[ G.R. No. 48928. September 05, 1946 ] G.R. No. 48928
[ G.R. No. 48928. September 05, 1946 ]
MANUEL S. RUSTIA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. AGUINALDO & AGUINALDO, DEFENDANT-APPELANT. D E C I S I O N
FERIA, J.:
This is a case originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila by several plaintiffs, among them George Moore, who seek to recover from the defendant corporation the reasonable value of their respective shares of stock as of October 31, 1939, under Sec. 17-1/2 of the Corporation Law, on the ground that the defendant corporation Aguinaldo and Aguinaldo has changed its main purpose over the objection of the plaintiffs.
The Court of First Instance rendered its decision ordering the defendant to pay each and every one of the plaintiffs the respective amounts set forth in the judgment.
The defendant corporation appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance to this Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court in its resolution dated Sept. 3, 1943, suspended, the final disposal of the appeal as regards George Moore. Said resolution reads as follows:
“George Moore, one of the plaintiffs in G.R. No. 48928, Manuel S. Rustia, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, v. Aguinaldo & Aguinaldo, defendant-appellant, being an American, the final determination of this case is hereby suspended, unless the parties concerned comply with the provisions of Instruction No. 28 of May 13, 1942, issued by the Director General of the Japanese Military Administration.”
On March 31, 1944, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance with the only modification that the value of plaintiffs’ shares shall be assessed by the appraisers in accordance with law, that is, that the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation should appoint their respective appraisers, who shall choose a third appraiser, and the three of them shall determine the value of plaintiffs’ shape in accordance with the procedure outlined in Sec. 17-1/2 of the Corporation Law.
On Nov. 14, 1945, the attorney for Moore filed a petition in this Court praying that the said decision of the Supreme Court be extended to include George Moore as one of the original plaintiffs-appellees. The attorney for the defendant, upon whom a copy of said motion was duly served, having filed no answer after he was given twice an extension of the period within which to file it, the case was considered submitted to this Court for decision. .
After considering the motion, we find that the action of plaintiff and appellee George Moore is based on the same cause and involves the same questions of fact and law as the action of the other plaintiffs and appellees; that the decision rendered on March 31, 1944, by the Supreme Court in favor of all the other plaintiffs-appellees is correct and in conformity with the facts and the law of the case; and that if the said decision did not include George Moore, as one of the plaintiffs-appellees, and the termination of the case as to him was suspended, it was because he was an American.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of First Instance ordering the defendant corporation to pay plaintiff George Moore the reasonable value of his shares of stock as of Oct. 31, 1939, is affirmed, with the only modification that the said value shall be fixed by the three appraisers chosen or appointed in accordance with Sec. 17-1/2 of the Corporation Law.
So ordered.
Moran, Paras, Pablo Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.