Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16779)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16779)
Facts:
National Abaca and Other Fibers Corporation v. Apolonia Pore, G.R. No. L-16779, August 16, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.On November 14, 1953, National Abaca and Other Fibers Corporation (plaintiff-appellant) sued Apolonia Pore (defendant-appellee) in the Municipal Court of Tacloban, Leyte, for recovery of P1,213.64 alleged to have been advanced to defendant for the purchase of hemp for plaintiff’s account. Defendant answered that she had accounted for all cash advances. On April 11, 1956 the municipal court found defendant had failed to account for P272.49 and rendered judgment for plaintiff with legal interest from November 18, 1953 and costs. The municipal court thereafter denied plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and for a new trial.
Plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte. In the CFI, defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue because it had been abolished by Executive Order No. 372 of November 24, 1950. Plaintiff replied that EO No. 372 continued the corporate existence “for a period of three (3) years from the effective date” (effective date November 30, 1950) for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits and that the action was begun within that three-year period (November 14, 1953).
On August 1, 1956 the CFI ordered plaintiff to amend its complaint within ten days by joining the Board of Liquidators as co-plaintiff, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal. On September 1, 1956 the CFI dismissed the case for failure to amend. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (dated September 21, 1956) stating that upon receipt of the August 1 order it had prepared an amended complaint, handed two copies to Mrs. Receda Vda. de Ocampo (an employee of the Board of Liquidators) with instructions to mail one to the court and one to defendant’s counsel, and that registry receipt No. 57209 showed the copy to defendant’s counsel was mailed on August 25, 1956, but the original addressed to the court could not be located despite diligent search. Plaintiff attributed the failure to file to excusable negligence of its mailing clerk and prayed that the dismissal be set aside and the amended complaint admitted. The CFI denied the motion by order of October 3, 1956.
Plaintiff then brought a Record on Appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals forwarded the records to the Supreme Court because the issues raised were purely questions of law: (1) whether an action commenced within three years after abolition of a corporation may be continued in the corporate name after expiration of that three-year period, and (2) whether, under these facts, the lower court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
Issues:
- In view of Executive Order No. 372 and the Corporation Law, may an action commenced by a corporation within the three-year period prescribed for winding up be continued thereafter in the corporate name once that period expires?
- Under the facts presented, did the Court of First Instance err in denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and in dismissing the case for failure to file the ordered amended complaint?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)