Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15092. May 18, 1962.]

ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Tañada, Teehankee & Carreon, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Hilado & Hilado, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SUGAR CENTRALS; MILLING CONTRACTS; CONCESSIONS GIVEN BY CENTRAL TO PLANTERS, IF RETRACTED, WILL CONSTITUTE FRAUD; CASE AT BAR. — Since there is no rational explanation for the company’s asserting to the further concessions asked by the planters before the contracts were signed, except as further inducement for the planters to agree to the extension of the contract period, to allow the company now to retract such concessions would be to sanction a fraud upon he planters who relied on such additional stipulation.

2. CONTRACTS; NOVATION; MODIFICATION BEFORE A BARGAIN NOT NOVATION IN LAW. — There can be no novation unless two distinct and successive binding contracts take place, with the later one designed to replace the preceding convention. Modifications introduced before a bargain becomes obligatory can in no sense constitute novation in law.

3. ID.; ASSENT AND CONCURRENCE OF PARTIES NECESSARY TO PERFECT A CONTRACT; SETTING DOWN OF TERMS NOT IMPORTANT EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES. — Except in the case of statutory forms or solemn agreements, it is the assent and concurrence of the parties, and not the setting down of its terms, that constitute a binding contract.

4. CORPORATIONS; EXERCISE OF CHARTER POWERS; TESTS TO BE APPLIED. — "It is a question, therefore, in each case, of the logical relation of the act as to the corporate purpose expressed in the charter. If that act is one which is lawful in itself, and not otherwise prohibited, is done for the purpose of serving corporate ends, and is reasonably tributary to the promotion of those ends, in a substantial, and not in a remote and fanciful, sense, it may fairly be considered within charter powers. The test to be applied is whether the act in question is in direct and immediate furtherance of the corporation’s business, fairly incident to the express powers and reasonably necessary to their exercise. If so, the corporation has the power to do it; otherwise, not." (Fletcher Cyc. corp., Vol. 6, Rev. Ed. 1950, pp. 266-268)

5. ID.; ID.; QUESTION ON PROBABLE LOSSES OR DECREASE IN PROFITS NOT REVIEWABLE BY COURTS. — Whether or not a valid and binding resolution passed by the board of directors, will cause losses or decrease the profits of the corporation, may not be reviewed by the courts.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


Appeal on points of law from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, in its Civil Case No. 2603, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint that sought to compel the defendant Milling Company to increase plaintiff’s share in the sugar produced from their cane, from 60% to 62.33 %, starting from the 1951-1952 crop year.

It is undisputed that plaintiffs-appellants, Alfredo Montelibano, Alejandro Montelibano, and the limited co-partnership Gonzaga and Company, had been and are sugar planters adhered to the defendant- appellee’s sugar central mill under identical milling contracts. Originally executed in 1919, said contracts were stipulated to be in force for 30 years starting with the 1920-21 crop, and provided that the resulting product should be divided in the ratio of 45% for the mill and 55% for the planters. Sometime in 1936, it was proposed to execute amended milling contracts, increasing the planters’ share to 60% of the manufactured sugar and resulting molasses, besides other concessions, but extending the operation of the milling contract from the original 30 years to 45 years. To this effect, a printed Amended Milling Contract form was drawn up. On August 20, 1936, the Board of Directors of the appellee Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc., adopted a resolution (Acta No. 11, Acuerdo No. 1) granting further concessions to the planters over and above those contained in the printed Amended Milling Contract. The bone of contention is paragraph 9 of this resolution, that reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ACTA NO. 11

SESION DE LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA

AGOSTO 20, 1936

x       x       x


Acuerdo No. 1 — Previa mocion debidamente secundada, la Junta en consideración a una peticion de los plantadores hecha por un comité nombrado por los mismos, acuerda enmendar el contrato de molienda enmendado mediante las siguientes:"

x       x       x


"9.a Que si durante la vigencia de este contrato de Molienda Enmendado, las centrales azucareras, de Negros Occidental, cuya producción anual de azucar centrifugado sea mas de una tercera parte de la producción total anual de todas las centrales azucareras de Negros Occidental, concedieren a sus plantadores mejores condiciones que las estipuladas en el presente contrato, entonces esas mejores condiciones se concederan y por el presente se entenderan concedidas a los plantadores que hayan otorgado este Contrato de Molienda Enmendado."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellants signed and executed the printed Amended Milling Contract on September 10, 1936; but a copy of the resolution of August 20, 1936, signed by the Central’s General Manager, was not attached to the printed contract until April 17, 1937; with the notation —

"Las enmiendas arriba transcritas forman parte del contrato de molienda enmendado, otorgado por — y la Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc."cralaw virtua1aw library

In 1953, the appellants initiated the present action, contending that three Negros sugar centrals (La Carlota, Binalbagan-Isabela and San Carlos), with a total annual production exceeding one-third of the production of all the sugar central mills in the province, had already granted increased participation (of 62.5%) to their planters, and that under paragraph 9 of the resolution of August 20, 1936, heretofore quoted, the appellee had become obligated to grant similar concessions to the plaintiffs (appellants herein). The appellee Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc., resisted the claim, and defended by urging that the stipulations contained in the resolution were made without consideration; that the resolution in question was, therefore, null and void ab initio, being in effect a donation that was ultra vires and beyond the powers of the corporate directors to adopt.

After trial, the court below rendered judgment upholding the stand of the defendant milling company, and dismissed the complaint. Thereupon, plaintiffs duly appealed to this Court.

We agree with appellants that the appealed decisions can not stand. It must be remembered that the controverted resolution was adopted by appellee corporation as a supplement to, or further amendment of, the proposed milling contract, and that it was approved on August 20, 1936, twenty-one days prior to the signing by appellants on September 10, of the Amended Milling Contract itself; so that when the amended milling contract was executed, the concessions granted by the disputed resolution had been already incorporated into its terms. No reason appears of record why, in the face of such concessions, the appellants should reject them or consider them as separate and apart from the main amended milling contract, specially taking into account that appellant Alfredo Montelibano was, at the time, the President of the Planters Association (Exhibit 4, p. 11) that had agitated for the concessions embodied in the resolution of August 20, 1936. That the resolution formed an integral part of the amended milling contract, signed on September 10, and not a separate bargain, is further shown by the fact that a copy of the resolution was simply attached to the printed contract without special negotiations or agreement between the parties.

It follows from the foregoing that the terms embodied in the resolution of August 20, 1936 were supported by the same causa or consideration underlying the main amended milling contract; i.e., the promises and obligations undertaken thereunder by the planters, and, particularly, the extension of its operative period for an additional 15 years over and beyond the 30 years stipulated in the original contract. Hence, the conclusion of the court below that the resolution constituted gratuitous concessions not supported by any consideration is legally untenable.

All disquisition concerning donations and the lack of power of the directors of the respondent sugar milling company to make a gift to the planters would be relevant if the resolution in question had embodied a separate agreement after the appellants had already bound themselves to the terms of the printed milling contract. But this was not the case. When the resolution was adopted and the additional concessions were made by the company, the appellants were not yet obligated by the terms of the printed contract, since they admittedly did not sign it until twenty-one days later, on September 10, 1936. Before that date, the printed form was no more than a proposal that either party could modify at its pleasure, and the appellee actually modified it by adopting the resolution in question. So that by September 10, 1936, defendant corporation already understood that the printed terms were not controlling, save as modified by its resolution of August 20, 1936; and we are satisfied that such was also the understanding of appellants herein, and that the minds of the parties met upon that basis. Otherwise there would have been no consent or" meeting of the minds", and no binding contract at all. But the conduct of the parties indicates that they assumed, and they do not now deny, that the signing of the contract on September 10, 1962 did give rise to a binding agreement. That agreement had to exist on the basis of the printed terms as modified by the resolution of August 20, 1936, or not at all. Since there is no rational explanation for the Company’s assenting to the further concessions asked by the planters before the contracts were signed, except as further inducement for the planters to agree to the extension of the contract period, to allow the company now to retract such concessions would be to sanction a fraud upon the planters who relied on such additional stipulations.

The same considerations apply to the "void novation" theory of appellees. There can be no novation unless two distinct and successive binding contracts take place, with the later one designed to replace the preceding convention. Modifications introduced before a bargain become obligatory and can in no sense constitute novation in law.

Stress is placed on the fact that the text of the Resolution of August 20, 1936 was not attached to the printed contract until April 17, 1937. But, except in the case of statutory forms or solemn agreements (and it is not claimed that this is one), it is the assent and concurrence (the "meeting of the minds") of the parties, and not the setting down of its terms, that constitute a binding contract. And the fact that the addendum is only signed by the General Manager of the milling company emphasizes that the addition was made solely in order that the memorial of the terms of the agreement should be full and complete.

Much is made of the circumstance that the report submitted by the Board of Directors of the appellee company in November 19, 1936 (Exhibit 4) only made mention of the 90 per cent, the planters having agreed to the 60-40 sharing of the sugar set forth in the printed "amended milling contract", and did not make any reference at all to the terms of the resolution of August 20, 1936. But a reading of this report shows that it was not intended to inventory all the details of the amended contract; numerous provisions of the printed terms are also glossed over. The Directors of the appellee Milling Company had no reason at the time to call attention to the provisions of the resolution in question, since it contained mostly modifications in detail of the printed terms, and the only major change was paragraph 9 heretofore quoted; but when the report was made, that paragraph was not yet in effect, since it was conditioned on other centrals granting better concessions to their planters, and that did not happen until after 1950. There was no reason in 1936 to emphasize a concession that was not yet, and might never be, in effective operation.

There can be no doubt that the directors of the appellee company had authority to modify the proposed terms of the Amended Milling Contract for the purpose of making its terms more acceptable to the other contracting parties. The rule is that —

"It is a question, therefore, in each case, of the logical relation of the act to the corporate purpose expressed in the charter. If that act is one which is lawful in itself, and not otherwise prohibited, is done for the purpose of serving corporate ends, and is reasonably tributary to the promotion of those ends, in a substantial, and not in a remote and fanciful, sense, it may fairly be considered within charter powers. The test to be applied is whether the act in question is in direct and immediate furtherance of the corporation’s business, fairly incident to the express powers and reasonably necessary to their exercise. If so, the corporation has the power to do it; otherwise, not." (Fletcher Cyc. Corp., Vol. 6, Rev. Ed. 1950, pp. 266-268)

As the resolution in question was passed in good faith by the board of directors, it is valid and binding, and whether or not it will cause losses or decrease the profits of the central, the court has no authority to review them.

"They hold such office charged with the duty to act for the corporation according to their best judgment, and in so doing they cannot be controlled in the reasonable exercise and performance of such duty. Whether the business of a corporation should be operated at a loss during depression, or close down at a smaller loss, is a purely business and economic problem to be determined by the directors of the corporation and not by the court. It is a well-known rule of law that questions of policy or of management are left solely to the honest decision of officers and directors of a corporation, and the court is without authority to substitute its judgment of the board of directors; the board is the business manager of the corporation, and so long as it acts in good faith its orders are not reviewable by the courts." (Fletcher on Corporations, Vol. 2, p. 390)

And it appearing undisputed in this appeal that sugar centrals of La Carlota, Hawaiian Philippines, San Carlos and Binalbagan (which produce over one-third of the entire annual sugar production in Occidental Negros) have granted progressively increasing participations to their adhered planters, at an average rate of

62.333% for the 1951-52 crop year;

64.2% for the 1952-53;

64.3% for the 1953-54;

64.5% for the 1954-55; and

63.5% for the 1955-1956,

the appellee Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company is, under the terms of its Resolution of August 20, 1936, duty bound to grant similar increases to plaintiffs-appellants herein.

WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is reversed and set aside; and judgment is decreed sentencing defendant-appellee to pay plaintiffs-appellants the differential or increase of participation in the milled sugar in accordance with paragraph 9 of the appellee’s Resolution of August 20, 1936, over and in addition to the 60% expressed in the printed Amended Milling Contract, or the value thereof when due, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

0.333% to appellants Montelibano for the 1951-1952 crop year, said appellants having received an additional 2% corresponding to said year in October, 1953;

2.333% to appellant Gonzaga & Co., for the 1951-1952 crop year; and to all appellants thereafter —

4.2% for the 1952-1953 crop year;

4.3% for the 1953-1954 crop year;

4.5% for the 1954-1955 crop year;

3.5% for the 1955-1956 crop year;

with interest at the legal rate on the value of such differential during the time they were withheld; and the right is reserved to plaintiffs-appellants to sue for such additional increases as they may be entitled to for the crop years subsequent to those herein adjudged.

Costs against appellee, Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, 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






May-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962 - CARLOS CUNANAN v. JORGE TAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-15580 May 10, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-19593 May 10, 1962 - DELFIN B. ALBANO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14975 May 15, 1962 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12658 May 18, 1962 - FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL. v. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14573 May 18, 1962 - CONCEPCION FELICIANO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17041-17042 May 18, 1962 - TOMAS LITIMCO v. LA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-17524 May 18, 1962 - FELICIANO VERGARA v. CIRIACO VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-18883 May 18, 1962 - PEDRO ESTELLA v. PEDRO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-10457 May 22, 1962 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA, ET AL. v. PEDRO P. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16472 May 23, 1962 - JUANA VDA DE MARTEL, ET AL. v. JULIANA F. ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16628 May 23, 1962 - VIVENCIO LASALA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-18420 May 24, 1962 - DALMACIO PREPOTENTE v. JOSE SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17788 May 25, 1962 - LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15345 May 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15915 May 26, 1962 - MARCELINO T. MACARAEG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18069 May 26, 1962 - ALFONSO DY CUECO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16732 May 29, 1962 - RAMON AUGUSTO, ET AL. v. ARCADIO ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17622 May 29, 1962 - IN RE: FERNANDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12613 May 30, 1962 - FARM IMPLEMENT MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13250 May 30, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13555 May 30, 1962 - SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14010 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS M. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14207 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-15680 May 30, 1962 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16383 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE LUMANTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16407 May 30, 1962 - ARCADIO G. MATELA v. CHUA TAY

  • G.R. No. L-16828 May 30, 1962 - SI NE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16850 May 30, 1962 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16955 May 30, 1962 - SALVADOR PANLILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17013 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: YAN HANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17025 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: SY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17338 May 30, 1962 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. CITY ATTORNEY OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17394 May 30, 1962 - AMADOR D. SANTOS v. DOLORES BANZON TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 - CECILIO PE, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PE

  • G.R. No. L-17458 May 30, 1962 - DANILO DAVID v. ALASKA LUMBER COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17502 May 30, 1962 - A. V. H. & COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17588 May 30, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. MAXIMA BLOUSE DE POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17591 May 30, 1962 - CLEOTILDE LAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17616 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABUY

  • G.R. No. L-17656 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO TAYLOR v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17663 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAURO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. Nos. L-17684-85 May 30, 1962 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17757 May 30, 1962 - MAMERTA DE LA MERCED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17896 May 30, 1962 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. ANGAT LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17920 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-17932 May 30, 1962 - JOSE D. DE LA CRUZ v. SULPICIO DOLLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17977 May 30, 1962 - JEREMIAS MONTEJO v. DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18023 May 30, 1962 - ANGEL OTIBAR, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO G. VINSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18026 May 30, 1962 - SAN FELIPE IRON MINES, INC. v. JOSE A. NALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18165 May 30, 1962 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18530 May 30, 1962 - JOSE ALCANTARA v. DIONISIA YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18535 May 30, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ COMPANY, INC. v. L. S. SARMIENTO, CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18871 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO SOTTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11357 May 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. OLLADA, ETC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-11621 May 31, 1962 - ANTONIA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MARASIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12719 May 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLUB FILIPINO, INC., DE CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16045 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: CHUA CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16185-86 May 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17437 May 31, 1962 - MENO PE BENITO v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-17520 May 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BALANCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17603-04 May 31, 1962 - CEFERINA SAMO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17835 May 31, 1962 - GONZALO SANTOS RIVERA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17852 May 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17955 May 31, 1962 - PILAR LAZARO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL. v. SALUD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL.