Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > October 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21644 October 2, 1924 - PUA CASIM & CO. v. W. NEUMARK & CO.

046 Phil 342:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-21644. October 2, 1924. ]

PUA CASIM & CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. W. NEUMARK & CO., Defendant-Appellant.

Hartigan & Welch for Appellant.

Recto & Cardenas for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CORPORATION; AUTHORITY OF MANAGER TO BORROW MONEY; GENERAL RULE IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION. — The general rule is that an officer of a corporation has no implied power to borrow money in its behalf; but where a general business manager of a corporation is clothed with apparent authority to borrow and the amount borrowed does not exceed the ordinary requirements of the business, it has often been held that the authority is implied and that the corporation is bound.

2. ID; ID.; EXCEPTION OF THE GENERAL RULE. — Where it appears that the corporation was in need of funds to carry on its business and it does not appear that the borrowed was disproportionate to the volume of the business, the corporation will be held responsible for any loan obtained in its behalf by an officer who, at the same time, was president, general manager, and principal stockholder in said corporation and was clothed with apparent authority to do everything necessary for the conduct of its business.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J. :


This action is brought to recover the sum of P15,000 with interest and costs. It is alleged in the complaint that on or about January 20, 1922, the defendant corporation represented by its president and principal stockholder, W. Neumark, borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of P15,000 which was delivered to the said defendant by means of a check drawn in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff’s account in the China Banking Corporation, which check was deposited with the Bank of the Philippine Islands and the amount of it credited to the defendant on its current account.

The defendant’s answer is a general denial together with a special defense to the effect that W. Neumark had never been authorized by the defendant corporation to borrow money for its account from the plaintiff to the amount of P15,000 and that said defendant has never received nor made use of the sum alleged to have been so borrowed.

The court below rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P15,000 with legal interest from October 30, 1922, and with the costs. From this judgment the defendant appeals to this court.

The appellant presents two assignments of errors, viz. : (1) That the court erred in holding the defendant responsible for the payment of the money borrowed by Neumark, and (2) that the court erred in giving the plaintiff judgment for P15,000 with interest and costs.

The first assignment of error cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that Neumark was the principal stockholder, the president and the general business manager of the defendant corporation. On behalf of the corporation he solicited a loan from the plaintiff and, as alleged in the complaint, was given the plaintiff’s check in favor of the corporation for the sum of P15,000, which check was endorsed by him in his capacity as president of the corporation and deposited to the corporation’s account. It may be true that a large part of the amount so deposited was diverted by Neumark to his own use, but that does not alter the fact that the money was borrowed for the corporation and placed in its possession.

It is conceded that Neumark was not expressly authorizes by the board of directors to borrow the money in question and the general rule is that a business manager or other officer of a corporation has no implied power to borrow money on its behalf. But much depends upon the circumstances of each particular case and the rule stated is subject to important exceptions. Thus, where a general business manager of a corporation is clothed with apparent authority to borrow and the amount borrowed does not exceed the ordinary requirements of the business, it has often been held that the authority is implied and that the corporation is bound. (G. V. B. Mining Co. v. Alley, 141 Ill., 284; Topeka Primary Association University of Builders v. Martin, 39 Kan., 750; Africa v. Duluth News Tribune Co., 82 Minn., 283; Rosemond v. Northwestern Autographic Register Co., 62 Minn., 374; Helena National Bank v. Rocky Mountain Telegraph Co., 20 Mont., 379; Fensterer v. Pressure Lighting Co., 149 N.Y.S., 49; Clark v. Freeport Clays etc., Co., 52 Pa. Super., 1.)

In the present case there are ample indications in the record that the corporation was in need of funds to carry on its business and it does not appear that the amount borrowed was disproportionate to the volume of the business. As president, general manager and principal stock holder Neumark appeared, in a sense, to be almost the whole corporation and was clothed with apparent authority to do everything necessary for the conduct of its business. In these circumstances he must be held to have been impliedly authorized to borrow the money here in question.

The second assignment of error is well taken; the plaintiff admits that he has received P5,000 from the corporation on account of the loan.

The judgment appealed from is therefore modified by reducing the amount of the recovery to the sum of P10,000 with interest at the legal rate from October 30, 1922, and with the costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22545 October 1, 1924 - BENITA QUIOGE DE V. DEL ROSARIO v. HON. MIGUEL ROMUALDEZ

    046 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 22547 October 1, 1924 - EPIFANIO ATIENZA WEE CHUCO v. CIRILA MOLINA

    048 Phil 986

  • G.R. No. 21821 October 2, 1924 - WISE and CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    049 Phil 966

  • G.R. No. L-21644 October 2, 1924 - PUA CASIM & CO. v. W. NEUMARK & CO.

    046 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-21881 October 3, 1924 - E. MACIAS & CO. v. CHINA FIRE INS. & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    046 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-21572 October 4, 1924 - MARCELA LLENARES v. FELISA VALDEAVELLA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-21921 October 4, 1924 - ATKINS, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO DOMINGO

    046 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-22383 October 6, 1924 - PNB v. MARGARITA Y. QUINTOS, ET AL

    046 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-22366 October 7, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EUSTAQUIO JOSON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 380



  • G.R. Nos. 21377 & 21659 October 8, 1924 - MATILDE MAGDAÑGAL v. CRISANTO LICHAUCO, ET AL.

    051 Phil 894


  • G.R. No. 22071 October 9, 1924 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    048 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-21649 October 9, 1924 - SALMON, ET AL. v. NICOLAS WIJANGCO

    046 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-22702 October 9, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VICENTE LAOTA

    046 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-22345 October 10, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE DIÑO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-22807 October 10, 1924 - GREGORIO R. SY-QUIA v. SHERIFF OF ILOCOS SUR, ET AL.

    046 Phil 400



  • G.R. No. 22390 October 11, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL J. OSSORIO

    050 Phil 864


  • G.R. No. 22061 October 11, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISTOBAL FRANCISCO

    046 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 22667 October 11, 1924 - GETULIO ALMAREZ, ET AL. v. MARIANO FLORENTINO

    046 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 22770 October 11, 1924 - RAYNUNFO FELIPE, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO TEODORO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 22318 October 15, 1924 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. PUBLIC UTILITY COM.

    046 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 22134 October 17, 1924 - MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & CO. v. ADMIRAL LINE

    046 Phil 418



  • G.R. No. 21549 October 22, 1924 - TEODORO VEGA v. SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., LTD.

    051 Phil 908


  • G.R. Nos. 21991 & 21992 October 31, 1924 - CHARLES ABOLAFIA v. LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INS. CO., LTD., ET AL.

    046 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-22906 October 31, 1924 - EDILBERTO R. BORJA v. FELIPE AGONCILLO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 432