Salvatierra vs. Garlitos
Petitioner-lessor entered into a lease with "Philippine Fibers Producers Co., Inc." represented by respondent Refuerzo as president. When the alleged corporation failed to account for harvest proceeds, petitioner sued and obtained judgment. During execution, Refuerzo moved for relief claiming he acted only in a corporate capacity and bore no personal liability. The CFI granted the motion and ordered the release of his attached properties. The SC granted certiorari, ruling that (1) the motion for relief was filed out of time under Rule 38, and (2) since the corporation was unregistered and had no juridical existence, Refuerzo acted as an agent without a principal and is personally liable for the contractual obligations.
Primary Holding
A person who acts or purports to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid legal existence assumes the privileges and obligations of a principal and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or acts performed as such agent.
Background
A lease agreement covering land in Burauen, Leyte for kenaf planting, where the lessee-purported corporation failed to render accounting and deliver the lessor's 30% share of net income as contractually stipulated.
History
- CFI of Leyte (Civil Case No. 1912): Plaintiff (Salvatierra) filed complaint for accounting, rescission and damages against Philippine Fibers Producers Co., Inc. and Segundino Refuerzo on April 5, 1955
- CFI Decision (June 8, 1955): Granted plaintiff's prayer; ordered defendants to render accounting within 15 days and deliver 30% of net income (P960), with rescission of lease; defendants declared in default
- Execution: Writ issued; Provincial Sheriff attached 3 parcels of land registered in Refuerzo's name (no corporate property found)
- Motion for Relief (Jan. 31, 1956): Refuerzo filed motion to declare decision null as to him, claiming no personal liability
- CFI Order (March 21, 1956): Granted motion; ordered release of Refuerzo's attached properties
- SC: Petitioner filed petition for certiorari after her petition for relief from order was denied
Facts
- Manuela T. Vda. de Salvatierra owned land at Maghobas, Poblacion, Burauen, Leyte
- March 7, 1954: Salvatierra entered into 10-year lease contract with "Philippine Fibers Producers Co., Inc." — allegedly a duly organized corporation — represented by Segundino Q. Refuerzo as President
- Contract terms: Lessee to plant kenaf/ramie; lessor entitled to 30% of net income without production cost responsibility; lessee to declare income after every harvest and deliver lessor's share
- April 1954: Defendants planted kenaf on 3 hectares, harvested, processed and sold the crop
- Defendants refused to render accounting or deliver lessor's share despite demand
- Plaintiff discovered subsequent to filing complaint that the corporation was not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (no juridical personality)
- Estimated gross income: P4,500; estimated expenses: P1,000; net income: P3,200; 30% share due: P960
Arguments of the Petitioners
- The CFI Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the March 21, 1956 order relieving Refuerzo of liability
- Refuerzo is personally liable because he acted as agent of a non-existent corporation without authority
- Fraud exception to estoppel applies: While generally a party dealing with an association as a corporation is estopped from denying its existence, this does not apply where fraud is involved — Refuerzo made plaintiff believe the corporation was duly registered when it was not
- Refuerzo was the "moving spirit" behind the transaction and cannot hide behind corporate fiction
Arguments of the Respondents
- The complaint contained no allegation pointing to Refuerzo's personal liability
- Refuerzo signed the contract only in his capacity as President of the corporation, not in his personal capacity
- Liability should be limited to the corporate entity only, not the officer/shareholder
- The CFI correctly found that evidence on record made no mention of facts holding movant personally liable
Issues
- Procedural Issues: Whether the motion for relief under Rule 38 filed by Refuerzo on January 31, 1956 was filed within the reglementary periods (60 days from knowledge, not more than 6 months from judgment dated June 8, 1955)
- Substantive Issues: Whether Segundino Refuerzo, as president of an unregistered (non-existent) corporation, is personally liable for the contractual obligations entered into in the corporation's name
Ruling
- Procedural: Denied; motion for relief was filed out of time. The decision was rendered June 8, 1955; the motion was filed January 31, 1956 — a lapse of 7 months and 23 days, beyond the 6-month absolute limit in Rule 38, Section 3. The periods under Rule 38 (60 days from knowledge, 6 months from judgment) are non-extendible, never interrupted, and cannot be subjected to conditions.
- Substantive: Refuerzo is personally liable. A non-existent corporation has no juridical personality separate from its members; it is incompetent to act or create agents. One who acts as its representative does so without authority and at his own risk. Under the principle that an agent without a principal is himself the principal, Refuerzo assumed all rights and liabilities of a principal and is personally bound by the lease contract.
Doctrines
- Rule 38 Periods (Relief from Judgment) — A petition for relief must be verified and filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment AND not more than 6 months after such judgment was entered; both periods must be satisfied conjunctively. These periods are of grace, non-extendible, never interrupted, and not subject to conditions.
- Estoppel to Deny Corporate Existence (Fraud Exception) — While a person dealing with an association as a corporate body is generally estopped from denying its existence (Asia Banking Corporation doctrine), this estoppel does not apply where fraud takes part in the transaction.
- Personal Liability of Agents of Non-existent Corporations — An unregistered corporation has no juridical personality; it cannot create agents or confer authority. Persons acting as its agents do so without authority and at their own risk. By acting on behalf of a corporation known to be unregistered, the agent assumes the risk of personal liability.
- Agent Without a Principal = Principal — Elementary agency principle: A person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is regarded as the principal himself, possessed of all rights and subject to all liabilities of a principal.
- Moving Spirit Doctrine — As president and moving spirit behind the unregistered corporation's transaction, the officer cannot limit his liability to that imposed upon shareholders of a duly registered corporation.
Key Excerpts
- "The remedy allowed by Rule 38 to a party adversely affected by a decision or order is certainly an alert of grace or benevolence intended to afford said litigant a penultimate opportunity to protect his interest. Considering the nature of such relief and the purpose behind it, the periods fixed by said rule are non-extendible and never interrupted; nor could it be subjected to any condition or contingency because it is of itself devised to meet a condition or contingency."
- "A corporation which before the law is non-existent has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the powers and attribute of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk."
- "A person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a principal."
Precedents Cited
- Palomares vs. Jimenez (G.R. No. L-4513, Jan. 31, 1952) — Cited for the rule that Rule 38 periods are non-extendible and never interrupted.
- Asia Banking Corporation vs. Standard Products Co. (46 Phil. 114), Compania Agricola de Ultramar vs. Reyes (4 Phil. 1), Ohta Development Co. vs. Steamship Pompey (49 Phil. 117) — Cited for the general doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence of associations dealt with as corporations.
- Walter A. Smith Co. vs. Ford (SC-G.R. No. 42420) — Cited for the principle that a registered corporation has juridical personality separate from stockholders/officers, limiting personal liability.
- Fay vs. Noble (7 Cushing [Mass.] 188) — Cited for the common law principle that an agent without a principal is himself the principal.
Provisions
- Rule 38, Section 3 of the Rules of Court (Old Rules of Court) — Prescribes the 60-day and 6-month periods for filing petitions for relief from judgment; requires verification and affidavit of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
- General Corporation Law principles — Juridical personality requires registration; only registered corporations enjoy separate legal existence and limited liability shield.