Title
Philippine 1st Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Hartigan
Case
G.R. No. L-26370
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1970
A corporation's valid name change does not dissolve its identity; the plaintiff, under its new name, remains the proper party to enforce an indemnity agreement signed under its former name.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26370)

Antecedent Facts

The plaintiff was initially incorporated as "The Yek Tong Lin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd." on June 1, 1953. Subsequent to amendments, the name was changed to "Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc." on May 26, 1961. According to the complaint, the plaintiff signed a P5,000 promissory note along with Hartigan to the benefit of the China Banking Corporation, and later sought to collect due payments after the amount remained unpaid. The defendants contended that there was no privity of contract between the parties, claiming the indemnity agreement was made with the original corporation and not the plaintiff.

Legal Proceedings

The defendants denied any claim that the plaintiff was previously known by its current name and argued the indemnity agreement was invalid since it was made with a dissolved entity, claiming no cause of action existed against them due to lack of privity. The case was submitted for decision after presentation of evidence supporting the claims made in the complaint and the defendants’ answer.

Lower Court Decision

On October 6, 1962, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action based on two pivotal issues. The court questioned the validity of the name change from "Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd." to "Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc." and whether the plaintiff could sue on the indemnity agreement without having paid the obligation under the promissory note. The court held that the change of name possibly constituted a dissolution of the original corporation due to lack of proper authorization under the Corporation Law.

Key Legal Principles

The Corporation Law of the Philippines stipulates that any amendment to a corporation's articles of incorporation, including a change of corporate name, requires the approval of shareholders representing at least two-thirds of the subscribed capital stock. The decision emphasized that such amendments do not dissolve the corporation. The original corporation retains rights and obligations despite a name change, evidenced by principles of conventional subrogation.

Appellate Court Findings

The appellate court found merit in the plaintiff’s position, particularly the interpretation that a corporation in the Philippines could indeed change its name without dissolving its corporate identity, as long as proper procedures were followed according to the Corporation

...continue reading

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