PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
PIONEER
INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BORDER
MACHINERY & HEAVY EQUIPMENT, INC., (BORMAHECO), CONSTANCIO M. MAGLANA and
JACOB S. LIM
G.R.
No. 84197 July 28, 1989
Facts:
1.
In
1965, Jacob S. Lim was engaged in the airline business as owner-operator of
Southern Air Lines (SAL) a single proprietorship.
2.
On
May 17, 1965, at Tokyo, Japan, Japan Domestic Airlines (JDA) and Lim entered
into and executed a sales contract for the sale and purchase of two DC-3A Type
aircrafts and one set of necessary spare parts for the total agreed price of US
$109,000.00 to be paid in installments.
3.
On
May 22, 1965, Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation as surety executed and
issued its Surety Bond in favor of JDA, in behalf of its principal, Lim, for
the balance price of the aircrafts and spare parts.
4.
It
appears that Border Machinery and Heavy Equipment Company, Inc. (Bormaheco),
Francisco and Modesto Cervantes (Cervanteses) and ConstancioMaglana contributed
some funds used in the purchase of the aircrafts and spare parts.
5.
The
funds were supposed to be their contributions to a new corporation proposed by
Lim to expand his airline business.
6.
They
executed two separate indemnity agreements in favor of Pioneer, one signed by
Maglana and the other jointly signed by Lim for SAL, Bormaheco and the
Cervanteses.
7.
The
indemnity agreements stipulated that the indemnitors principally agree and bind
themselves jointly and severally to indemnify and hold and save harmless
Pioneer from and against any/all damages, losses, costs, damages, taxes,
penalties, charges and expenses of whatever kind and nature which Pioneer may
incur in consequence of having become surety upon the bond/note and to pay,
reimburse and make good to Pioneer, its successors and assigns, all sums and
amounts of money which it or its representatives should or may pay or cause to
be paid or become liable to pay on them of whatever kind and nature.
8.
Lim
doing business under the name and style of SAL executed in favor of Pioneer as
deed of chattel mortgage as security for the latter's suretyship in favor of
the former. It was stipulated therein that Lim transfer and convey to the
surety the two aircrafts.
9.
Lim
defaulted on his subsequent installment payments prompting JDA to request
payments from the surety. Pioneer paid a total sum of P298,626.12.
10. Pioneer then
filed a petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the said chattel
mortgage.
11. The Cervanteses
and Maglana, however, filed a third party claim alleging that they are
co-owners of the aircrafts.
12. A decision was
rendered holding Lim liable to pay Pioneer but dismissed Pioneer's complaint
against all other defendants.
Issues:
What legal rules
govern the relationship among co-investors whose agreement was to do business
through the corporate vehicle but who failed to incorporate the entity in which
they had chosen to invest?
How are the
losses to be treated in situations where their contributions to the intended
'corporation' were invested not through the corporate form?
Ruling:
While it has
been held that as between themselves the rights of the stockholders in a
defectively incorporated association should be governed by the supposed charter
and the laws of the state relating thereto and not by the rules governing
partners, it is ordinarily held that persons who attempt, but fail, to form a
corporation and who carry on business under the corporate name occupy the
position of partners inter se. Thus, where persons associate themselves
together under articles to purchase property to carry on a business, and their
organization is so defective as to come short of creating a corporation within
the statute, they become in legal effect partners inter se, and their rights as
members of the company to the property acquired by the company will be
recognized. So, where certain persons associated themselves as a corporation
for the development of land for irrigation purposes, and each conveyed land to
the corporation, and two of them contracted to pay a third the difference in
the proportionate value of the land conveyed by him, and no stock was ever
issued in the corporation, it was treated as a trustee for the associates in an
action between them for an accounting, and its capital stock was treated as
partnership assets, sold, and the proceeds distributed among them in proportion
to the value of the property contributed by each. However, such a relation does
not necessarily exist, for ordinarily persons cannot be made to assume the
relation of partners, as between themselves, when their purpose is that no
partnership shall exist, and it should be implied only when necessary to do
justice between the parties; thus, one who takes no part except to subscribe
for stock in a proposed corporation which is never legally formed does not
become a partner with other subscribers who engage in business under the name
of the pretended corporation, so as to be liable as such in an action for
settlement of the alleged partnership and contribution. A partnership relation
between certain stockholders and other stockholders, who were also directors,
will not be implied in the absence of an agreement, so as to make the former
liable to contribute for payment of debts illegally contracted by the latter.
It is therefore
clear that the petitioner never had the intention to form a corporation with
the respondents despite his representations to them. This gives credence to the
cross-claims of the respondents to the effect that they were induced and lured
by the petitioner to make contributions to a proposed corporation which was
never formed because the petitioner reneged on their agreement.
No de facto
partnership was created among the parties which would entitle the petitioner to
a reimbursement of the supposed losses of the proposed corporation. The record
shows that the petitioner was acting on his own and not in behalf of his other
would-be incorporators in transacting the sale of the airplanes and spare
parts.
Comments
Post a Comment