money, deposit in a
regular account?
A.
Deposit in my account.
Q.
Of all the money given to your wife, she did not
receive any check?
A.
I do not remember.
Q.
Is it usual for you, Doctor, to be given Fifty
Thousand Pesos without even asking what is this?
xxx
xxx
xxx
JUDGE:
Q.
The subscription of your brother-in-law, Mr.
Reyes, is Fifty-Two Thousand Pesos, did your wife give
you Fifty-two Thousand Pesos?
A.
I have testified before that sometimes my wife
gives me money and I do not know exactly for what.
The evidence further shows that the initial cash capitalization of
the corporation of P105,000.00 was mostly financed by Villarama.
Of the P105,000.00 deposited in the First National City Bank of
New York, representing the initial paid-up capital of the
Corporation, P85,000.00 was covered by Villarama's personal
check. The deposit slip for the said amount of P105,000.00 was
admitted in evidence as Exh. 23, which shows on its face that
P20,000.00 was paid in cash and P85,000.00 thereof was
covered by Check No. F-50271 of the First National City Bank of
New York. The testimonies of Alfonso Sancho 5 and Joaquin
Amansec,6 both employees of said bank, have proved that the
drawer of the check was Jose Villarama himself.
Another witness, Celso Rivera, accountant of the Corporation,
testified that while in the books of the corporation there appears
an entry that the treasurer received P95,000.00 as second
installment of the paid-in subscriptions, and, subsequently, also
P100,000.00 as the first installment of the offer for second
subscriptions worth P200,000.00 from the original subscribers, yet
Villarama directed him (Rivera) to make vouchers liquidating the
sums.7 Thus, it was made to appear that the P95,000.00 was
delivered to Villarama in payment for equipment purchased from
him, and the P100,000.00 was loaned as advances to the
stockholders. The said accountant, however, testified that he was
not aware of any amount of money that had actually passed
hands among the parties involved,8 and actually the only money
of the corporation was the P105,000.00 covered by the deposit
slip Exh. 23, of which as mentioned above, P85,000.00 was paid
by Villarama's personal check.
Further, the evidence shows that when the Corporation was in its
initial months of operation, Villarama purchased and paid with his
personal checks Ford trucks for the Corporation. Exhibits 20 and
21 disclose that the said purchases were paid by Philippine Bank
of Commerce Checks Nos. 992618-B and 993621-B, respectively.
These checks have been sufficiently established by Fausto Abad,
Assistant Accountant of Manila Trading & Supply Co., from which
the trucks were purchased9 and Aristedes Solano, an employee of
the Philippine Bank of Commerce,10 as having been drawn by
Villarama.
Villa Rey Transit, Inc. claims that by virtue of the "tortious acts" of
defendants (Pantranco and Ferrer) in acquiring the certificates of
Payment for the goods is, however, made to Norton, which in turn
pays Jackbilt the amount charged the customer less a certain
amount, as its compensation or profit. To exemplify the sales
procedures adopted by the Norton and Jackbilt, the following may
be cited. In the case of the sale of 420 pieces of concrete blocks
to the American Builders on April 1, 1952, the purchaser paid to
Norton the sum of P189.00 the purchase price. Out of this amount
Norton paid Jackbilt P168.00, the difference obviously being its
compensation. As per records of Jackbilt, the transaction was
considered a sale to Norton. It was under this procedure that the
sale of concrete blocks manufactured by Jackbilt was conducted
until May 1, 1953, when the agency agreement was terminated
and a management agreement between the parties was entered
into. The management agreement provided that Norton would sell
concrete blocks for Jackbilt, for a fixed monthly fee of P2,000.00,
which was later increased to P5,000.00.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Accordingly, the mere fact that Liddell & Co. and Liddell
Motors, Inc. are corporations owned and controlled by
Frank Liddell directly or indirectly is not by itself
sufficient to justify the disregard of the separate
corporate identity of one from the other. There is
however, in this instant case, a peculiar sequence of
the organization and activities of Liddell Motors, Inc.
As opined in the case of Gregory v. Helvering "the legal
right of a tax payer to decrease the amount of what
otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them,
by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted".
But as held in another case, "where a corporation is a
dummy, is unreal or a sham and serves no business
purpose and is intended only as a blind, the corporate
form may be ignored for the law cannot countenance a
form that is bald and a mischievous fictions".
... a taxpayer may gain advantage of doing business
thru a corporation if he pleases, but the revenue officers
in proper cases, may disregard the separate corporate
entity where it serves but as a shield for tax evasion
and treat the person who actually may take benefits of
the transactions as the person accordingly taxable.
... to allow a taxpayer to deny tax liability on the ground
that the sales were made through another and distinct
corporation when it is proved that the latter is virtually
owned by the former or that they are practically one and
the same is to sanction a circumvention of our tax laws.
(and cases cited therein.)
In the case of Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals,
L-13203, Jan. 28, 1961, this Court made a similar ruling where
the circumstances of unity of corporate identities have been
shown and which are identical to those obtaining in the case
under consideration. Therein, this Court said:
We are, however, inclined to agree with the court below
that SM was actually owned and controlled by petitioner
as to make it a mere subsidiary or branch of the latter
created for the purpose of selling the vehicles at retail
(here concrete blocks) ... .
It may not be amiss to state in this connection, the advantages to
Norton in maintaining a semblance of separate entities. If the
income of Norton should be considered separate from the income
of Jackbilt, then each would declare such earning separately for
income tax purposes and thus pay lesser income tax. The
Virgilio
Member
O.
Casino
3. Corporate Officers
Antonio W. Lim President
On November 6, 1989, a certain Dennis Cuyegkeng filed a thirdparty claim with the Labor Arbiter alleging that the properties
sought to be levied upon by the sheriff were owned by Hydro
(Phils.), Inc. (HPPI) of which he is the Vice-President.
On November 23, 1989, private respondents filed a "Motion for
Issuance of a Break-Open Order," alleging that HPPI and
petitioner
corporation
were
owned
by
the
same
incorporator/stockholders. They also alleged that petitioner
temporarily suspended its business operations in order to evade
its legal obligations to them and that private respondents were
willing to post an indemnity bond to answer for any damages
which petitioner and HPPI may suffer because of the issuance of
the break-open order.
In support of their claim against HPPI, private respondents
presented duly certified copies of the General Informations Sheet,
dated May 15, 1987, submitted by petitioner to the Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC) and the General Information Sheet,
dated May 25, 1987, submitted by HPPI to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The General Information Sheet submitted by the petitioner
revealed the following:
Dennis S.
Assistant
President
Cuyegkeng
to
the
Metro
Antonio W.
400,000.00
Lim
HPPI P 6,999,500.00
Elisa C. Lim 57,700.00
Antonio
W.
2,900,000.00
Dennis
300.00
S.
Lim
AWL Trading 455,000.00
Cuyegkeng
Dennis S.
40,100.00
Cuyegkeng
2. Board of Directors
Antonio
Chairman
Antonio
Chairman
W.
Dennis S.
Member
Cuyegkeng
W.
Lim
Lim
Elisa C. Lim Member
Dennis S.
Member
Cuyegkeng
Virgilio
Member
O.
Casino
Cuyegkeng
to
the
4. Principal Office
355
Maysan
Valenzuela,
Manila. 6
Road,
Metro
BELLOSILLO, J.:
AZCOR MANUFACTURING, INC., Filipinas Paso and Arturo
Zuluaga instituted this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court to assail, for having been rendered with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the
Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the
complaint of respondent Candido Capulso against petitioners. 1
Candido Capuslo file with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for
constructive illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of P50.00 per
day for the period April to September 1989. Petitioners Azcor
Manufacturing, Inc. (AZCOR) and Arturo Zuluaga who were
respondents before the Labor Arbiter (Filipinas Paso was not yet
a party then in that case) moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that there was no employer-employee relationship
between AZCOR and herein respondent Capulso; .that the latter
became an employee of Filipinas Paso effective 1 March 1996 but
voluntarily resigned there from a year after, Capulso later
amended his complaint by impleading Filipinas Paso as additional
respondent before the Labor Arbiter.
On 14 January 1592, Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II denied
the motion to dismiss holding that the allegation of lack of
employer-employee relationship between Capulso and AZCOR
was not clearly established. Thereafter, the Labor Arbiter ordered
that hearings be conducted for the presentation of evidence by
both parties.
The evidence presented by Capulso showed that he worked for
AZCOR as ceramics worker for more than two (2) years starting
from 3 April 1989 to 1 June 1991 receiving a daily wage of
P118.00 plus other benefits such as vacation and sick leaves.
From April to September 1989 the amount of P50.00 was
deducted from his salary without informing him of the reason
therefor.
In the second week of February 1991, upon his doctor's
recommendation, Capulso verbally requested to go on sick leave
due to bronchial asthma. It appeared that his illness was, directly
caused by his job as ceramics worker where, for lack of the
prescribed occupational safety gadgets, he inhaled and absorbed
harmful ceramic dusts. His supervisor, Ms. Emily Apolinaria,
approved his request. Later, on 1 June 1991, Capulso went back
to petitioner AZCOR to resume his work after recuperating from
FIRST DIVISION
SYLLABUS
letter dated October 27, 1967 to the Acting Referee, in its request
for extension of time to file Motion for Reconsideration, in its
"Motion for Reconsideration and/or Petition to Set Aside Award,"
and in its "Urgent Motion to Compel the Referee to Elevate
Records to the Commission for Review," petitioner represented
and defended itself as the employer of the deceased. Nowhere in
said documents did it allege that it was not the employer and
petitioner even admitted that TESCO and UMACOR are sister
companies operating under one single management and housed
in the same building. This denial also constitutes a change of
theory on appeal which is not allowed in this jurisdiction (Carantes
v. Court of Appeals 76 SCRA 514 [1977]). Moreover, issues not
raised before the Workmens Compensation Commission cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal (Buenaventura vs, WCC, 76
SCRA 485 [1977]). For that matter, a factual question may not be
raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court
(Gonzales-Precilla v. Rosario, 33 SCRA 228 [1970]).
3. COMMERCIAL LAW; CORPORATION LAW; WHEN VEIL OF
CORPORATE FICTION MAY BE PIERCED. Although respect
for the corporate personality as such, is the general rule, there are
exceptions. In appropriate cases, the veil of corporate fiction may
be pierced as when the same is made as a shield to confuse the
legitimate issues.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI;
WHEN PREMATURE. Certiorari cannot be resorted to when
the remedy of appeal is present (Fernando v. Vasques. 31 SCRA
288 [1970] and certiorari will not lie, it being prematurely filed
where petitioner had not utilized the remedies available to it under
Rules 23, 24 and 25 of the Rules of the Workmens
Compensation Commission, namely. an appeal from the award of
the Referee, within fifteen days from notice, to the Commission; a
petition for reconsideration of the latters resolution, if adverse, to
the Commission en banc; and within ten days from receipt of an
unfavorable decision by the latter, an appeal to this Court.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTIONS; CASE AT BAR NOT FALLING
THEREUNDER. This rule admits of exceptions, as where
public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictate,
the broader interests of justice so require, or where the Orders
complained of were found to be completely null and void, or that
the appeal was not considered the appropriate remedy (Fernando
v. Vasquez. supra). The case at bar does not fall within any of
these exceptions.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
These certiorari proceedings stem from the award rendered
against petitioner Telephone Engineering and Services, Co., Inc.
(TESCO) on October 6, 1967 by the Acting Referee of Regional
Office No. 4, Quezon City Sub-Regional Office, Workmen's
Compensation Section, in favor of respondent Leonila S. Gatus
and her children, dependents of the deceased employee Pacifico
L. Gatus. The principal contention is that the award was rendered
without jurisdiction as there was no employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and the deceased.
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing telephone equipment with offices at Sheridan
Street, Mandaluyong, Rizal. Its Executive Vice-President and
General Manager is Jose Luis Santiago. It has a sister company,
the Utilities Management Corporation (UMACOR), with offices in
the same location. UMACOR is also under the management of
Jose Luis Santiago.
3.2.
Csar
Marine
Resources, Inc. has an
outstanding balance in
the
amount
of
P23,636.33 with plaintiffappellee out of the KKK
loan transaction;
3.3.
Csar
Marine
Resources, Inc. is not a
party in this case;
xxx xxx xxx
civil law, homologous but not identical to tort of the common law,
which gives rise to an obligation independently of any contract.
(Cf. Manila R.R. Co. vs. Cia. Trasatlantica, 38 Phil., 875, 887-890;
Cangco vs. Manila R.R. Co., 38 Phil. 768.) The fact that the
corporation, acting thru Vazquez as its manager, was guilty of
negligence in the fulfillment of the contract, did not make Vazquez
principally or even subsidiarily liable for such negligence. Since it
was the corporation's contract, its nonfulfillment, whether due to
negligence or fault or to any other cause, made the corporation
and not its agent liable.
On the other hand if independently of the contract Vazquez by his
fault or negligence cause damaged to the plaintiff, he would be
liable to the latter under article 1902 of the Civil Code. But then
the plaintiff's cause of action should be based on culpa aquiliana
and not on the contract alleged in his complaint herein; and
Vazquez' liability would be principal and not merely subsidiary, as
the Court of Appeals has erroneously held. No such cause of
action was alleged in the complaint or tried by express or implied
consent of the parties by virtue of section 4 of Rule 17. Hence the
trial court had no jurisdiction over the issue and could not
adjudicate upon it (Reyes vs. Diaz, G.R. No. 48754.)
Consequently it was error for the Court of Appeals to remand the
case to the trial court to try and decide such issue.
It only remains for us to consider petitioner's second assignment
of error referring to the lower courts' refusal to entertain his
counterclaim for damages against the respondent Borja arising
from the bringing of this action. The lower courts having sustained
plaintiff's action. The finding of the Court of Appeals that
according to the preponderance of the evidence the defendant
Vazquez celebrated the contract not in his personal capacity but
as acting president and manager of the corporation, does not
warrant his contention that the suit against him is malicious and
tortious; and since we have to decide defendant's counterclaim
upon the facts found by the Court of Appeals, we find no sufficient
basis upon which to sustain said counterclaim. Indeed, we feel
that a a matter of moral justice we ought to state here that the
indignant attitude adopted by the defendant towards the plaintiff
for having brought this action against him is in our estimation not
wholly right. Altho from the legal point of view he was not
personally liable for the fulfillment of the contract entered into by
him on behalf of the corporation of which he was the acting
president and manager, we think it was his moral duty towards the
party with whom he contracted in said capacity to see to it that the
corporation represented by him fulfilled the contract by delivering
the palay it had sold, the price of which it had already received.
Recreant to such duty as a moral person, he has no legitimate
cause for indignation. We feel that under the circumstances he
not only has no cause of action against the plaintiff for damages
but is not even entitled to costs.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the
complaint is hereby dismissed, without any finding as to costs.
Yulo, C.J., Moran, Horrilleno and Bocobo, JJ., concur.
GANCAYCO, J.:
Once again the parameters of the liability of the officers of a
corporation as to unpaid wages and other claims of the
employees of a corporation which has a separate and distinct
personality are brought to fore in this case.
On October 20, 1987, eighty-four (84) workers of the Philippine
Inter-Fashion, Inc. (PIF) filed a complaint against the latter for
illegal transfer simultaneous with illegal dismissal without
justifiable cause and in violation of the provision of the Labor
Code on security of tenure as well as the provisions of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 130. Complainants demanded reinstatement with
full backwages, living allowance, 13th month pay and other
benefits under existing laws and/or separation pay.
On October 21, 1987, PIF, through its General Manager, was
notified about the complaint and summons for the hearing set for
November 6, 1987. The hearing was re-set for November 27,
1987 for failure of respondents to appear. On November 30, 1987
respondents (petitioners herein) moved for the cancellation of the
hearing scheduled on November 6, 1987 so that they could
engage a counsel to properly represent them preferably on
November 17, 1987.
On December 10, 1987 both parties were directed to submit their
respective position papers within ten (10) days. By mutual
agreement the hearing was re-set on December 21, 1987 but on
said date respondents and/or counsel failed to appear. The
hearing was re-set on January 14, 1988 on which date
respondents were given a deadline to submit their position paper.
includes
wills.
The claim of the petitioners that respondent Ng is their manageradministrator is untenable since it fails to pass the control test
pertinent to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
The control test asks whether the employer controls or has
reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result
of the work but also as to the means and methods by which the
said work is to be accomplished (Social Security System v. Court
of Appeals, 156 SCRA 383 [1987]). Such control by the petitioners
over respondent Ng is lacking. Exhibit A is in the nature of a lease
contract under Art. 1643 of the Civil Code which states that:
Art. 1643. In the lease of things, one of the
parties binds himself to give to another the
enjoyment or use of a thing for a price
certain, and for a period which may be
definite or indefinite. However, no lease for
more than ninety-nine (99) years shall be
valid.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the two courts below
that the disputed contract is a lease contract. The reasons given
are:
(1) The respondent paid the petitioners a
fixed P8,000.00 monthly even when the
business suffers a loss. The P8,000.00 was
paid at the start of the month with no
attention paid to operating expenses, profits,
and losses.
(2) The monthly receipts received by the
petitioners from Alejandro Ng state that they
were given for rentals from January to
October 1976. The receipts for November
and
December
substitute
the
word
"commission" for "rental". The respondent
explained the change by stating that
petitioner Uy changed the receipt as he
realized that subleasing the premises to Ng
was a violation of the contract with the owner
and the latter might discover the violation.
The receipts were prepared by the petitioners
but signed in the presence of the respondent
when payment was made.
(3) The respondent was responsible for all
licenses, permits, utilities and services,
including the installation and repair of all
equipment such as airconditioning units. He
had sole control and management and did
not report to anybody.
Anent the argument that the respondent Court, in holding
petitioner Uy severally liable with the petitioner corporation,
departed from the rule that a stockholder or officer of a
corporation has a personality distinct from the corporation, we
hold that the corporate entity theory cannot apply in the instant
case where it is being invoked as a cloak or shield for illegality.
(see Tan Boon Bee & Co., Inc. v. Judge Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205
[1988]), There is proof obtaining in the case at bar as to the real
nature of Exhibit A. Thus, being a party to a simulated contract of
management, petitioner Uy cannot be permitted to escape liability
under the said contract by using the corporate entity theory. This
is one instance when the veil of corporate entity has to be pierced
to avoid injustice and inequity.
MELO, J.:
When petitioners informed herein private respondents to stop the
delivery of pulp wood supplied by the latter pursuant to a contract
of sale between them, private respondents sued for breach of
their covenant. The court of origin dismissed the complaint but at
the same time enjoined petitioners to respect the contract of sale
if circumstances warrant the full operation in a commercial scale
of petitioners' Baloi plant and to continue accepting and paying for
September 30, 1
Iligan
Diversified
Iligan City
Projects,
Inc.
By:
DR.
Resident Manag
Private respondent Romeo Lluch sought to clarify the tenor of the
letter as to whether stoppage of delivery or termination of the
contract of sale was intended, but the query was not answered by
petitioners. This alleged ambiguity notwithstanding, Lluch and the
other suppliers resumed deliveries after the series of talks
between Romeo S. Vergara and Romeo Lluch.