Batong Buhay vs. CA, 147 SCRA 4
Batong Buhay vs. CA, 147 SCRA 4
FACTS:
Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. issued a Stock Certificate covering 62,495 shares to
Francisco Aguac who was then legally married to Paula G. Aguac, but the said spouses
had lived separately for more than fourteen (14) years prior to the said date. Then later
the shares were sold to Incorporated Mining Corporation without the knowledge of the
wife. In consequence of such action, Paula Aguac wrote to the President of Batong
Buhay Gold Mines asking that the transfer of shares be withheld as the sale constituted
a conjugal property, and her part of the proceeds of the sale were not given to her.
Batong Buhay adheres to the letter of the wife, and since Francisco Aguac was charged
in another criminal complaint, the company then refused to transfer such stock
certificate to the Incorporated Mining enable not to be held liable for damages. The
Incorporated Mining then instituted a complaint in order to compel Batong Buhay to
transfer the stock certificates. The lower court decided in favor of Incorporated Mining
and order to effect the transfer and pay further interest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court of appeals may award unrealized profits to Incorporated Mining
Corporation.
RULING:
No, the Court ruled that the facts presented do not show that the Incorporated Mining
Corporation intended to sell such stocks. While it is true that shares of stock may go up
or down in value (as in fact the concerned shares here really rose from fifteen (15)
centavos to twenty-three or twenty-four (23/24) centavos per share and then fell to
about two (2) centavos per share, still whatever profits could have been made are
purely SPECULATIVE, for it was difficult to predict with any degree of certainty the rise
and fall in the value of the shares. Thus, this Court has ruled that speculative damages
cannot be recovered.
It is easy to say now that had private respondent gained legal title to the shares, it could
have sold the same and reaped a profit of P5,624.95 but it could not do so because of
petitioner's refusal to transfer the stocks in the former's name at the time demand was
made, but then it is also true that human nature, being what it is, private respondent's
officials could also have refused to sell and instead wait for expected further increases
in value.