Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
OF A CORPORATION
CASE NO. 1
On appeal, respondent court modified the
judgment by deleting the award of attorney's fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Rural Bank of Labason
Inc., being an artificial person should be awarded
moral damages.
FACTS:
Respondent Carloto, incumbent President-Manager
of private respondent Rural Bank of Labason was
instructed by Central Bank Regional Office to
proceed to Manila on or before November 21, 1984
to follow-up the Rural Bank's plan of payment of
rediscounting obligations with Central Bank's main
office in Manila.
RULING:
No.
The respondent court erred in awarding moral
damages to the Rural Bank of Labason, Inc., an
artificial person.
CASE NO. 2
FACTS:
CASE NO. 3
G.R. No. L-22973
FACTS:
1.
RULING:
by
CASE NO. 5
ACME SHOE, RUBBER & PLASTIC
CORPORATION and CHUA PAC, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PRODUCERS BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES and REGIONAL SHERIFF
OF CALOOCAN CITY, respondents
VITUG, J.:
Would it be valid and effective to have a
clause in a chattel mortgage that purports to
likewise extend its coverage to obligations yet to
be contracted or incurred? This question is the core
issue in the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner Chua Pac, the president and general
manager of co-petitioner "Acme Shoe, Rubber &
Plastic Corporation," executed for and in behalf of
the company, a chattel mortgage in favor of
private respondent Producers Bank of the
Philippines. The mortgage stood by way of security
CASE NO. 6
G.R.No. L-56076 September 21, 1983
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
On March 28, 1965, petitioner Palay, Inc., through
its President, Albert Onstott executed in favor of
private respondent, Nazario Dumpit, a Contract to
Sell a parcel of Land of the Crestview Heights
BELLOSILLO, J.
The controversy started in 1992 at the height of
the power crisis which the country was then
experiencing. To remedy and curtail further losses
due to the series of power failures, petitioner PURE
FOODS CORPORATION (PUREFOODS) decided to
install two (2) 1500 KW generators in its food
processing plant in San Roque, Marikina City.
Out of the eight (8) prospective bidders who
attended the pre-bidding conference, only three (3)
bidders, namely, respondent FAR EAST MILLS
SUPPLY
CORPORATION
(hereafter
FEMSCO),
MONARK and ADVANCE POWER submitted bid
proposals and gave bid bonds equivalent to 5% of
their respective bids, as required.
CASE 8
FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.
v.
AGO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTERBICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,
(AMEC-BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO
ISSUE: WON
DAMAGES.
AMEC
IS
ENTITLED
TO
MORAL
HELD:
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act or omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
On the other hand, the administrators of AMECBCCM, AMEC Science High School and the AMECInstitute of Mass Communication in their effort to
minimize expenses in terms of salary are
absorbing or continues to accept "rejects". For
example how many teachers in AMEC are former
teachers of Aquinas University but were removed
because of immorality? Does it mean that the
present administration of AMEC have the total
definite
moral
foundation
from
catholic
administrator of Aquinas University. I will prove to
you my friends, that AMEC is a dumping ground,
garbage, not merely of moral and physical misfits.
Probably they only qualify in terms of intellect. The
Dean of Student Affairs of AMEC is Justita Lola, as
the family name implies. She is too old to work,
being an old woman. Is the AMEC administration
exploiting the very [e]nterprising or compromising
and undemanding Lola? Could it be that AMEC is
just patiently making use of Dean Justita Lola were
FACTS:
In its continuing search for ill-gotten wealth,
(PCGG) filed in the Sandiganbayan on July 22, 1987
a case for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution and damages against Manuel H. Nieto,
Jose L. Africa, Roberto S. Benedicto, Potenciano
Ilusorio, Juan Ponce Enrile and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
alleging, in substance, that said defendants
as dummies of the late strongman and devised
schemes and strategems
to monopolize the telecommunications
industry. Annexed to the complaint is a listing of
the assets of defendants Nieto and Africa, among
which are their shares of stock in private
respondent Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc.
(Aerocom).[1]
10
CASE NO. 10
G.R. No. 82797
FACTS:
A Lease Contract, was entered into by and between
ROCES-REYES REALTY, INC., as lessor, and GOOD
EARTH EMPORIUM, INC., as lessee, for a term of
three years beginning November 1, 1981 and
ending October 31, 1984 at a monthly rental of
P65,000.00. It had defaulted in the payment of
rentals, as a consequence of which, private
respondent ROCES filed an ejectment case
(Unlawful Detainer) against herein petitioners, GEE.
The lower court ordered them to vacate. Roces
filed a motion for execution which was opposed by
GEE simultaneous with the latter's filing of a Notice
of Appeal.
CASE NO. 11
11
ENGR.
RANULFO
C.
FELICIANO
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 147402
January 14, 2004
vs
Facts:
Issues:
1. Whether or not a Local Water District ("LWD")
created under PD 198, as amended, is a
government-owned or controlled corporation
subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA -YES
Held:
12
Facts:
CASE NO. 12
CONCEPCION MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR vs CA
G.R. No. 58168 December 19, 1989
13
CASE NO. 13
G.R. No. L-31061 August 17, 1976
SULO
NG
BAYAN
INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., PARADISE FARMS,
INC., NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY, HACIENDA CARETAS, INC, and
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, defendantsappellees.
14
FACTS:
15
quo acted
without
in
the
authority
Secretary
and
of
Justice
jurisdiction
had
already
recovery
of
certain
be
in
accordance
with
authority
in
its
Secretary of Justice.
2.) In dismissing the amended complaint,
the court a quo said:
members
within
the
mere
fact
that
a request
for the
16
RUFINA
LUY
LIM, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, AUTO TRUCK TBA
CORPORATION, SPEED DISTRIBUTING, INC.,
ACTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, ALLIANCE MARKETING
CORPORATION,
ACTION
COMPANY,
INC. respondents.
BUENA, J.:
FACTS:Petitioner Rufina Luy Lim is the surviving
spouse of late Pastor Y. Lim whose estate is the
subject of probate proceedings in Special
Proceedings Q-95-23334, entitled, "In Re: Intestate
Estate of Pastor Y. Lim Rufina Luy Lim, represented
by George Luy, Petitioner
Private respondents Auto Truck Corporation,
Alliance Marketing Corporation, Speed Distributing,
Inc., Active Distributing, Inc. and Action Company
are corporations formed, organized and existing
under Philippine laws and which owned real
properties covered under the Torrens system.
On 11 June 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate.
Herein petitioner filed on 17 March 1995, a joint
petition for the administration of the estate of
Pastor Y. Lim before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City.
CASE NO. 14
G.R. No. 124715
17
RULING: NO.
Under the peculiar circumstances, where the
parcels of land are registered in the name of
private respondent corporations, the jurisprudence
pronounced in BOLISAY vs., ALCID is of great
essence and finds applicability, thus:
18
CASE NO. 15
Adm. Matter No. R-181-P
1987
Facts:
CASE NO. 16
G.R. No. 125986 January 28, 1999
LUXURIA HOMES, INC., and/or AIDA M.
POSADAS, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JAMES
BUILDER CONSTRUCTION and/or JAIME T.
BRAVO,respondents.
Facts:
19
P450,000.00.
payment of
CASE NO. 17
CONCEPT BUILDERS VS NLRC, ET AL
FACTS:
Petitioner Concept Builders, Inc., a domestic
corporation, with principal office at 355 Maysan
Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, is engaged in the
construction business. Private respondents were
employed by said company as laborers, carpenters
and riggers.
20
Whether
the
National
Labor
Relations
Commission committed grave abuse of discretion
when it issued a break-open order to the sheriff to
be enforced against personal property found in the
premises of petitioners sister company.
RULING:
No. The corporate veil must be pierced in the
present case.
Reasons:
1.
2.
3.
It
is
a
fundamental
principle
of
corporation law that a corporation is an
entity separate and distinct from its
stockholders and from other corporations to
which it may be connected.8 But, this
separate and distinct personality of a
corporation is merely a fiction created by law
for convenience and to promote justice.9 So,
when the notion of separate juridical personality is
used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong,
protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a
device to defeat the labor laws,10 this separate
personality of the corporation may be disregarded
or the veil of corporate fiction pierced. 11 This is true
likewise when the corporation is merely an adjunct,
a business conduit or an alter ego of another
corporation.12
ISSUE:
21
FACTS:
CASE NO. 18
VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
EUSEBIO E. FERRER, PANGASINAN
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION,defendants.
EUSEBIO E. FERRER and PANGASINAN
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., defendantsappellants.
22
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ISSUE:
WON Villarama and the Corporation are one and
the same hence they cannot apply for any TPU
service competing with the buyer
RULING:
Yes, they are one and the same.
The Villa Rey Transit, Inc. is an alter ego of Jose M.
Villarama, and that the restrictive clause in the
contract entered into by the latter and Pantranco is
also enforceable and binding against the said
Corporation. For the rule is that a seller or promisor
may not make use of a corporate entity as a means
of evading the obligation of his covenant.31 Where
the Corporation is substantially the alter ego of the
covenantor to the restrictive agreement, it can be
enjoined from competing with the covenantee.
The doctrine that a corporation is a legal
entity distinct and separate from the
members and stockholders who compose it is
recognized and respected in all cases which
are within reason and the law.29 When the
23
CASE NO. 19
ISSUE:
I
Whether or not petitioner can be made a
party to the case, despite the fact that it
was not the real party in interest but the
individual members of the Francisco family
concerned with the intestate case?
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred
in applying the doctrine of piercing the veil
of corporate entity?
RULING:
Given the facts and circumstances of this
case, the doctrine of piercing the corporate
veil has no relevant application here.
Respondent court erred in permitting the
trial court's resort to this doctrine. The
rationale behind piercing a corporation's
identity in a given case is to remove the
barrier between the corporation from the
persons comprising it to thwart the
fraudulent and illegal schemes of those
who use the corporate personality as a
shield for undertaking certain proscribed
activities.
24
FACTS:
CASE NO. 20
G.R. No. 142936
25
ISSUE:
Whether or not herein petitioners (PNB and
NASUDECO) are liable for the unpaid
corporate debts of PASUMIL, a corporation
whose corporate existence has not been
legally extinguished or terminated, simply
because of petitioners take-over of its
management and operation pursuant to
the mandates of LOI No. 311?
RULING:
26
CASE NO. 21
ESTELITA BURGOS LIPAT and ALFREDO
LIPAT, petitioners, vs.
PACIFIC
BANKING CORPORATION, REGISTER OF
DEEDS, RTC EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF
QUEZON CITY and the Heirs of
EUGENIO D. TRINIDAD, respondents.
(4/30/2003)
QUISUMBING, J.:
No Merger or Consolidation
27
that both are one and the same. Hence, the Lipats
were estopped from disclaiming any obligations on
the theory of separate personality of corporations,
which is contrary to principles of reason and good
faith.
CA: dismissed Lipats appeal
-there was ample evidence on record to support
the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil
of corporate fiction. In affirming the findings of the
RTC, the appellate court noted that Mrs. Lipat had
full control over the activities of the corporation
and used the same to further her business
interests. In fact, she had benefited from the loans
obtained by the corporation to finance her
business. It also found unnecessary a board
resolution authorizing Teresita Lipat to secure loans
from Pacific Bank on behalf of BEC because the
corporations by-laws allowed such conduct even
without a board resolution.
28
the
petition
is DENIED. CA
CASE NO. 22
LIM TONG LIM vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR
INDUSTRIES, INC. 11/3/1999
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS:
On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing
Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered
into a Contract for the purchase of fishing nets of
various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear
Industries, Inc. They claimed that they were
engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim
Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the
agreement.
29
30
31