451 Phil. 554
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant (a) ordering the latter to pay to the former the sum of P4,853,503.00[19] plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of suit; and (b) dismissing the counterclaim.On appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner raised the following errors:
SO ORDERED.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE DEFENDANT LIABLE UNDER THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PLEADED BY THE PLAINTIFF.By Decision of January 25, 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied by the Court of Appeals by Resolution of July 11, 1996, the present petition for review on certiorari was filed, assigning the following errors:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND IN DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIM.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATION NOT HAVING BEEN SHOWN, MUCH LESS ESTABLISHED BY THE PLAINTIFF.[20]
I
THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER BEING ULTRA VIRES.II
THE LETTER CAN NOT BE AN ADMISSION AND WAIVER OF THE PETITIONER AS A CORPORATION.III
THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO BREACH OF WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATION AS ALLEGED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
IV
THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PETITIONER TO PAY ATTORNEY'S FEES AND IN SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTERCLAIM.[18] (Underscoring in the original)
The general rule is that, in the absence of authority from the board of directors, no person, not even its officers, can validly bind a corporation. A corporation is a juridical person, separate and distinct from its stockholders and members, "having x x x powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence."As correctly argued by private respondent, an officer of a corporation who is authorized to purchase the stock of another corporation has the implied power to perform all other obligations arising therefrom, such as payment of the shares of stock. By allowing its president to sign the Agreement on its behalf, petitioner clothed him with apparent capacity to perform all acts which are expressly, impliedly and inherently stated therein.[21]
Being a juridical entity, a corporation may act through its board of directors, which exercises almost all corporate powers, lays down all corporate business policies and is responsible for the efficiency of management, as provided in Section 23 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines:
SEC. 23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. — Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees x x x.
Under this provision, the power and responsibility to decide whether the corporation should enter into a contract that will bind the corporation is lodged in the board, subject to the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or relevant provisions of law. However, just as a natural person may authorize another to do certain acts for and on his behalf, the board of directors may validly delegate some of its functions and powers to officers, committees or agents. The authority of such individuals to bind the corporation is generally derived from law, corporate bylaws or authorization from the board, either expressly or impliedly by habit, custom or acquiescence in the general course of business, viz:
A corporate officer or agent may represent and bind the corporation in transactions with third persons to the extent that [the] authority to do so has been conferred upon him, and this includes powers as, in the usual course of the particular business, are incidental to, or may be implied from, the powers intentionally conferred, powers added by custom and usage, as usually pertaining to the particular officer or agent, and such apparent powers as the corporation has caused person dealing with the officer or agent to believe that it has conferred.x x x
[A]pparent authority is derived not merely from practice. Its existence may be ascertained through (1) the general manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the power to act or, in other words the apparent authority to act in general, with which it clothes him; or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge thereof, within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers. It requires presentation of evidence of similar act(s) executed either in its favor or in favor of other parties. It is not the quantity of similar acts which establishes apparent authority, but the vesting of a corporate officer with power to bind the corporation.x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
True, private respondent accepted as correct the financial statements submitted to it when the Agreement was executed on September 1, 1978. But petitioner expressly warranted that the SGV Reports "fairly present or will present the financial position of FARMACOR." By such warranty, petitioner is estopped from claiming that the SGV Reports are self-serving and biased.7. Warranties and Representations — (a) SELLER warrants and represents as follows:
x x x
(iv) The audited financial statements of FARMACOR as at and for the year ended December 31, 1977 and the audited financial statements of FARMACOR as at September 30, 1978 being prepared by SGV pursuant to paragraph 6(b) fairly present or will present the financial position of FARMACOR and the results of its operations as of said respective dates; said financial statements show or will show all liabilities and commitments of FARMACOR, direct or contingent, as of said respective dates; and the receivables set forth in said financial statements are fully due and collectible, free and clear of any set-offs, defenses, claims and other impediments to their collectibility.
(v) The Minimum Guaranteed Net Worth of FARMACOR as of September 30, 1978 shall be Twelve Million Pesos (P12,000,000.00), Philippine Currency.
x x x (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)[23]
On the matter of attorney's fees, it is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsel's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees.[25]WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the trial court is modified in that the award of attorney's fees in favor of private respondent is deleted. The decision is affirmed in other respects.
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)