CORPO

 |  TINIMBANG  
 
ACUNA  VS  BATAC  PRODUCERS   averments:  that  on  May  9th  the  plaintiff  met  with  each  and  
  all  of  the  individual  defendants  (who  constituted  the  entire  
FACTS:   Board  of   Directors)   and   discussed   with  them   extensively  the  
  tentative  agreement  and  he  was  made  to  understand  that  it  
1. Acuna  entered  into  a  contract  with  Batac  wherein  he  agreed   was   acceptable   to   them,   except   as   to   plaintiff's  
to   advance   P20,000.00   to   the   company   for   its   tobacco   remuneration;   that   it   was   finally   agreed   between   plaintiff  
planting   and   drying,   provided   that   he   shall   be   assigned   as   and  all  said  Directors  that  his  remuneration  would  be  P0.30  
the   company’s   representative   in   Manila   and   supervise   the   per   kilo   (of   tobacco);   and   that   after   the   agreement   was  
transport  and  delivery  of  the  goods  in  the  said  place.     formally   executed   he   was   assured   by   said   Directors   that  
2. Batac’s   Board   of   Directors   are   amenable   with   the   idea   and   there  would  be  no  need  of  formal  approval  by  the  Board.  It  
thereafter   issued   a   resolution   authorizing   Manager   Leon   should   be   noted   in   this   connection   that   although   the  
Verano   to   enter   into   the   agreement   on   behalf   of   the   contract   required   such   approval   it   did   not   specify   just   in  
corporation.   what  manner  the  same  should  be  given.  
3. The   necessary   contract   between   Acuna   and   Verano   was  
entered  into  with  SOME  of  the  Board  of  Directors  acting  as   • On   the   question   of   ratification   the   complaint   alleges   that  
witnesses.   Acuna   then   inquired   if   the   contract   needs   to   be   plaintiff  delivered  to  the  defendant  corporation  the  sum  of  
ratified   by   the   Board   in   which   the   counsel   for   Batac   P20,000.00   as   called   for   in   the   contract;   that   he   rendered  
answered  in  the  negative.   the   services   he   was   required   to   do;   that   he   furnished   said  
4.  Acuna   thereafter   proceeded   to   perform   his   part   of   the   defendant  3,000  sacks  at  a  cost  of  P6,000.00  and  advanced  
contract   including   the   advancement   of   the   amount   to   it   the   further   sum   of   P5,000.00;   and   that   he   did   all   of  
promised  which  was  accepted  by  Batac.   these   things   with   the   full   knowledge,   acquiescence   and  
5. Batac’s   Board   of   Directors   however   disapproved   the   consent   of   each   and   all   of   the   individual   defendants   who  
contract.   Acuna   insisted   on   its   performance   but   the   constitute   the   Board   of   Directors   of   the   defendant  
corporation  refused  stating  that  the  contract  is  not  binding   corporation.   There   is   abundant   authority   in   support   of   the  
for  the  reason  that  it  was  not  ratified  by  the  board.   proposition  that  ratification  may  be  express  or  implied,  and  
  that  implied  ratification  may  take  diverse  forms,  such  as  by  
  silence   or   acquiescence;   by   acts   showing   approval   or  
• ISSUE:   WON   the   contract   between   Acuna   and   Verano   is   adoption  of  the  contract;  or  by  acceptance  and  retention  of  
binding   with   the   corporation?   [Yes,   the   contract   is   binding   benefits  flowing  therefrom.  
because  it  was  impliedly  ratified  by  Batac.]    
 
 
RULING:  

• A  perusal  of  the  complaint  reveals  that  it  contains  sufficient  

allegations   indicating   such   approval   or   at   least   subsequent  
ratification.   On   the   first   point   we   note   the   following