Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > August 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 29780 August 23, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ASIA LUMBER CO.

053 Phil 346:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 29780. August 23, 1929.]

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASIA LUMBER CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

H. V. Bamberger for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WHEN CORPORATION WILL NOT BE DISSOLVED. — A corporation will not be dissolved where it is apparent that in the proceeding for that purpose, the government made itself a party to the internal strife and friction among the stockholders of the corporation, and that the suit was instituted by the government at the instance of the former president of the corporation.

STATEMENT

The government alleges that the defendant is a domestic corporation, the capital stock of which at first was P150,000 divided into 1,500 shares of the par value of P100 each, which on November 20, 1922, were increased to P500,000 divided into 5,000 shares of P100 each. That its principal place of business was in the municipality and Province of Iloilo, and that its primary purpose was to engage in the lumber, timber, and saw-mill business. That according to the articles of incorporation P85,000 of its authorized capital stock was subscribed, and the subscribers paid P68,000 of that amount, but that in truth and in fact only P64,000 was actually paid in cash at the time. That on October 12, 1920, its treasurer subscribed to an oath, which was made a part of the articles of incorporation, that P85,000 of the capital stock had been subscribed, and that P68,000 of that amount was actually paid, but that the sum of P64,000 only was actually paid. That about May 9, 1924, Walter A. Smith and the Walter A. Smith Co., Inc., another domestic corporation, purchased the controlling interest of the defendant from its old stockholders, and that in lieu thereof their certificates of stock were issued to and in the name of Walter A. Smith. That after Walter A. Smith, President of the Walter A. Smith Co., Inc., assumed control, he acquired 1,615 new shares of the stock of the defendant which were issued to Walter A. Smith Co., Inc., in payment of the accounts then due from the defendant to Walter A. Smith & Company, and which shares were later purchased by Walter A. Smith at 50 per cent of their par value. That since then the business of the two companies have been intermingled to the prejudice of the stockholders of the two corporations and their creditors. That from July, 1924, to July 31, 1926, the salaries of the employees have been paid by the defendant only. That the minute book, stock and transfer book have not been kept as required by section 52 of Act No. 1459, known as the Corporation Law. That the machinery and other property were sold to the defendant by some of its officers at exorbitant prices. That it has not sufficient financial strength to continue doing business, and cannot pay its debts. "That no adequate remedy exists whereby the public may be protected from further illegal acts of the respondent corporation, except through the dissolution of the same." That the defendant has misused its franchise, privileges and corporate rights, and has forfeited its privileges, powers, and franchise. Wherefore, the government prays that an order be issued to the defendant to show cause why judgment should not be entered depriving it of its corporate rights, dissolving the corporation, and for such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

For answer the defendant made a general and specific denial, and as a special defense alleged that the plaintiff’s cause of action has prescribed.

In an exhaustive opinion, the lower court rendered judgment "ousting and depriving the defendant corporation of all its corporate rights, privileges, and franchise, and declaring the dissolution of the defendant, together with costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

On appeal defendant assigns the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The court erred in finding that Walter A. Smith acquired one hundred sixty-one thousand five hundred pesos (P161,500) worth of stock of the defendant company at fifty (50) per cent of its par value in violation of section 16 of Act No. 1459.

"2. The court erred in finding that the facts set out in the finding of fact contained its decision (pp. 22, 23, 24) were sufficient to justify the dissolution of the corporate powers of the defendant.

"3. The court erred in ordering the dissolution of the defendant company."


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J.:


October 18, 1920, Edward J. Pfleider, J. S. Mohler, R. C. Huggan, C. S. Gilchrist and Thomas N. Powell organized the defendant with an authorized capital stock of P150,000, divided into 1,500 shares of the par value of P100 each. At that time Pfleider was the owner of a tract of land at a place called Asia, on the coast of the Island of Negros, which he leased to the defendant for a period of five years and for such further time "as might be necessary for the cutting of the timber then standing on the land." During the time that Pfleider was the president of the defendant, he and Gilchrist, a director, sold it an engine and a boiler for the agreed price of P14,000. August 23, 1922, when Ford became president of the corporation, he severely criticised this purchase, claiming that the property was not worth one-half of the amount of the purchase price. As a result of internal strife, Walter A. Smith acquired control of the defendant company, which was then indebted to Walter A. Smith Co., Inc., in the sum of P161,500. By mutual agreement the defendant paid its debts to Walter A. Smith & Company by issuing 1,615 shares of its capital stock to that company which later sold them to Walter A. Smith. At the expiration of the five-year period. Pfleider brought an action against the defendant to terminate the lease, which case is now pending on appeal in this court.

On investigation the defendant found that a large tract of virgin timber on the plateau back of the Pfleider property "could be tapped if adequate means of transportation could be furnished." As a result detailed plans were made and construction work started, and a mill pond, a new dock and a new railroad were in the course of construction at the time the investigation was made by the Insular Auditor, whose report, together with the complaint of Pfleider, resulted in the commencement of this action.

The Attorney-General frankly concedes that the first assignment of error must be sustained. The evidence shows that the defendant owed Walter A. Smith & Company P161,500 which it could not pay, and that by mutual agreement, the defendant issued 1,615 shares of its capital stock to the Walter A. Smith & Company in full payment of that debt. To say the least, there was nothing wrong about that transaction, and the fact that the Walter A. Smith & Company later sold that stock to Walter A. Smith for 50 per cent of its par value ought not to be charged to the defendant. The engine and boiler were purchased sometime in the year 1921, and this action was commenced February 12, 1927, at the instigation of Pfleider, who was a party to that alleged fraudulent sale, or about six years after he and Gilchrist made the sale. As a result of its efforts to acquire and open up a new body of timber and the large amount of money expended for that purpose, the defendant may or may not be insolvent, but assuming, without deciding, that it is, that would not be any legal ground for the government to take away its charter. In such a case it would be far better for the defendant, its stockholders and creditors to wind up its affairs with its corporate charter than without. It appears that the defendant has not kept its minute and stock books in the manner and form in which they should be kept, but even so, that is a matter which can be very easily corrected. In the final analysis, it is very apparent that the government has made itself a party in this case to the internal strife and friction among the stockholders of the defendant, and that in truth and in fact this proceeding was instituted by the government at the instance of Pfleider, who was the former president of the defendant.

For want of any merit in the petition, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and this proceeding is dismissed, without costs, with the admonition that the defendant promptly prepare and have its minute book, corporate records, stock and transfer book in all things and respects conform to the Corporation Law. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 31342 August 3, 1929 - VICENTE ONG CHIONGCHI v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL NEGROS

    053 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 30532 August 5, 1929 - GODOFREDO MENDOZA v. TEODORO MENDIOLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 31251 August 6, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGUIA DE TAGA

    053 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 31255 August 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS GEYROSAGA

    053 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 30724 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DUCUSIN

    053 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 31070 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. T. WADE

    053 Phil 292

  • G.R. Nos. 30486 & 30487 August 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MAALIHAN

    053 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 31814 August 9, 1929 - FELIX ARAMBULO v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. 29412 August 10, 1929 - VICTORIANO OMBALINO v. FELIPA SALDARIAGA ET AL.

    053 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 30840 August 10, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL RIVERA

    053 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 30427 August 12, 1929 - HARRY MARTIN v. AGUSAN COCONUT CO.

    053 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 30686 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MONTES ET AL.

    053 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 31075 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO APIADO

    053 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 31680 August 14, 1929 - DIONISIO SAN PABLO v. FRANCISCO ENAGE

    053 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 30366 August 15, 1929 - SOCORRO SANCHEZ DE STRONG v. WILLIAM BEISHIR

    053 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 31025 August 15, 1929 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ ET AL. v. JUAN CARPIO

    053 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 30745 August 20, 1929 - J. V. HOUSE v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 31024 August 22, 1929 - RICARDO DE MESA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    053 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 29780 August 23, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ASIA LUMBER CO.

    053 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 30234 August 23, 1929 - CLARO VILLAROSA ET AL. v. ULDARICO VILLAMOR

    053 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 30240 August 23, 1929 - AQUILINA TACAS ET AL. v. EVARISTO TOBON

    053 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 31101 August 23, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DURANTE

    053 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 30495 August 24, 1929 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 30279 August 26, 1929 - MAXIMO GUILLENA v. CANDELARIO BORJA

    053 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 31273 August 26, 1929 - CORNELIO ALBA v. FORTUNATO ACUÑA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 31636 August 26, 1929 - SATURNINO GALLARDO v. ELIAS ALDANA

    053 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 30783 August 27, 1929 - JUAN B. ALEGRE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 31123 August 27, 1929 - PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. CARMEN BELANDO

    053 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 30421 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN JAVIER

    053 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 30668 August 28, 1929 - SABAS BUSTAMANTE ET AL. v. JOSE M. RATO Y TUASON ET AL.

    053 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 30829 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE ET AL.

    053 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 31120 August 28, 1929 - JESUSA LACSON DE ARROYO v. VISAYAN GENERAL SUPPLY CO.

    053 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 31137 August 30, 1929 - CING HONG SO v. TAN BOON KONG ET AL.

    053 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 30246 August 31, 1929 - AGRIPINO DE OCAMPO ET AL. v. JUAN ZAPORTEZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 442