Turner Vs Lorenzo Shipping

Turner vs.
Lorenzo Shipping
FACTS:
The petitioners (Philip and Elnora Turner) held
1,010,000 shares of stock of the respondent
(Lorenzo
Shipping
Corp.),
a
domestic
corporation engaged primarily in cargo
shipping activities.
The respondent decided to amend its articles
of incorporation to remove the stockholders
pre-emptive rights to newly issued shares of
stock.
The petitioners voted against the
amendment
and demanded payment of
their shares at the
rate of P2.276/share
based on the book value of
the shares, or a
total of P2,298,760.00.
The respondent found the fair value of the
shares demanded to be unacceptable.
It insisted that the market value on the date
before the action to remove the pre-emptive
right was taken should be the value, or
P0.41/share (P414,100.00) and that the
payment could be made only if the respondent
had unrestricted retained earnings in its books
to cover the value of the shares, which was not
the case.
The disagreement on the valuation of the
shares led the parties to constitute an
appraisal committee pursuant to Sec. 82
of the Corporation Code.
The committee reported its valuation of
P2.54/share, for an aggregate value of
P2,565,400.00.
Subsequently, the
petitioners
demanded
payment based on the valuation plus
2%/month penalty from the date of their
original demand for payment, as well as the
reimbursement of the amounts advanced as
professional fees to the appraisers.
Respondent refused the
petitioners
demand, explaining that pursuant to the
Corporation Code, the dissenting stockholders
exercising their appraisal rights could be paid
only when the corporation had unrestricted
retained earnings to cover the fair value of the
shares, but that it had no retained earnings at
the time of the petitioners demand, as borne
out by its Financial Statements for Fiscal Year
1999 showing a deficit of P72,973,114.00 as of
December 31, 1999.
Upon the respondents refusal to pay,
the
petitioners sued the respondent for
collection
and damages in the RTC on
January 22, 2001.
The petitioners filed their motion for partial
summary
judgment,
claiming
that
the
respondent has an accumulated unrestricted
retained
earnings
of
P11,975,490.00,
evidenced by its Financial Statement as of the
Quarter Ending March 31, 2002;
The respondent opposed the motion for partial
summary
judgment,
stating
that
the
determination of the unrestricted retained
earnings should be made at the end of the
fiscal year of the respondent, and that the
petitioners did not have a cause of action
against the respondent.
RTC:
RTC granted the petitioners motion fixing

the fair value of the shares of stocks at
P2.54 per share.
The evidence submitted shows that the
respondent
has
retained
earnings
of
P11,975,490 as of March 21, 2002. This is not
disputed by the defendant. Its only argument
against paying is that there must be
unrestricted retained earnings at the time
the demand for payment is made. RTC
further stated that the law does not say that
the unrestricted retained earnings must exist
at the time of the demand.
Even if there are no retained earnings at the
time the demand is made if there are retained
earnings later, the fair value of such stocks
must be paid. The only restriction is that there
must be sufficient funds to cover the creditors
after the dissenting stockholder is paid.
Subsequently, on November 28, 2002, the RTC
issued a writ of execution.
CA:
The respondent commenced a special civil
action for certiorari in the CA.
CA issued a TRO, enjoining the petitioners,
and their agents and representatives from
enforcing the writ of execution. By then,
however, the writ of execution had been
partially enforced.
The TRO then lapsed without the CA issuing a
writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the
execution. Thereupon, the sheriff resumed the
enforcement of the writ of execution.
CA granted respondent's petition. The
Orders and the corresponding Writs of
Garnishment are
NULLIFIED and the Civil
Case is ordered
DISMISSED.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners have a valid
cause of action against the respondent.
HELD: No.
SC upheld the decision of the CA. RTC acted in
excess of its jurisdiction.
No payment shall be made to any
dissenting
stockholder
unless
the
corporation has unrestricted retained
earnings in its books to cover the
payment (apply the Trust fund doctrine).
In case the corporation has no
available
unrestricted
retained
earnings in its books, Sec. 83
provides
that if the dissenting stockholder is
not paid the value of his shares
within 30 days
after the award, his
voting and dividend rights shall
immediately be restored.
The
respondent
had
indisputably
no
unrestricted retained earnings in its books at
the time the petitioners commenced the Civil
Case on January 22, 2001. It proved that the
respondents legal obligation to pay the value
of the petitioners shares did not yet arise.
The Turners right of action arose only

when petitioner had already retained
earnings in the amount of P11,975,490.00
on March 21, 2002; such right of action
was inexistent on January 22, 2001 when
they filed the Complaint.
The RTC concluded that the respondents
obligation to pay had accrued by its having the
unrestricted retained earnings after the making
of the demand by the petitioners. It based its
conclusion on the fact that the Corporation
Code did not provide that the unrestricted
retained earnings must already exist at the
time of the demand.
The RTCs construal of the Corporation
Code was unsustainable, because it did
not take into account the petitioners lack
of a cause of action against the
respondent.
**In order to give rise to any obligation to pay
on the part of the respondent, the petitioners
should first make a valid demand that the
respondent refused to pay despite having
unrestricted retained earnings. Otherwise, the
respondent could not be said to be guilty of
any actionable omission that could sustain
their action to collect. (THERE MUST FIRST
BE A REFUSAL despite having dividends)
**SUBSEQUENT EXISTENCE OF RETAINED
EARNINGS: DOES NOT CURE LACK OF COA:
Neither did the subsequent existence of
unrestricted retained earnings after the
filing of the complaint cure the lack of
cause of action.
The petitioners right of action could only
spring from an existing cause of action. Thus, a
complaint whose cause of action has not yet
accrued cannot be cured by an amended or
supplemental pleading alleging the existence
or accrual of a cause of action during the
pendency of the action.
For, only when there is an invasion of primary
rights, not before, does the adjective or
remedial law become operative.
Verily, a premature invocation of the courts
intervention renders the complaint without a
cause of action and dismissible on such
ground. In short, the Civil Case, being a
groundless suit, should be dismissed.
Even the fact that the respondent already had
unrestricted retained earnings more than
sufficient to cover the petitioners claims on
June 26, 2002 (when they filed their motion for
partial summary judgment) did not rectify
the absence of the cause of action at the
time of the commencement of the Civil
Case.
The motion for partial summary
judgment, being
a mere application for
relief other than by a
pleading, was
not the same as the complaint in
the
Civil Case.
Thereby, the petitioners did not meet the
requirement of the Rules of Court that a cause
of action must exist at the commencement of
an action, which is "commenced by the filing of
the original complaint in court."
The argument of the petitioners is
baseless. The RTC was guilty of an error
of jurisdiction, for it exceeded its
jurisdiction by taking cognizance of the

complaint that was not based on an
existing cause of action. -SC
Additional info:
Cause of Action:
A cause of action is the act or omission by
which a party violates a right of another. The
essential elements of a cause of action are: (a)
the existence of a legal right in favor of the
plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the
defendant to respect such right; and (c) an act
or omission by such defendant in violation of
the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury
or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for the recovery of
relief from the defendant. Although the first
two elements may exist, a cause of action
arises only upon the occurrence of the last
element, giving the plaintiff the right to
maintain an action in court for recovery of
damages or other appropriate relief.
Stockholder's Appraisal Right:
Section 81. Instances of appraisal right. - Any
stockholder of a corporation shall have the
right to dissent and demand payment of the
fair value of his shares.
The right of appraisal may be exercised when
there is a fundamental change in the charter or
articles
of
incorporation
substantially
prejudicing the rights of the stockholders. It
does not vest unless objectionable corporate
action is taken.
It serves the purpose of
enabling the dissenting stockholder to have his
interests purchased and to retire from the
corporation.
The Corporation Code defines how the right of
appraisal is exercised, as well as the
implications of the right of appraisal, as
follows:
1. The appraisal right is exercised by any
stockholder who has voted against the
proposed corporate action by making a written
demand on the corporation within 30 days
after the date on which the vote was taken for
the payment of the fair value of his shares. The
failure to make the demand within the period is
deemed a waiver of the appraisal right. (Sec.
82)
2. If the withdrawing stockholder and the
corporation cannot agree on the fair value of
the shares within a period of 60 days from the
date the stockholders approved the corporate
action, the fair value shall be determined and
appraised by three disinterested persons, one
of whom shall be named by the stockholder,
another by the corporation, and the third by
the two thus chosen. The findings and award of
the majority of the appraisers shall be final,
and the corporation shall pay their award
within 30 days after the award is made. Upon
payment by the corporation of the agreed or
awarded price, the stockholder shall forthwith
transfer his or her shares to the corporation.
(Sec. 82)
3. All rights accruing to the withdrawing
stockholders shares, including voting and
dividend rights, shall be suspended from the
time of demand for the payment of the fair
value of the shares until either the
abandonment of the corporate action involved
or the purchase of the shares by the
corporation, except the right of such
stockholder to receive payment of the fair

value of the shares. (Sec. 83)
4. Within 10 days after demanding payment
for his or her shares, a dissenting stockholder
shall submit to the corporation the certificates
of stock representing his shares for notation
thereon that such shares are dissenting shares.
A failure to do so shall, at the option of the
corporation, terminate his rights under this
Title X of the Corporation Code. If shares
represented by the certificates bearing such
notation are transferred, and the certificates
are consequently canceled, the rights of the
transferor as a dissenting stockholder under
this Title shall cease and the transferee shall

have all the rights of a regular stockholder; and
all dividend distributions that would have
accrued on such shares shall be paid to the
transferee. (Sec. 86)
5. If the proposed corporate action is
implemented or effected, the corporation shall
pay to such stockholder, upon the surrender of
the certificates of stock representing his
shares, the fair value thereof as of the day
prior to the date on which the vote was taken,
excluding any appreciation or depreciation in
anticipation of such corporate action. (Sec. 82)

Turner Vs Lorenzo Shipping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turner Vs Lorenzo Shipping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turner Vs Lorenzo Shipping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turner vs.

RTC granted the petitioners motion fixing

The Turners right of action arose only

jurisdiction by taking cognizance of the

stockholder to receive payment of the fair

this Title shall cease and the transferee shall

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.