Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 588 views

    02 Vicente V Geraldez

    Uploaded by

    cris
    This case involves a dispute over land between Hi Cement Corporation and three landowners. Hi Cement filed a case claiming rights to mine the land, which was found to include the landowners' properties. The lawyers reached a Compromise Agreement to settle the case, but Hi Cement's board did not approve the settlement. The court found the agreement invalid because the corporation's lawyers did not have special authority from the board to compromise the litigation. Corporations can only compromise through the means and approvals necessary to alienate their property, which in this case would require approval from the board of directors. As the board did not approve, the Compromise Agreement was not validly entered into on behalf of Hi Cement Corporation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    02 Vicente V Geraldez

    Uploaded by

    cris
    588 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over land between Hi Cement Corporation and three landowners. Hi Cement filed a case claiming rights to mine the land, which was found to include the landowners' properties. The lawyers reached a Compromise Agreement to settle the case, but Hi Cement's board did not approve the settlement. The court found the agreement invalid because the corporation's lawyers did not have special authority from the board to compromise the litigation. Corporations can only compromise through the means and approvals necessary to alienate their property, which in this case would require approval from the board of directors. As the board did not approve, the Compromise Agreement was not validly entered into on behalf of Hi Cement Corporation

    Original Description:

    Agency Digest

    Original Title

    02 Vicente v Geraldez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over land between Hi Cement Corporation and three landowners. Hi Cement filed a case claiming rights to mine the land, which was found to include the landowners' properties. The lawyers reached a Compromise Agreement to settle the case, but Hi Cement's board did not approve the settlement. The court found the agreement invalid because the corporation's lawyers did not have special authority from the board to compromise the litigation. Corporations can only compromise through the means and approvals necessary to alienate their property, which in this case would require approval from the board of directors. As the board did not approve, the Compromise Agreement was not validly entered into on behalf of Hi Cement Corporation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    588 views2 pages

    02 Vicente V Geraldez

    Uploaded by

    cris
    This case involves a dispute over land between Hi Cement Corporation and three landowners. Hi Cement filed a case claiming rights to mine the land, which was found to include the landowners' properties. The lawyers reached a Compromise Agreement to settle the case, but Hi Cement's board did not approve the settlement. The court found the agreement invalid because the corporation's lawyers did not have special authority from the board to compromise the litigation. Corporations can only compromise through the means and approvals necessary to alienate their property, which in this case would require approval from the board of directors. As the board did not approve, the Compromise Agreement was not validly entered into on behalf of Hi Cement Corporation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TACUBOY

    Compromise

    Ignacio Vicente an Moises Angeles v Hon. Ambrosio Geraldez and Hi


    Cement Corporation
    GR. No. L-32473, 31 July 1973
    Juan Bernabe v Hi Cement Corporation and Hon Ambrosio Geraldez
    GR No. L-32483, 31 July 1973
    Facts:
    Hi Cement filed a complaint for injuction and damages against petitioners
    alleging that it had acquired Placer Lease Contract under a deed of sale and
    transfer which was duly registered with the Office of the Mining Recorder of
    Bulacan and duly approved by the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources
    for a period of 25 years covering two mining claims.
    Within the limits of the Placer Mining Claims are three parcels of land each
    owned by petitioners.
    Hi Cement prayed that the petitioners allow it, its agents and workers to
    enter, develop and extract minerals from the areas claimed by defendants.
    Upon suggestion of the court, a surveyor surveyed the area to relocate the
    boundaries of the mining claims, which showed that the properties of the
    plaintiffs were covered
    The counsels of parties conferred on the possibility of terminating the case
    by compromise, the plaintiffs having previously signified their willingness to
    sell their respective properties.
    Counsels of parties executed and submitted to the court for its approval a
    Compromise Agreement, which was approved and enjoined the parties to
    comply with the terms and conditions. One of the three lawyers of Hi
    Cement sent a copy of the CA to the president of the corporation. However,
    the latter answered that the Board of Directors do not agree with the
    valuation set by the court.
    The trial court rendered judgment ordering Hi Cement to pay the plaintiffs.
    A new motion was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that decision was
    based on a CA which was null and void for want of a special authority by Hi
    Cements lawyers to enter into said agreement.
    Issue:
    W/N the compromise agreement entered into by corporrations lawyer is
    valid.
    Held:
    No.
    Ruling:
    Special powers of attorney are necessary in the ff: to compromise, and to
    renounce the right to appeal from a judgment. Attorneys have authority to bind
    their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and
    in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure, but they
    cannot, without special authority/compromise their clients litigation, or receive
    anything in discharge of their clients claims but the full amount in cash.

    TACUBOY

    Compromise

    The Compromise Agreement was signed only by the lawyers for petitioners
    and by the lawyers for private respondent corporation.
    The Court held that the Rules require for attorneys to compromise the
    litigation of their clients, a special authority. And while the same does not state
    that the special authority be in writing, the same be duly established by evidence
    other than the self-serving assertion of counsel himself that such authority was
    verbally given him.
    Law specifically required that juridical persons may compromise only in the
    form and with the requisites which may be necessary to alienate their property.
    Under the corporation law the power to compromise or settle claims in favor of or
    against the corporation is ordinarily and primarily committed to the Board of
    Directors.
    As a general rule, an officer or agent of the corporation has no power to
    compromise or settle a claim by or against the corporation, except to the extent
    that such power is given to him either expressly or by reasonable implication from
    the circumstances.
    A corporation officer's power as an agent of the corporation must therefore
    be sought from the statute, the charter, the
    In the case at bar no provision of the charter and by-laws of the corporation
    or any resolution or any other act of the board of directors of HI Cement
    Corporation has been cited, from which We could reasonably infer that the
    administrative manager had been granted expressly or impliedly the power to
    bind the

    You might also like