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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Hall V Piccio

    Uploaded by

    Cj Garcia
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc. The 3 main points are: 1) The company did not legally exist as a corporation because it had not received its certificate of incorporation from the SEC. As such, the court had jurisdiction to order its dissolution. 2) While the company's founders signed articles of incorporation, this did not make it a de facto corporation until it received SEC approval. 3) The court ruled it did not lack jurisdiction as the company could not claim to be a corporation "in good faith" without having obtained the proper certificate. The court therefore had the power to decree the dissolution.

    Copyright:

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

    Hall V Piccio

    Uploaded by

    Cj Garcia
    49 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc. The 3 main points are: 1) The company did not legally exist as a corporation because it had not received its certificate of incorporation from the SEC. As such, the court had jurisdiction to order its dissolution. 2) While the company's founders signed articles of incorporation, this did not make it a de facto corporation until it received SEC approval. 3) The court ruled it did not lack jurisdiction as the company could not claim to be a corporation "in good faith" without having obtained the proper certificate. The court therefore had the power to decree the dissolution.

    Original Description:

    Hall v Piccio

    Original Title

    Hall v Piccio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc. The 3 main points are: 1) The company did not legally exist as a corporation because it had not received its certificate of incorporation from the SEC. As such, the court had jurisdiction to order its dissolution. 2) While the company's founders signed articles of incorporation, this did not make it a de facto corporation until it received SEC approval. 3) The court ruled it did not lack jurisdiction as the company could not claim to be a corporation "in good faith" without having obtained the proper certificate. The court therefore had the power to decree the dissolution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views1 page

    Hall V Piccio

    Uploaded by

    Cj Garcia
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc. The 3 main points are: 1) The company did not legally exist as a corporation because it had not received its certificate of incorporation from the SEC. As such, the court had jurisdiction to order its dissolution. 2) While the company's founders signed articles of incorporation, this did not make it a de facto corporation until it received SEC approval. 3) The court ruled it did not lack jurisdiction as the company could not claim to be a corporation "in good faith" without having obtained the proper certificate. The court therefore had the power to decree the dissolution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Garcia, Christian Joseph E.

    JD-2B

    G.R. No. L-2598 June 29, 1950

    C. ARNOLD HALL and BRADLEY P. HALL, petitioners,


    vs.
    EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, FRED BROWN, EMMA
    BROWN, HIPOLITA CAPUCIONG, in his capacity as receiver of the Far Eastern Lumber and
    Commercial Co., Inc.,respondents.

    FACTS:

    Petitioners and the respondents signed, the article of incorporation of the Far Eastern Lumber and
    Commercial Co., Inc., organized to engage in a general lumber business to carry on as general contractors,
    operators and managers, etc. Immediately after the execution of said articles of incorporation, the
    corporation proceeded to do business. Subsequently, the said articles of incorporation were filed in the
    office of the SEC for the issuance of the corresponding certificate of incorporation. Pending action, the
    respondents filed before the Court alleging among other things that the Company was an unregistered
    partnership; that they wished to have it dissolved because of bitter dissension among the members,
    mismanagement, fraud and heavy financial losses. The court ordered the dissolution of the company. In
    the present special civil action the petitioners argued: that the court had no jurisdiction to decree the
    dissolution of the company, because it being a de facto corporation, dissolution thereof may only be
    ordered in a quo warranto proceeding instituted in accordance with section 19 of the Corporation Law;
    that inasmuch as respondents Fred Brown and Emma Brown had signed the article of incorporation but
    only a partnership.

    ISSUE (1):

    Does a corporation exist in this case?

    RULING:

    No. All the parties are informed that the SEC has yet issued the corresponding certificate of incorporation.
    All of them ought to know, that the personality of a corporation begins to exist only from the moment
    such certificate is issued — not before (sec. 11, Corporation Law). The complaining associates have not
    represented to the others that they were incorporated any more than the latter had made similar
    representations to them. And as nobody was led to believe anything to his prejudice and damage, the
    principle of estoppel does not apply. This is not an instance requiring the enforcement of contracts with
    the corporation through the rule of estoppel.

    ISSUE (2):

    Was the court bereft of jurisdiction to decree the dissolution?

    RULING:

    No. The contention of the petitioners is premised on the theory that, inasmuch as the Company is a de
    facto corporation, section 19 of the Corporation Law applies, and therefore the court had no jurisdiction
    to take cognizance of said case. Section 19 reads as follows:

    . . . The due incorporation of any corporations claiming in good faith to be a corporation under

    this Act and its right to exercise corporate powers shall not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit
    to which the corporation may be a party, but such inquiry may be had at the suit of the Insular
    Government on information of the Attorney-General.

    However, this section does not govern the situation. Not having obtained the certificate of incorporation,
    the Company — even its stockholders — may not probably claim "in good faith" to be a corporation. The
    immunity of collateral attack is granted to corporations "claiming in good faith to be a corporation under
    this act." Unless there has been an evident attempt to comply with the law, the claim to be a corporation
    "under this act" could not be made "in good faith."

    You might also like