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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Chiang Kai Shiek

    Uploaded by

    Raymart Salamida
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Chiang Kai Shek School could be sued despite not being formally incorporated, for three reasons: 1) As a recognized private school, it was obligated to incorporate under law but failed to do so, and cannot now claim immunity. 2) By contracting with the plaintiff teacher for 32 years, the school represented itself as having legal personality and is estopped from denying this. 3) Suing the school directly is sufficient as it has juridical personality, so there is no need to also sue school officials. The Court therefore allowed the teacher's case against the school to proceed.

    Copyright:

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

    Chiang Kai Shiek

    Uploaded by

    Raymart Salamida
    94 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Chiang Kai Shek School could be sued despite not being formally incorporated, for three reasons: 1) As a recognized private school, it was obligated to incorporate under law but failed to do so, and cannot now claim immunity. 2) By contracting with the plaintiff teacher for 32 years, the school represented itself as having legal personality and is estopped from denying this. 3) Suing the school directly is sufficient as it has juridical personality, so there is no need to also sue school officials. The Court therefore allowed the teacher's case against the school to proceed.

    Original Description:

    Corpo Law

    Original Title

    31. Chiang Kai Shiek

    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 Supreme Court ruled that the Chiang Kai Shek School could be sued despite not being formally incorporated, for three reasons: 1) As a recognized private school, it was obligated to incorporate under law but failed to do so, and cannot now claim immunity. 2) By contracting with the plaintiff teacher for 32 years, the school represented itself as having legal personality and is estopped from denying this. 3) Suing the school directly is sufficient as it has juridical personality, so there is no need to also sue school officials. The Court therefore allowed the teacher's case against the school to proceed.

    Copyright:

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

    Chiang Kai Shiek

    Uploaded by

    Raymart Salamida
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Chiang Kai Shek School could be sued despite not being formally incorporated, for three reasons: 1) As a recognized private school, it was obligated to incorporate under law but failed to do so, and cannot now claim immunity. 2) By contracting with the plaintiff teacher for 32 years, the school represented itself as having legal personality and is estopped from denying this. 3) Suing the school directly is sufficient as it has juridical personality, so there is no need to also sue school officials. The Court therefore allowed the teacher's case against the school to proceed.

    Copyright:

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

    Chiang Kai Shiek vs.

    CA (172 SCRA 389)


    FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-58028 April 18, 1989
    CHIANG KAI SHEK SCHOOL, petitioner,
    vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FAUSTINA FRANCO OH, respondents.
    CRUZ, J.:

    DOCTRINE: There should also be no question that having contracted with the
    private respondent every year for 32 years and thus represented itself as
    possessed of juridical personality to do so, the petitioner is now estopped from
    denying such personality to defeat her claim against it.

    According to Article 1431 of the Civil Code, “through estoppel an admission or


    representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be
    denied or disproved as against the person relying on it.”

    Facts: Fausta F. Oh had been teaching in the Chiang Kai Shek School since 1932 for a
    continuous period of almost 33 years. She was told she had no assignment for the next
    semester. For no apparent or given reason, she was dismissed from her work.

    As a result, she sued and demanded separation pay, social security benefits, salary
    differentials, maternity benefits and moral and exemplary damages. The original
    defendant was the Chiang Kai Shek School but when it filed a motion to dismiss on the
    ground that it could not be sued, the complaint was amended. Certain officials of the
    school were also impleaded to make them solidarily liable with the school.

    The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon dismissed the complaint. On appeal, its
    decision was set aside by the respondent court, which held the school suable and liable
    while absolving the other defendants. The motion for reconsideration having been
    denied, the school then came to the SC via a petition for review on certiorari.

    Issue: Whether a school that has not been incorporated may be sued by reason alone
    of its long continued existence and recognition by the government

    Held: Yes. As a school, the petitioner was governed by Act No. 2706 as amended by
    C.A. No. 180, which provided as follows: Unless exempted for special reasons by the
    Secretary of Public Instruction, any private school or college recognized by the
    government shall be incorporated under the provisions of Act No. 1459 known as the
    Corporation Law, within 90 days after the date of recognition, and shall file with the
    Secretary of Public Instruction a copy of its incorporation papers and by-laws.

    Having been recognized by the government, it was under obligation to incorporate


    under the Corporation Law within 90 days from such recognition. It appears that it had
    not done so at the time the complaint was filed notwithstanding that it had been in
    existence even earlier than 1932.
    The petitioner cannot now invoke its own noncompliance with the law to immunize it
    from the private respondent’s complaint. There should also be no question that having
    contracted with the private respondent every year for thirty two years and thus
    represented itself as possessed of juridical personality to do so, the petitioner is now
    estopped from denying such personality to defeat her claim against it.

    According to Article 1431 of the Civil Code, “through estoppel an admission or


    representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied
    or disproved as against the person relying on it.” As the school itself may be sued in its
    own name, there is no need to apply Rule 3, Section 15, under which the persons joined
    in an association without any juridical personality may be sued with such association.
    Besides, it has been shown that the individual members of the board of trustees are not
    liable, having been appointed only after the private respondent’s dismissal.

    You might also like