Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.

Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.
GR L-21601
December 28, 1968
By: Karen P. Lustica
FACTS: Before World War II, an operating agreement was executed between
Nielson & Co. Inc. and the Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. whereby the
former operated and managed the mining properties owned by the latter for
a management fee of P2,500.00 a month and a 10% participation in the net
profits resulting from the operation of the mining properties, for a period of 5
years.
Lepanto modified a pertinent provision of the contract. This time, Nielson will
receive (1) 10% of the dividends declared and paid, when and as paid, during
the period of the contract and at the end of each year, (2) 10% of any
depletion reserve that may be set up, and (3) 10% of any amount expended
during the year out of surplus earnings for capital account.
Both parties agreed to renew the contract for a period of 5 years. But the
operation of the mining properties was disrupted on account of the war.
After the mining properties were liberated from the Japanese forces, the mine
operation was under Lepantos exclusive management. Lepanto declared
stock dividends worth one million in 1949 and two million in 1950. This was
during the period covered by an extension in the management contract.
However, a disagreement arose between the parties.
Nielson claims
his share in the stock dividends. 0n its motion for
reconsideration, Lepanto contends that the payment to Nielson of stock
dividends as compensation for its services under the management contract
is a violation of the Corporation Law, and that it was not, and it could not be,
the intention of the parties that the services of Nielson should be paid in
shares of stock taken out of stock dividends declared by Lepanto.
ISSUE: WON Nielson is entitled to his share in the stock dividends.
HELD: NO.
RATIO: Stock dividends cannot be issued to a person who is not a
stockholder in payment of services rendered.
Section 16 of the Corporation Law, in part, provides as follows:
No corporation organized under this Act shall create or issue bills,
notes or other evidence of debt, for circulation as money, and no
corporation shall issue stock or bonds except in exchange for actual
cash paid to the corporation or for: (1) property actually received by it

at a fair valuation equal to the par or issued value of the stock or
bonds so issued; and in case of disagreement as to their value, the
same shall be presumed to be the assessed value or the value
appearing in invoices or other commercial documents, as the case may
be; and the burden or proof that the real present value of the property
is greater than the assessed value or value appearing in invoices or
other commercial documents, as the case may be, shall be upon the
corporation, or for (2) profits earned by it but not distributed among its
stockholders or members; Provided, however, That no stock or bond
dividend shall be issued without the approval of stockholders
representing not less than two-thirds of all stock then outstanding and
entitled to vote at a general meeting of the corporation or at a special
meeting duly called for the purpose.
In the case at bar, Nielson cannot be paid in shares of stock which form part
of the stock dividends of Lepanto for services it rendered under the
management contract. We sustain the contention of Lepanto that the
understanding between Lepanto and Nielson was simply to make the cash
value of the stock dividends declared as the basis for determining the
amount of compensation that should be paid to Nielson, in the proportion of
10 % of the cash value of the stock dividends declared. In other words,
Nielson must still be paid his 10% fee using as the basis for computation the
cash value of the stock dividends declared.
Moreover, from the above-quoted provision of Section 16 of the Corporation
Law, the consideration for which shares of stock may be issued are cash,
property; and undistributed profits. Shares of stock are given the special
name, stock dividends, only if they are issued in lieu of undistributed
profits. If shares of stocks are issued in exchange of cash or property then
those shares do not fall under the category of stock dividends. A
corporation may legally issue shares of stock in consideration of services
rendered to it by a person not a stockholder, or in payment of its
indebtedness. But a share of stock issued to pay for services rendered is
equivalent to a stock issued in exchange of property, because services is
equivalent to property. Likewise a share of stock issued in payment of
indebtedness is equivalent to issuing a stock in exchange for cash. But a
share of stock thus issued should be part of the original capital stock of the
corporation upon its organization, or part of the stocks issued when the
increase of the capitalization of a corporation is properly authorized. In other
words, it is the shares of stock that are originally issued by the corporation
and forming part of the capital that can be exchanged for cash or services
rendered, or property; that is, if the corporation has original shares of stock
unsold or unsubscribed, either coming from the original capitalization or from
the increased capitalization. Those shares of stock may be issued to a person
who is not a stockholder, or to a person already a stockholder in exchange
for services rendered or for cash or property. But a share of stock coming
from stock dividends declared cannot be issued to one who is not a
stockholder of a corporation.
A stock dividend is any dividend payable in shares of stock of the
corporation declaring or authorizing such dividend.
So, a stock dividend is actually two things. - a dividend and the enforced use
of the dividend money to purchase additional shares of stock at par. When a
corporation issues stock dividends, it shows that the corporation
accumulated profits have been capitalized instead of distributed to the
stockholders or retained as surplus available for distribution, in money or
kind, should opportunity offer. Far from being a realization of profits for the
stockholder, it tends rather to postpone said realization, in that the fund
represented by the new stock has been transferred from surplus to assets
and no longer available for actual distribution. Thus, it is apparent that stock
dividends are issued only to stockholders. This is so because only
stockholders are entitled to dividends. They are the only ones who have a
right to a proportional share in that part of the surplus which is declared as
dividends. % stock dividend really adds nothing to the interest of the
stockholder; the proportional interest of each stockholder remains the same.
If a stockholder is deprived of his stock dividends - and this happens if the
shares of stock forming part of the stock dividends are issued to a nonstockholder - then the proportion of the stockholders interest changes
radically. Stock dividends are civil fruits of the original investment, and to the
owners of the shares belong the civil fruits.

Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.

cash paid to the corporation or for: (1) property actually received by it

You might also like