|
An
unincorporated entity, which represented itself to be a
corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate
capacity in a suit against it by a third person who
relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot
therefore allege lack of personality to be sued to evade
its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by
virtue of which it received advantages and benefits.
(Lim Tong Lim, petitioner, vs. Philippine Fishing Gear
Industries Inc., respondent. G.R. 136448. November 3,
1999]. In relation to Corporation by Estoppel under the
Corporation Code of the Philippines, an unincorporated
entity finds its significance in the legal effects on
the acts of persons who assume to act as a corporation
knowing that they are without authority to do so. The
doctrine of corporation by estoppel applies to the
putative corporation and to a third party.
In our
previous writing we introduced the term ostensible
corporation as another way of legally describing an
unincorporated entity. Section 21 of the Corporation
Code of the Philippines provides that all persons who
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without
authority to do so shall be liable as general partners
for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or
arising as a result thereof. When any such ostensible
corporation is sued on any transaction entered into by
it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as
such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense to
avoid liability, its lack of corporate personality. In
fact one who assumes an obligation to an ostensible
corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof
on the ground that there was in fact no corporation
(Ibid). As to the act of a third person, when said third
person has entered into a contract with an entity which
represented itself to be a corporation, that entity will
be estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a
suit against it by such third person. It cannot allege
lack of capacity to be sued to evade responsibility on a
contract it had entered into and by virtue of which it
received advantages and benefits (Christian Children’s
Fund, petitioner, vs. NLRC, et. al., respondents. [G.R.
84502. June 30, 1989.]
Thus,
even if the unincorporated or ostensible corporation or
entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may
be estopped from denying its corporate existence.
The
reason behind this doctrine is obvious — an
unincorporated association (or entity) has no
personality and would be incompetent to act and
appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a
corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents
or confer authority on another to act in its behalf;
thus, those who act or purport to act as its
representatives or agents do so without authority and at
their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of
law that a person who acts as an agent without authority
or without a principal is himself regarded as the
principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all
the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or
purporting to act on behalf of a corporation or entity
which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and
obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts
entered into or for other acts performed as such agent (Salvatierra
v. Garlitos, 103 SCRA 757, May 23, 1958, per Felix, J.;
citing Fay v. Noble, 7 Cushing [Mass.] 188). |