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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Reburiano vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Karyl Ann Aquino-Caluya
    Pepsi Cola Bottling Company obtained a judgment ordering Reburiano to pay ₱55,000 plus interest for unpaid bottles. Before the RTC decision, Pepsi amended its articles of incorporation shortening its corporate term. Reburiano argued Pepsi lacked capacity to sue. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations continue to exist for 3 years after dissolution to prosecute/defend suits, settle affairs, and distribute assets. Even though Pepsi did not appoint a trustee, its counsel representing Pepsi's interests in this case could be considered a trustee for this litigation. Pepsi therefore retained capacity to sue Reburiano despite amending its articles.

    Copyright:

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

    Reburiano vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Karyl Ann Aquino-Caluya
    20 views1 page
    Pepsi Cola Bottling Company obtained a judgment ordering Reburiano to pay ₱55,000 plus interest for unpaid bottles. Before the RTC decision, Pepsi amended its articles of incorporation shortening its corporate term. Reburiano argued Pepsi lacked capacity to sue. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations continue to exist for 3 years after dissolution to prosecute/defend suits, settle affairs, and distribute assets. Even though Pepsi did not appoint a trustee, its counsel representing Pepsi's interests in this case could be considered a trustee for this litigation. Pepsi therefore retained capacity to sue Reburiano despite amending its articles.

    Original Title

    113.-reburiano-vs.-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Pepsi Cola Bottling Company obtained a judgment ordering Reburiano to pay ₱55,000 plus interest for unpaid bottles. Before the RTC decision, Pepsi amended its articles of incorporation shortening its corporate term. Reburiano argued Pepsi lacked capacity to sue. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations continue to exist for 3 years after dissolution to prosecute/defend suits, settle affairs, and distribute assets. Even though Pepsi did not appoint a trustee, its counsel representing Pepsi's interests in this case could be considered a trustee for this litigation. Pepsi therefore retained capacity to sue Reburiano despite amending its articles.

    Copyright:

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

    Reburiano vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Karyl Ann Aquino-Caluya
    Pepsi Cola Bottling Company obtained a judgment ordering Reburiano to pay ₱55,000 plus interest for unpaid bottles. Before the RTC decision, Pepsi amended its articles of incorporation shortening its corporate term. Reburiano argued Pepsi lacked capacity to sue. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations continue to exist for 3 years after dissolution to prosecute/defend suits, settle affairs, and distribute assets. Even though Pepsi did not appoint a trustee, its counsel representing Pepsi's interests in this case could be considered a trustee for this litigation. Pepsi therefore retained capacity to sue Reburiano despite amending its articles.

    Copyright:

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

    113. REBURIANO VS.

    CA
    G.R. No. 102965. January 21, 1999

    Doctrine:

    Every Corporation whose charter expires by its own limitation or is annulled by forfeiture or
    otherwise, or whose corporate existence for other purposes is terminated in any other manner,
    shall nevertheless be continued as a body corporate for three (3) years after the time when it
    would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against
    it and enabling it to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to
    distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing the business for which it was
    established.

    Facts:

    RTC rendered judgment ordering Reburiano to pay P55,000.00 with interest in favor of Pepsi
    Cola Bottling for the unpaid bottles it received from the company. RTC executed writ of
    execution however, before the promulgation of the decision of the RTC, Pepsi cola amended its
    AOI shortening its corporate term of existence. RTC was not notified of the fact. Reburirano
    then moved to quash the writ of execution contending that Pepsi cola in amending its AOI has
    no longer juridical capacity to sue and to be sued.

    Issue:

    Whether a dissolved and non-existing corporation loses its juridical capacity to sue.

    Ruling:

    No. Every Corporation whose charter expires by its limitation or is annulled by forfeiture or
    otherwise, or whose corporate existence for other purposes is terminated in any other manner,
    shall nevertheless be continued as a body corporate for three (3) years after the time when it
    would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against
    it and enabling it to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to
    distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing the business for which it was
    established.

    At any time during said three (3) years, said corporation is authorized and empowered to
    convey all of its property to trustees for the benefit of stockholders, members, creditors, and
    other persons in interest. However, a corporation that has a pending action and which cannot
    be terminated within the three-year period after its dissolution is authorized under Sec. 122 of
    the RCCP to convey all its property to trustees to enable it to prosecute and defend suits by or
    against the corporation beyond the three-year period.

    Although private respondent did not appoint any trustee, yet the counsel who prosecuted and
    defended the interest of the corporation in the instant case and who in fact appeared in behalf
    of the corporation may be considered a trustee of the corporation at least with respect to the
    matter in litigation only.

    You might also like