Garcia vs jomouad


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Garcia vs jomouad

  1. 1. Corpo: Section 63 in the books of the Club because petitioner failed toGarcia vs Jomouad (2000) present proof of payment of the requisite capital gains tax.Facts: petitioner mainly argues that the appellate courtIn this petition for review on certiorari, Nemesio erroneously relied on Section 63 of the CorporationGarcia (herein petitioner) seeks the reversal of the Code in upholding the levy on the subject certificateDecision, dated 27 October 1997, of the Court of to satisfy the judgment debt of Dico in Civil CaseAppeals in CA G.R. CV No. 52255 and its No. CEB-14033. Petitioner contends that the subjectResolution, dated 22 April 1998, denying petitioners stock of certificate, albeit in the name of Dico,motion for reconsideration of said decision. cannot be levied upon the execution to satisfy his judgment debt because even prior to the institutionPetitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, of the case for collection of sum of money againstBranch 23 of Cebu, an action for injunction with him:prayer for preliminary injunction against respondentsspouses Jose and Sally Atinon and Nicolas 1. The spouses Atinon had knowledge that DicoJomouad, ex-officio sheriff of Cebu. Said action already conveyed back the ownership of the subject,stemmed from an earlier case for collection of sum certificate to petitioner;of money, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-10433,before the RTC, Branch 10 of Cebu, filed by the 2. Dico executed a deed of transfer, dated 18spouses Atinon against Jaime Dico. In that case November 1992, covering the subject certificate in(collection of sum of money), the trial court rendered favor of petitioner and the Club was furnished with ajudgment ordering Dico to pay the spouses Atinon copy thereof; andthe sum of P900,000.00 plus interests. After saidjudgment became final and executory, respondent 3. Dico resigned as a proprietary member of thesheriff proceeded with its execution. In the course Club and his resignation was accepted by the boardthereof, the Proprietary Ownership Certificate (POC) of directors at their meeting on 4 May 1993.No. 0668 in the Cebu Country Club, which was inthe name of Dico, was levied on and scheduled for ISSUEpublic auction. Claiming ownership over the subjectcertificate, petitioner filed the aforesaid action for "whether a bona fide transfer of the shares of ainjunction with prayer for preliminary injunction to corporation, not registered or noted in the books ofenjoin respondents from proceeding with the the corporation, is valid as against a subsequentauction. lawful attachment of said shares, regardless of whether the attaching creditor had actual notice ofTC dismissed complaint for lack of merit. CA said transfer or not.affirmed the decision. RULINGDico, the judgment debtor of the spouses Atinon,was employed as manager of his (petitioners) we hold that the transfer of the subject certificateYoung Auto Supply. In order to assist him in made by Dico to petitioner was not valid as to theentertaining clients, petitioner "lent" his POC, then spouses Atinon, the judgment creditors, as the samebearing the number 1459, in the Cebu Country Club still stood in the name of Dico, the judgment debtor,to Dico so the latter could enjoy the "signing" at the time of the levy on execution. In addition, asprivileges of its members. The Club issued POC No. correctly ruled by the CA, the entry in the minutes of0668 in the name of Dico. Thereafter, Dico resigned the meeting of the Clubs board of directors notingas manager of petitioners business. Upon demand of the resignation of Dico as proprietary memberpetitioner, Dico returned POC No. 0668 to him. thereof does not constitute compliance with SectionDico then executed a Deed of Transfer, dated 18 63 of the Corporation Code. Said provision of lawNovember 1992, covering the subject certificate in strictly requires the recording of the transfer in thefavor of petitioner. The Club was furnished with a books of the corporation, and not elsewhere, to becopy of said deed but the transfer was not recorded valid as against third parties.