Title
Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson, Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. 20214
Decision Date
Mar 17, 1923
A dispute over employment compensation arose when a firm's agent, Arnold, claimed unpaid earnings under revised agreements. The court ruled in his favor, holding the corporation liable due to ratification and estoppel, awarding him P68,527.50 plus interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 20214)

Original Employment Agreement (Exhibit A)

On July 31, 1916, Arnold and the California partnership of Willits & Patterson executed a five-year written contract. Arnold was to serve as the firm’s Philippine agent at a minimum $200 monthly salary, standard travel expenses, 1% brokerage on most merchandise transactions, and one-half of profits on other business. In case of losses, salary would increase to $400 monthly.

Rapid Business Growth and Dispute

Under Arnold’s administration and wartime demand, the Philippine operations expanded significantly. A disagreement arose as to the calculation of Arnold’s total compensation under Exhibit A. Meanwhile, I. L. Patterson withdrew, and C. D. Willits assumed full ownership of the partnership’s assets.

Corporate Reorganizations

Willits formed two one-man corporations:
• San Francisco corporation, taking over the old partnership’s U.S. assets and liabilities.
• Manila corporation, similarly acquiring the Philippine business.
In both, Willits alone subscribed to all but nominal organizing shares.

Modification Letter (Exhibit B)

November 10, 1919, Arnold addressed a letter to Willits setting out a clarified compensation scheme:
• 1% commission on Philippine-U.S. purchases and sales, credited in San Francisco.
• Exclusion from profits on intra-corporate transactions.
• One-half of profits on all other Philippine dealings.
Willits signed “Willits & Patterson, By C. D. Willits” to confirm. No formal corporate resolution appears, but both parties acted thereafter as if Exhibit B supplanted conflicting terms of Exhibit A.

Accounting Practices and Financial Statements

The Manila corporation’s accountant regularly prepared audited statements for the San Francisco parent. The July 31, 1921 statement, based on Exhibit B, showed P106,277.50 due Arnold. After the San Francisco corporation fell into creditor control, the creditor’s committee protested Arnold’s claim.

Litigation and Counterclaim

Arnold sued on January 10, 1922 for P106,277.50 plus interest. The respondent denied corporate authority for Exhibit B, contending Arnold’s compensation remained subject solely to Exhibit A and asserting a counterclaim:
• Admitted P8,741.05 owed under Exhibit A as of June 30, 1920.
• Claimed losses (including a P30,000 withdrawal by Arnold), seeking net recovery against Arnold of P10,858.95.

Trial Court Ruling and Issues on Appeal

The trial court entered judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim, dismissing Arnold’s complaint. On appeal the sole issues were:

  1. The true contract governing Arnold’s service term—Exhibit A alone or modified by Exhibit B.
  2. The amount due Arnold under the operative agreement.

Legal Analysis: Ratification and Corporate Liability

• Successor Liability: The corporate reorganizations did not discharge obligations under the original partnership contract; the parent and local corporations inherited assets, liabilities, and duties.
• Agency and Ratification: A corporation may ratify an unauthorized agent’s act by acquiescence and acceptance of its benefits. Both corporations, fully aware of Exhibit B and benefiting from Arnold’s services measured thereby, treated Exhibit B as binding.
• Single-Shareholder Doctrine: Where one person controls all corporate stock and functions as the corporation, courts may disregard the fiction of separate existence to protect third-party rights.
• Financial Statements as Ratification: Consistent accounting credits for Arnold under Exhibit B constituted corporate recognition and ratification of its terms.

Profit Transaction and Calculation of Recovery

In early 1920 Arnold arranged a sale of 500 tons of oil at

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.