Case Digest (G.R. No. 25161)
Facts:
- Plaintiffs, F. W. Maage and Sarangani Cattle Co., Inc., sued defendant, W. H. Anderson, for violating their contract.
- The contract was for the defendant to be the general manager of the Cattle Company for five years.
- After signing the contract, the defendant entered into an agreement with Maage to sell his stock and interest in the company, which would cancel his contract.
- The defendant was also facing a criminal charge for murder and agreed to remain employed by the company until the trial.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated the terms of his contract and caused damages to the company.
- They sought damages and a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with their property.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and reversed the judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The court ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court held that the manager of a corporation has no legal right to charge the corporation with the legal expenses incurred in defending himself in a criminal action, in the absence of authority, express or implied.
- The defendant claimed to have authority from Mr. Clark to charge the expenses to the company, but failed to provide proof of this authority.
- Therefore, the court found that the defendant did not have the legal right to charge the company for the expenses incurred during the trial.
- The court also found that the defendant breach...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 25161)
Facts:
The case of Maage v. Anderson involves a dispute between the plaintiffs, F. W. Maage and Sarangani Cattle Co., Inc., and the defendant, W. H. Anderson. The defendant had entered into a contract of employment with the Cattle Company to be its general manager for a period of five years. However, after the signing of the contract, the defendant entered into an agreement with Maage to sell all of his stock and interest in the company, which would result in the cancellation of his contract with the company. Maage, who is one of the principal stockholders of the corporation, paid the purchase price in full to the defendant. It was also agreed that the defendant would temporarily remain in the employ of the company until the trial of a criminal case against him for the crime of murder.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated the terms of his original contract in various ways. They also claimed that after the defendant's trial, they notified him that his services were no longer required, but he refused to surrender his position and quit the premises of the company. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant was about to destroy certain property in his possession and commit a nuisance, causing them damages amounting to P5,000. They sought judgment for the damages and the cancellation of the contract.
The defendant, in his answer, denied the allegations and counterclaimed for the payment of his earned salary, which the company refused to pay, and for damages for his arbitrary and unjustified discharge. The lower court found that the dismissal of the defendant was justified and that the plaintiffs failed to prove any damages. It rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the cancellation of the contract and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for want of proof. However, it also awarded the defendant the amount of P4,631.14 for his unpaid salary.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are:
- Whether the defendant breached hi...