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

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG