Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Madame:
In such cases, the three year limitation period will not apply provided
the designation of the trustee is made within said period. Unless the
trusteeship is limited in its duration by the deed of trust, there is no time
limit by which the trustee must finish the liquidation, and he may sue or be
sued even beyond the three year period. (Villanueva, Philippine Corporate
Law, p. 690.)
The above discussion clearly shows that on one hand, a dissolved
corporation may, during the three-year term after dissolution, appoint a
trustee or a receiver who may act beyond that period;
On the other hand, if the three-year extended life has expired without
a trustee or receiver being expressly designated by the corporation within
that period, the board of directors or trustees themselves, following the
rationale laid down in Gelano vs. Court of Appeals may be permitted to
continue as "trustees" by legal implication to complete the corporate
liquidation
Reburiano vs. Court of Appeals (301 SCRA 342), reiterated the ruling of
the Supreme Court that seeks to allow the full liquidation of the corporate
affairs even beyond the three-year period provided for in the Code, and
invoked in addition the transitory provision of Section 145 of the Corporation
Code. In the said case, the High Court declared:
"For indeed as early as 1939, in the case of Sumera vs. Valencia, this
Court held: It is to be noted that the time during which the corporation
through its own officers may conduct the liquidation of its assets and
sue and be sued as a corporation is limited to three years from the
time the period of dissolution commences; but there is no time limit
within which the trustees must complete a liquidation placed in their
hands. It is provided only (Corp. Law, Sec. 78 [now Sec. 122]) that the
conveyance to the trustees must be made within the three-year period.
It may be found impossible to complete the work of liquidation within
the three-year period or to reduce disputed claims to judgment."
Similarly, the SEC En Banc, in the matter of Northern Luzon
Transportation, Inc. SEC AC No. 347 October 7, 1991 ruled that:
"Section 122 should not however be construed to prevent a corporation
from pursuing activities which would complete the final liquidation of a
dissolved corporation. In this case, Northern Luzon Transportation, Inc.
which term has long expired, was unable to dispose of its remaining
assets even during the three-year period granted it by Section 122.
Accordingly, it should be allowed to continue liquidating its remaining
assets in order to complete the process of dissolving the corporation.
Likewise, it should be allowed to distribute the proceeds from said
disposition to its stockholders or creditors, if any. A contrary
interpretation would have unjust and absurd results."