Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 68555. March 19, 1993.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
104
105
general, and white cement in particular, were not stable and were
expected to rise. At the time of the contract, petitioner corporation
had not even commenced the manufacture of white cement, the
reason why delivery was not to begin until 14 months later. He
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
must have known that within that period of six years, there would
be a considerable rise in the price of white cement. In fact,
respondent Te's own Memorandum shows that in September,
1970, the price per bag was P 14.50, and by the middle of 1975, it
was already P37.50 per bag. Despite this, no provision was made
in the "dealership agreement" to allow for an increase in price
mutually acceptable to the parties. Instead, the price was pegged
at P9.70 per bag for the whole five years of the contract. Fairness
on his part as a director of the corporation from whom he was to
buy the cement, would require such a provision. In fact, this
unfairness in the contract is also a basis which renders a contract
entered into by the President, without authority from the Board of
Directors, void or voidable, although it may have been in the
ordinary course of business. We believe that the fixed price of
P9.70 per bag for a period of five years was not fair and
reasonable. Respondent Te, himself, when he subsequently
entered into contracts to resell the cement to his "new dealers"
Henry Wee and Gaudencio Galang stipulated as follows: The price
of white cement shall be mutually determined by us but in no case
shall the same be less than P14.00 per bag (94 Ibs)."
Same; Same; Damages; No moral damages for lost goodwill
are awardable to a corporation.—As a result of this action which
has been proven to be without legal basis, petitioner corporation's
reputation and goodwill have been prejudiced. However, there can
be no award for moral damages under Article 2217 and
succeeding articles on Section 1 of Chapter 3 of Title XVIII of the
Civil Code in favor of a corporation.
**
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
**
of the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court,
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"On or about the 16th day of July, 1969, plaintiff and defendant
corporation thru its President, Mr. Zosimo Falcon and Justo C.
Trazo, as Chairman of the Board, entered into a dealership
agreement (Exhibit A) whereby said plaintiff was obligated to act
as the exclusive dealer and/or distributor of the said defendant
corporation of its cement products in the entire Mindanao area for
a term of five (5) years and proving (sic) among others that:
_______________
107
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
x x x x x x
Several demands to comply with the dealership agreement
(Exhibits D, E, G, I, R, L, and N) were made by the plaintiff to the
defendant, however, defendant refused to comply with the same,
and plaintiff by force of circumstances was constrained to cancel
his agreement for the supply of white cement with third parties,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
108
agreement.
Notwithstanding that the dealership agreement between the
plaintiff and defendant was in force and subsisting, the defendant
corporation, in violation of, and with evident intention not to be
bound by the terms and conditions thereof, entered into an
exclusive dealership agreement with a certain Napoleon Co for
the marketing of white cement in Mindanao (Exhibit 2
T) hence,
this suit." (Plaintiff s Record on Appeal, pp. 86-90)."
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
_____________
109
II
III
IV
______________
5 The Corporation Code (B.P. Blg. 68) replaced the Corporation Law
(Act 1459) and took effect on May 1, 1980.
110
_____________
111
10
ers." In the case of Gokongwei v. Securities and Exchange
Commission,
11
this Court quoted with favor from Pepper v.
Litton, thus:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
Where any of the first two conditions set forth in the preceding
paragraph is absent, in the case of a contract with a director or
trustee, such contract may be ratified by the vote of the
stockholders represent-
_____________
10 Ibid.
11 308 U.S. 295-313, 84 L. Ed. 281, 291-292 (1939).
112
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
_____________
113
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
_____________
114
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/13
5/18/22, 9:06 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 220
—o0o—
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000180d74a918d125bcba8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/13