corpo digests 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
1/45
Bataan Shipyard Engineering Co., Inc. vs. PCGG (G.R. No. 75885
ay !7, "#87$
%acts&Challenged in this special civil action of certiorari and prohibition
by a private corporation known as the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering
Co., Inc. are: (1 E!ec"tive #rders $"%bered 1 and &, pro%"lgated by
'resident Coraon C. )*"ino on +ebr"ary &, 1- and /arch 1&, 1-,
respectively, and (& the se*"estration, takeover, and other ordersiss"ed, and acts done, in accordance with said e!ec"tive orders by the
'residential Co%%ission on 0ood 0overn%ent andor its Co%%issioners
and agents, a2ecting said corporation. 3he se*"estration order iss"ed on
)pril 14, 1- was addressed to three of the agents of the Co%%ission,
ordering the% to se*"ester several co%panies a%ong which is Bataan
Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. #n the strength of the above
se*"estration order, several letters were sent to B)SEC# a%ong which is
that fro% /r. 5ose /. Balde, acting for the 'C00, addressed a letter dated
)pril 1, 1- to the 'resident and other o6cers of petitioner 7r%,
reiterating an earlier re*"est for the prod"ction of certain doc"%ents.
3he letter closed with the warning that if the doc"%ents were not
s"b%itted within 7ve days, the o6cers wo"ld be cited for 8conte%pt inp"rs"ance with 'residential E!ec"tive #rder $os. 1 and &.8 B)SEC#
contends that its right against self incri%ination and "nreasonable
searches and sei"res had been transgressed by the #rder of )pril 1,
1- which re*"ired it 8to prod"ce corporate records fro% 1-9 to 1-
"nder pain of conte%pt of the Co%%ission if it fails to do so.8 B)SEC#
prays that the Co"rt 1 declare "nconstit"tional and void E!ec"tive
#rders $"%bered 1 and &; & ann"l the se*"estration order dated )prils insistence. )viles showed the Spo"ses
+ir%e a copy of a draft deed of sale (83hird raft8 which )viles prepared.
Spo"ses +ir%e did not accept the 3hird raft beca"se they fo"nd its
provisions ones ref"sal
to sell the 'roperty reinforces r. +ir%e>s testi%ony that he and his wife
never consented to sell the 'roperty. -he essence o consent is the
conor)ity o the parties on the ter)s o the contract, the
acceptance /y one o the o0er )ade /y the other.3he contract to
sell is a bilateral contract. =here there is %erely an o2er by one party,
witho"t the acceptance of the other, there is no consent. )ss"%ing there
is a valid sale, there was no approval fro% the Board of irectors of B"kal
Enterprises as wo"ld 7nalie any transaction with the Spo"ses +ir%e.)viles did not have the proper a"thority to negotiate for B"kal
Enterprises. )viles testi7ed that his friend, e Castro, had asked hi% to
negotiate with the Spo"ses +ir%e to b"y the 'roperty. Lowever, there is
no Board Hesol"tion a"thoriing )viles to negotiate and p"rchase the
'roperty on behalf of B"kal Enterprises. It is the board of directors or
tr"stees which e!ercises al%ost all the corporate powers in a corporation.
3he Corporation Code provides :
SEC. &. -he /oard o directors or tr'stees. N nless otherwise
provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations for%ed
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
3/45
"nder this Code shall be e!ercised, all b"siness cond"cted and all
property of s"ch corporations controlled and held by the board of
directors or tr"stees to be elected fro% a%ong the holders of stock, or
where there is no stock, fro% a%ong the %e%bers of the corporation,
who shall hold o6ce for one (1 year and "ntil their s"ccessors are
elected and *"ali7ed.
SEC. . Corporate po1ers and capacity. N Every corporation
incorporated "nder this Code has the power and capacity:
! ! !
3o p"rchase, receive, take or grant, hold, convey, sell, lease, pledge,
%ortgage and otherwise deal with s"ch real and personal property,
incl"ding sec"rities and bonds of other corporations, as the transaction of
a lawf"l b"siness of the corporation %ay reasonably and necessarily
re*"ire, s"bAect to the li%itations prescribed by the law and the
Constit"tion.
nder these provisions, the power to p"rchase real property is vested in
the board of directors or tr"stees. =hile a corporation %ay appoint
agents to negotiate for the p"rchase of real property needed by the
corporation, the 7nal say will have to be with the board, whose approval
will 7nalie the transaction. ) corporation can only e!ercise its powers
and transact its b"siness thro"gh its board of directors and thro"gh its
o6cers and agents when a"thoried by a board resol"tion or its by
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
4/45
allowed to conf"se the facts relating to e%ployer
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
5/45
RING 3he S"pre%e Co"rt +ENIE+ the 'etition for Certiorari and
'rohibition. It r"led that Da Ca%apana contin"ed to e!ist despite the
death of Ha%on 3antongco. It f"rther r"led that the octrine of 'iercing
the Jeil of Corporate E!istence is not applicable in the present case.
+inally, it allowed the CIH to proceed with the conte%pt hearing.
1 and &
3he death of Ha%on 3antongco did not end the e!istence of Da
Ca%pana. 3he S"pre%e Co"rt applied the octrine of 'iercing the Jeil of
Corporate E!istence in 0H no. D
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
6/45
fro% 5"ne 1 to )"g"st 1, 1-9. Coprada again asked for another grace
period stating as well that he is e!pecting the approval of his loan
application fro% a certain 7nancing co%pany, and that ten (1 tr"cks
have been ret"rned to Bagbag, $ovaliches.
In d"e ti%e, private respondent 7led a co%pliant for the recovery of
'&,. or the ret"rn of the 1 tr"cks with da%ages against )kron
and its o6cers and directors with the then Co"rt of +irst Instance of Hial.#nly petitioner answered the co%plaint denying any participation in the
transaction and alleging that )kron has a distinct corporate personality.
Le was, however, declared in defa"lt for his fail"re to attend the pre
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
7/45
H E S # D 3 I # $
PN3, ;.&
I. +acts
;an'ary !7, "##7&$ational Invest%ent and evelop%ent Corporation
($IC, a govern%ent corporation, entered into a 5oint Jent"re
)gree%ent (5J) with Qawasaki Leavy Ind"stries, Dtd. of Qobe, 5apan
(Q)=)S)QI for the constr"ction, operation and %anage%ent of the S"bic
$ational Shipyard, Inc. (S$S which s"bse*"ently beca%e the 'hilippine
Shipyard and Engineering Corporation ('LIDSEC#. nder the 5J), the
$IC and Q)=)S)QI will contrib"te ' %illion for the capitaliation of
'LIDSEC# in the proportion of T
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
8/45
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
9/45
virt"al transfer of land to a non
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
10/45
s"bscribed and paid by +rank Diddell while the other fo"r shares were in
the na%e of Charles Q"r, E.5. arras, )ngel /anano and 5"lian Serrano
at one shares each. Its p"rpose was to engage in the b"siness of
i%porting and retailing #lds%obile and Chevrolet passenger cars and
0/C and Chevrolet tr"cks. )fter its incorporation, Didell O Co. was able to
declare stock dividends, thereby increasing the iss"ed capital stock of
the said corporation, which were d"ly approved by the Sec"rities and
E!change Co%%ission. 3here has also been an agree%ent e!ec"ted by+rank Didell on one hand, and /essrs. Q"r, arras, /anano and Serrano
on the other, which was f"rther s"pple%ented by two other
agree%ents wherein +rank Diddell transferred to vario"s e%ployees of
Diddell O Co. shares of stock. #n the basis of the agree%ent, 84T8 of the
earnings available for dividends accr"ed to +rank Diddell altho"gh at the
ti%e of the e!ec"tion of said instr"%ent, +rank Diddell owned all of the
shares in said corporation. +ro% 1-4 "ntil $ove%ber &&, 1-4, when the
p"rpose cla"se of the )rticles of Incorporation of Diddell O Co. Inc., was
a%ended so as to li%it its b"siness activities to i%portations of
a"to%obiles and tr"cks, Diddell O Co. was engaged in b"siness as an
i%porter and at the sa%e ti%e retailer of #lds%obile and Chevrolet
passenger cars and 0/C and Chevrolet tr"cks. #n ece%ber &, 1-4,the Diddell /otors, Inc. was organied and registered with the Sec"rities
and E!change Co%%ission with an a"thoried capital stock of '1,
of which '&, was s"bscribed and paid for as follows: Irene Diddell
wife of +rank Diddell 1-,-- shares and /essrs. /arcial '. Dicha"co, E. Q.
Bro%well, J. E. del Hosario and Es%enia Silva, 1 share each. )t abo"t the
end of the year 1-4, /essrs. /anano, Q"r and Qernot resigned fro%
their respective positions in the Hetail ept. of Diddell O Co. and they
were taken in and e%ployed by Diddell /otors, Inc. Beginning 5an"ary,
1-4-, Diddell O Co. stopped retailing cars and tr"cks; it conveyed the%
instead to Diddell /otors, Inc. which in t"rn sold the vehicles to the p"blic
with a steep %ark
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
11/45
it did not e!ceed ', and 1T of the price if %ore than ' b"t not
%ore than '9, etc. 3his progressive rate of the sales ta! nat"rally
wo"ld te%pt the ta!payer to e%ploy a way of red"cing the price of the
7rst sale. )nd Diddell /otors, Inc. was the %edi"% created by Diddell O
Co. to red"ce the price and the ta! liability.
)s opined in the case of 0regory v. Lelvering, 8the legal right of a
ta!payer to decrease the a%o"nt of what otherwise wo"ld be his ta!es,or altogether avoid the% by %eans which the law per%its, cannot be
do"bted.8 B"t, as held in another case, 8where a corporation is a d"%%y,
is "nreal or a sha% and serves no b"siness p"rpose and is intended only
as a blind, the corporate for% %ay be ignored for the law cannot
co"ntenance a for% that is bald and a %ischievo"s 7ction.8 Consistently
with this view, the nited States S"pre%e Co"rt held that 8a ta!payer
%ay gain advantage of doing b"siness thr" a corporation if he pleases,
b"t the reven"e o6cers in proper cases, %ay disregard the separate
corporate entity where it serves b"t as a shield for ta! evasion and treat
the person who act"ally %ay take the bene7ts of the transactions as the
person accordingly ta!able.8
3h"s, we repeat: to allow a ta!payer to deny ta! liability on the gro"nd
that the sales were %ade thro"gh another and distinct corporation when
it is proved that the latter is virt"ally owned by the for%er or that they
are practically one and the sa%e is to sanction a circ"%vention of o"r ta!
laws.
I$3EH$)3I#$)D EV'HESS 3H)JED O 3#H SEHJICES, I$C. vs. C#H3 #+
)''E)DS, LE$HI Q)L$, 'LIDI''I$E +##3B)DD +EEH)3I#$.
F0.H. $o. 11-&. #ctober 1-, &G
Q)'$)$, 5.:
%acts& #n 5"ne 1--, International E!press 3ravel and 3o"r Services,
Inc., wrote a letter to the 'hilippine +ootball +ederation>s (+ederation
president Lenri Qahn, o2ering its services as a travel agency to the
latter. 3he +ederation sec"red the airline tickets for the trips to the So"th
East )sian 0a%es in Q"ala D"%p"r as well as trips to the 'eople?s
Hep"blic of China and Brisbane. 3he total cost of the tickets a%o"nted to
'44-,4.. +or the tickets received, the +ederation %ade two partial
pay%ents, both in Septe%ber of 1--, in the total a%o"nt of
'19,49..
#n 4 #ctober 1--, petitioner wrote the +ederation, thro"gh the
private respondent a de%and letter re*"esting for the a%o"nt of
'&,-4.. #n #ctober 1--, the +ederation, thro"gh the 'roAect
0intong )lay, paid the a%o"nt of '1,.. #n &9 ece%ber 1--,
Lenri Qahn iss"ed a personal check in the a%o"nt of ', as partial
pay%ent for the o"tstanding balance. $o f"rther pay%ents were %adedespite repeated de%ands pro%pting the 3ravel )gency to 7le a civil
case before the Hegional 3rial Co"rt of /anila. 3he 3ravel )gency s"ed
Lenri Qahn in his personal capacity and as 'resident of the +ederation
and i%pleaded the +ederation as an alternative defendant. 3he 3ravel
)gency so"ght to hold Lenri Qahn liable on the gro"nd that he allegedly
g"aranteed the said obligation.
=hile not denying the allegation that the +ederation owed the "npaid
balance in the a%o"nt of '&9,&4.&, Qahn averred that there was no
ca"se of action against hi% either in his personal capacity or in his
o6cial capacity as president of the +ederation. Le %aintained that he didnot g"arantee pay%ent b"t %erely acted as an agent of the +ederation
which has a separate and distinct A"ridical personality. 3he +ederation
was declared in defa"lt for failing to 7le an answer.
3he trial co"rt r"led in favor of the travel agency and held Qahn
personally liable for the +ederation>s obligation. It reasoned that Qahn
failed to add"ce proof of the corporate e!istence of the +ederation, which
was a %ere sports association. 3h"s, a vol"ntary "nincorporated
association, like the +ederation has no power to enter into, or to ratify, a
contract. 3he contract entered into by its o6cers or agents on behalf of
s"ch association is not binding on, or enforceable against it. 3he o6cers
or agents are the%selves personally liable.
#nly Lenri Qahn elevated the above decision to the Co"rt of )ppeals. #n
&1 ece%ber 1--4, the respondent co"rt rendered a decision reversing
the trial co"rt. 3he Co"rt of )ppeals recognied the A"ridical e!istence of
the +ederation and absolved Qahn fro% personal liability. It rationalied
that since petitioner failed to prove that Lenri Qahn g"aranteed the
obligation of the +ederation, he sho"ld not be held liable for the sa%e as
said entity has a separate and distinct personality fro% its o6cers.
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
12/45
'etitioner 7led a %otion for reconsideration and as an alternative prayer
pleaded that the +ederation be held liable for the "npaid obligation. 3he
sa%e was denied by the appellate co"rt on the gro"nds that the trial
co"rt dis%issed the co%plaint against the federation, which was not
appealed. 3h"s, the federation was not a party to this appeal.
Iss'e& =hether the Co"rt of )ppeal erred in 7nding that the +ederation
was a A"ridical entityM
ed& Ues. 3he Co"rt of )ppeals cited Hep"blic )ct 1, Hevised
Charter of the 'hilippine )%ate"r )thletic +ederation, and 'residential
ecree $o. 4 as the laws fro% which said +ederation derives its
e!istence. )bove stated laws indicate that sports associations, s"ch as
the +ederation, %ay ac*"ire a A"ridical personality. Lowever, national
sports associations %ay be accorded corporate stat"s, s"ch does not
a"to%atically take place by the %ere passage of these laws.
Beore a corporation )ay acJ'ire K'ridica personaity, the
State )'st give its consent either in the or) o a specia a1 ora genera ena/ing act.=e do not agree with the appellate co"rt that
the 'hilippine +ootball +ederation ca%e into e!istence "pon the passage
of these laws. $owhere can it be fo"nd in H.). 1 or '.. 4 any
provision creating the 'hilippine +ootball +ederation.
)bove stated laws re*"ire that before an entity %ay be considered as a
national sports association, s"ch entity %"st be recognied by the
accrediting organiation, the 'hilippine )%ate"r )thletic +ederation
"nder H.). 1, and the epart%ent of Uo"th and Sports evelop%ent
"nder '.. 4. 3his fact of recognition, however, Lenri Qahn failed to
s"bstantiate. Le atte%pted to by attaching with %otion for
reconsideration before the trial co"rt a copy of the constit"tion and by
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
13/45
SERGI3 %. N2GI2-, doing /'siness 'nder the na)e and stye
SERGI3 %. N2GI2- EN-., INC., C2R4 %IE+ -2LI, INC.,
petitioners, vs. N2-I3N2 2B3R RE2-I3NS C3ISSI3N (-IR+
+IISI3N$, N2-I3N2 3RG2NI2-I3N 3% 63R4INGEN and its
)e)/ers, E3N2R+3 -. G22NG, et a., respondents.
$at"re: Special Civil )ction for Certiorari "nder H"le of the H"les of
Co"rt
+acts: 'etitioner Clark +ield 3a!i, Inc. (C+3I, the president of who% was
Sergio $ag"iat, held a concessionaire?s contract to operate a ta!i service
within Clark )ir Base with )r%y )ir +orce E!change Services ())+ES.
C+3I, like Sergio +. $ag"iat Enterprises, was a fa%ily corporation. +or this
p"rpose, petitioners hired private respondents as ta!i drivers, working for
at least or 4 ti%es in a week.
"e to the phase
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
14/45
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
15/45
efendants ene%ies, it was also incorporated "nder the laws of a co"ntry
with which 5apan was at war.
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
16/45
Proessiona Services Inc v 2gana
3hese are three consolidated petitions for review on certiorari fro% the
decision of the Co"rt of )ppeals.
%acts&
#n )pril 4, 1-4, $atividad )gana was r"shed to the /edical City
Lospital beca"se of di6c"lty of bowel %ove%ent and bloody anal
discharge. )fter a series of %edical e!a%inations, r. /ig"el )%pil,
diagnosed her to be s"2ering fro% 8cancer of the sig%oid.8
#n )pril 11, 1-4, r. )%pil, assisted by the %edical sta24 of the /edical
City Lospital, perfor%ed an anterior resection s"rgery on $atividad. Le
fo"nd that the %alignancy in her sig%oid area had spread on her left
ovary, necessitating the re%oval of certain portions of it. 3h"s, r. )%pil
obtained the consent of $atividad>s h"sband, Enri*"e )gana, to per%itr. 5"an +"entes, to perfor% hysterecto%y on her. )fter r. +"entes had
co%pleted the hysterecto%y, r. )%pil took over, co%pleted the
operation and closed the incision. Lowever, the operation appeared to be
Xawed. 3he records show that the n"rse infor%ed r. )%pil of & %issing
sponge b"t the doctor contin"ed in closing the operation.
)fter a co"ple of days, $atividad co%plained of e!cr"ciating pain in her
anal region. She cons"lted both r. )%pil and r. +"entes abo"t it. 3hey
told her that the pain was the nat"ral conse*"ence of the s"rgery.
$atividadthen went to the nited States to seek f"rther treat%ent.
$atividad Xew back to the 'hilippines, still s"2ering fro% pains. 3wo
weeks thereafter, her da"ghter fo"nd a piece of ga"e protr"ding fro%her vagina. pon being infor%ed abo"t it, r. )%pil proceeded to her
ho"se where he %anaged to e!tract by hand a piece of ga"e %eas"ring
1. inches in width. Le then ass"red her that the pains wo"ld soon
vanish.
3he pains intensi7ed, pro%pting $atividad to seek treat%ent at the
'oly%edic 0eneral Lospital. =hile con7ned there, r. Ha%on 0"tierre
detected the presence of another foreign obAect in her vagina s body and %alpractice for
concealing their acts of negligence.
#n +ebr"ary 1, 1-, pending the o"tco%e of the above cases,$atividad died and was d"ly s"bstit"ted by her above work after he was done and contin"ed theoperation hi%selfa(r )%pil.
=#$ 'SI %ay be held solidarily liable for the negligence of r. )%pil.
Cai)s o the parties&
'SI alleged in its petition that the Co"rt of )ppeals erred in holding that:
(1 it is estopped fro% raising the defense that r. )%pil is not its
e%ployee; (& it is solidarily liable with r. )%pil; and ( it is not entitled
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
17/45
to its co"nterclai% against the )ganas. 'SI contends that r. )%pil is not
its e%ployee, b"t a %ere cons"ltant or independent contractor. )s s"ch,
he alone sho"ld answer for his negligence.
3he )ganas %aintain that the Co"rt of )ppeals erred in 7nding that r.
+"entes is not g"ilty of negligence or %edical %alpractice, invoking the
doctrine of res ipsa lo*"it"r. 3hey contend that the pieces of ga"e are
pri%a facie proofs that the operating s"rgeons have been negligent.
r. )%pil asserts that the Co"rt of )ppeals erred in 7nding hi% liable for
negligence and %alpractice sans evidence that he left the two pieces of
ga"e in $atividad>s vagina. Le pointed to other probable ca"ses, s"ch
as: (1 it was r. +"entes who "sed ga"es in perfor%ing the
hysterecto%y; (& the attending n"rses> fail"re to properly co"nt the
ga"es "sed d"ring s"rgery; and ( the %edical intervention of the
)%erican doctors who e!a%ined $atividad in the nited States of
)%erica.
R'ing&
2s to +r. 2)pi
Hecords show that he did not present any evidence to prove that the
)%erican doctors were the ones who p"t or left the ga"es in $atividad>s
body. $either did he s"b%it evidence to reb"t the correctness of the
record of operation, partic"larly the n"%ber of ga"es "sed. )s to the
alleged negligence of r. +"entes, we are %indf"l that r. )%pil
e!a%ined r. +"entes> work and fo"nd it in order.
r. )%pil did not infor% $atividad abo"t the %issing two pieces of ga"e.
=orse, he even %isled her that the pain she was e!periencing was the
ordinary conse*"ence of her operation. 3o o"r %ind, what was initially an
act of negligence by r. )%pil has ripened into a deliberate wrongf"l act
of deceiving his patient.
2s to PSI
3here is e%ployers act is tanta%o"nt to holding o"t to the p"blic
that /edical City Lospital, thro"gh its accredited physicians, o2ers
*"ality health care services. By accrediting r. )%pil and r. +"entes and
p"blicly advertising their *"ali7cations, the hospital created the
i%pression that they were its agents, a"thoried to perfor% %edical or
s"rgical services for its patients. )s e!pected, these patients, $atividad
being one of the%, accepted the services on the reasonable belief that
s"ch were being rendered by the hospital or its e%ployees, agents, or
servants.
Corporate entities, like 'SI, are capable of acting only thro"gh other
individ"als, s"ch as physicians. If these accredited physicians do their Aob
well, the hospital s"cceeds in its %ission of o2ering *"ality %edical
services and th"s pro7ts 7nancially. Dogically, where negligence %ars the
*"ality of its services, the hospital sho"ld not be allowed to escape
liability for the acts of its ostensible agents.
=e now proceed to the doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate
responsibility.
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
18/45
#ne allegation in the co%plaint is that 'SI as owner, operator and
%anager of /edical City Lospital, 8did not perfor% the necessary
s"pervision nor e!ercise diligent e2orts in the s"pervision of rs. )%pil
and +"entes and its n"rsing sta2, resident doctors, and %edical interns
who assisted rs. )%pil and +"entes in the perfor%ance of their d"ties as
s"rgeons.8 're%ised on the doctrine of corporate negligence, the trial
co"rt held that 'SI is directly liable for s"ch breach of d"ty.
=e agree with the trial co"rt.
In the present case, it was d"ly established that 'SI operates the /edical
City Lospital for the p"rpose and "nder the concept of providing
co%prehensive %edical services to the p"blic. )ccordingly, it has the
d"ty to e!ercise reasonable care to protect fro% har% all patients
ad%itted into its facility for %edical treat%ent. nfort"nately, 'SI failed
to perfor% s"ch d"ty.
It is worthy to note that r. )%pil and r. +"entes operated on $atividad
with the assistance of the /edical City Lospital>s sta2, co%posed of
resident doctors, n"rses, and interns. )s s"ch, it is reasonable to
concl"de that 'SI, as the operator of the hospital, has act"al orconstr"ctive knowledge of the proced"res carried o"t, partic"larly the
report of the attending n"rses that the two pieces of ga"e were %issing.
3he fail"re of 'SI, despite the attending n"rses> report, to investigate and
infor% $atividad regarding the %issing ga"es a%o"nts to callo"s
negligence. $ot only did 'SI breach its d"ties to oversee or s"pervise all
persons who practice %edicine within its walls, it also failed to take an
active step in 7!ing the negligence co%%itted. 3his renders 'SI, not only
vicario"sly liable for the negligence of r. )%pil "nder )rticle &1 of the
Civil Code, b"t also directly liable for its own negligence "nder )rticle
&19.
)nent the corollary iss"e of whether 'SI is solidarily liable with r. )%pilfor da%ages, let it be e%phasied that 'SI, apart fro% a general denial of
its responsibility, failed to add"ce evidence showing that it e!ercised the
diligence of a good father of a fa%ily in the accreditation and s"pervision
of the latter. In neglecting to o2er s"ch proof, 'SI failed to discharge its
b"rden "nder the last paragraph of )rticle &1 cited earlier, and,
therefore, %"st be adA"dged solidarily liable with r. )%pil. /oreover, as
we have disc"ssed, 'SI is also directly liable to the )ganas.
=LEHE+#HE, we E$U all the petitions and )++IH/ the challenged
ecision of the Co"rt of )ppeals.
B2CE C3. (PI.$, INC. and %RE+ERIC4 E. SEGGER2N,petitioners, vs. 3N. ;+GE IENCI3 . RI, IS2E P. ER2,
in his capacity as Co))issioner o Interna Reven'e, 2R-R3
3GR3NI3, R3+3%3 +E E3N, G2IN3 E2SME, IIR
+E3S2, NIC2N3R 2C3R+3, ;3
(G.R. No. 9?!>@#, !7 %e/r'ary "#7"$
3his is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and %anda%"s, with
prayer for a writ of preli%inary %andatory and prohibitory inA"nction.
%2C-S& #n &4 +ebr"ary 1-9, /isael '. Jera, Co%%issioner of Internal
Heven"e, wrote a letter addressed to 5"dge Jivencio /. H"i re*"esting
the iss"ance of a search warrant against Bache O Co. ('hil., Inc. and
+rederick E. Segger%an for violation of Section 4(a of the $ational
Internal Heven"e Code ($IHC, in relation to all other pertinent provisions
thereof, partic"larly Sections , 9&, 9, & and &-, and a"thoriing
Heven"e E!a%iner Hodolfo de Deon to %ake and 7le the application for
search warrant which was attached to the letter. In the afternoon of the
following day, e Deon and his witness, )rt"ro Dogronio, went to the
Co"rt of +irst Instance (C+I of Hial. 3hey bro"ght with the% the
following papers: Jera>s letter
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
19/45
warrant and Dogronio>s deposition. Search =arrant &
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
20/45
2CE S3E, RBBER P2S-IC C3RP3R2-I3N and C2 P2C,
petitioners,
vs.
3N. C3R- 3% 2PPE2S, PR3+CERS B2N4 3% -E
PIIPPINES and
REGI3N2 SERI%% 3% C233C2N CI-s decision which dis%issed the co%plaint
for da%ages 7led by the petitioner corporation and ordered the e!tras state%ent in the said
case, that Ra corporation %ay have a good rep"tation which, if
bes%irched, %ay also be a gro"nd for the award of %oral da%ages, is
an obiter dict"%.
)/EC>s clai% for %oral da%ages was gro"nded "nder ite% 9 of )rticle
&&1- of the Civil Code which a"thories the sa%e in cases of libel,
slander, or any other for% of defa%ation. 3he provision does not *"alify
whether the plainti2 seeking s"ch award is a nat"ral or A"ridical person.
3herefore, a A"ridical person s"ch as a corporation can validly co%plain of
libel or any other for% of defa%ation and clai% for %oral da%ages as a
res"lt thereof. /oreover, evidence of an honest %istake or the want of
character or rep"tation of the party libelled serves only to %itigate the
a%o"nt of da%ages. Since the broadcasts are libello"s per se, )/EC is
entitled to %oral da%ages. 3he a%o"nt is red"ced to 'hp 1,
beca"se )/EC has not s"2ered any s"bstantial or %aterial da%age to its
rep"tation.
G.R. No. "">!!! 2pri :, "##5
%R2NCISC3 S. -2-2+, ;3N . 3SEN2 and R3+3%3 G. BI23N,
petitioners,
vs.
3N. ;ESS B. G2RCI2, ;R., in his capacity as the Secretary o the
+epart)ent o -ransportation and Co))'nications, and E+S2
R- C3RP3R2-I3N, -+., respondents.
MI2S3N, ;.&
#C3HI$E:
3his is a petition "nder H"le of the Hevised H"les of Co"rt to prohibit
respondents fro% f"rther i%ple%enting the RHevised and Hestated
)gree%ent to B"ild, Dease and 3ransfer a Dight Hail 3ransit Syste% for
ES) and the S"pple%ental )gree%ent to the sa%e proAect.
+acts:
'etitioners +rancisco 3atad, 5ohn #s%ena and Hodolfo Biaon are
%e%bers of the 'hilippine Senate and are s"ing in their capacities as
Senators and as ta!payers. Hespondent 5es"s 0arcia was then Secretaryof the #3C, while private respondent ES) DH3 C#H'#H)3I#$, Dtd. is a
private corporation organied "nder the laws of Longkong.
In 1--, #3C planned to constr"ct a light railway transit line along
ES), which shall traverse the cities of 'asay, K"eon, /andal"yong and
/akati. 3he obAective is to provide a %ass transit syste% along ES) and
to alleviate the congestion in the %etropolis.
#n /arch 1, 1--, then #3C Secretary #scar #rbos, acting "pon a
proposal to constr"ct the ES) DH3 III on a B"ild
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
23/45
#f the applicants, only the ES) DH3 Consorti"%, co%posed of CQ
3atra of the Cech and Slovak +ederal Hep"blics, 3C0I Engineering )ll
)sia Capital and Deasing Corporation, 3he Sali% 0ro"p of 5akarta, E. D.
Enterprises, Inc., )./. #reta O Co. Capitol Ind"strial Constr"ction 0ro"p,
Inc, and +. +. Cr" O co., Inc, R%et the re*"ire%ents of garnering at least
&1 points per criteria, e!cept for Degal aspects, and obtaining an over
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
24/45
Constit"tion to +ilipino citiens and do%estic corporations, not foreign
corporations like private respondent.
Iss"e:
=hether or not the ES) DH3 III (foreign corporations is a co%%on
carrier and owns the p"blic "tility violating Sec 11, )rt VII 1-9 'hilippine
constit"tionM
Leld:
$o.
=hat private respondent owns are the rail tracks, rolling stocks like the
coaches, rail stations, ter%inals and the power plant, not a p"blic "tility.
=hile a franchise is needed to operate these facilities to serve the p"blic,
they do not by the%selves constit"te a p"blic "tility. =hat constit"tes a
p"blic "tility is not their ownership b"t their "se to serve the p"blic.
Section 11 of )rticle VII of the Constit"tion provides:
$o franchise, certi7cate or any other for% of a"thoriation for the
operation of a p"blic "tility shall be granted e!cept to citiens of the
'hilippines or to corporations or associations organied "nder the laws ofthe 'hilippines at least si!ty per cent"% of whose capital is owned by
s"ch citiens, nor shall s"ch franchise, certi7cate or a"thoriation be
e!cl"sive character or for a longer period than years.
3he right to operate a p"blic "tility %ay e!ist independently and
separately fro% the ownership of the facilities thereof. #ne can own said
facilities witho"t operating the% as a p"blic "tility, or conversely, one
%ay operate a p"blic "tility witho"t owning the facilities "sed to serve
the p"blic. 3he devotion of property to serve the p"blic %ay be done by
the owner or by the person in control thereof who %ay not necessarily be
the owner thereof.
=hile private respondent is the owner of the facilities necessary to
operate the ES) DH3 III, it ad%its that it is not enfranchised to operate a
p"blic "tility. In view of this incapacity, private respondent and #3C
agreed that on co%pletion date, private respondent will i%%ediately
deliver possession of the DH3 syste% by of lease for & years, d"ring
which period #3C shall operate the sa%e as a co%%on carrier and
private respondent shall provide technical %aintenance and repair
services to #3C.
In s"%, private respondent will not r"n the light rail vehicles and collect
fees fro% the riding p"blic. It will have no dealings with the p"blic and
the p"blic will have no right to de%and any services fro% it.
Since #3C shall operate the ES) DH3 III, it shall ass"%e all the
obligations and liabilities of a co%%on carrier. +or this p"rpose, #3C
shall inde%nify and hold har%less private respondent fro% any losses,da%ages, inA"ries or death which %ay be clai%ed in the operation or
i%ple%entation of the syste%, e!cept losses, da%ages, inA"ry or death
d"e to defects in the ES) DH3 III on acco"nt of the defective condition of
e*"ip%ent or facilities or the defective %aintenance of s"ch e*"ip%ent
facilities.
=herefore, the petition is IS/ISSE.
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
25/45
ead v. cC'o'gh agsaysay v. C2
ByCher )lcantarain C#H'# (Jean S )U11
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
26/45
the co%pany to /cC"llo"gh for val"e, who later also assigned the sa%e
for val"e to other people who with /cC"llo"gh s"bse*"ently for%ed the
/anila Salvage )ssociation.
3he plainti2 insists that he was received as general %anager of the 7rst
co%pany a salary, pro7ts %ade before the assign%ent and the val"e of
the personal property which he have left and sold to the defendants;
while /cC"llo"gh contends that the plainti2 was to receive only his
necessary e!penses.
ISSE&=hether or not the re%aining directors have the power to sell or
transfer to one of its %e%bers the assets of the corporation.
RING&
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
27/45
%aAority of stockholders. If a %aAority of the stockholders have a clear
and a better right to sell the corporate property than a %aAority of the
directors, then it can be said that a %aAority of the stockholders %ade
this sale or transfer to the defendant /cC"llo"gh.
3he corporation had been going fro% bad to worse. 3he work of trying to
raise the s"nken Spanish Xeet had been for several %onths abandoned.
3he corporation "nder the %anage%ent of the plainti2 had entirely failed
in this "ndertaking. It had broken its contract with the naval a"thorities
and the Y1, /e!ican c"rrency deposited had been con7scated. It
had no %oney. It was considerably in debt. It was a losing concern and a
7nancial fail"re. 3o contin"e its operation %eant %ore losses. S"ccess
was i%possible. 3he corporation was civilly dead and had passed into the
li%bo of "tter insolvency. 3he %aAority of the stockholders or directors
sold the assets of this corporation, thereby relieving the%selves and the
plainti2 of all responsibility. 3his was only the wise and sensible thing for
the% to do. 3hey acted in perfectly good faith and for the best interests
of all the stockholders. 8It wo"ld be a harsh r"le that wo"ld per%it one
stockholder, or any %inority of stockholders to hold a %aAority to theirinvest%ent where a contin"ation of the b"siness wo"ld be at a loss and
where there was no prospect or hope that the enterprise wo"ld be
pro7table.8
G.R. No. 58":8 +ece)/er "#, "#8#
C3NCEPCI3N 2GS2
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
28/45
&,9,. e!ec"ted by SBIC in favor of +ID/)$B)$Q; that the
foregoing acts were void and done in an atte%pt to defra"d the conA"gal
partnership considering that the land is conA"gal, her %arital consent to
the annotation on 3C3 $o. & was not obtained, the change %ade by
the Hegister of eeds of the titleholders was e2ected witho"t the
approval of the Co%%issioner of Dand Hegistration and that the late
Senator did not e!ec"te the p"rported eed of )ssign%ent or his consent
thereto, if obtained, was sec"red by %istake, violence and inti%idation.
She f"rther alleged that the assign%ent in favor of SBIC was witho"t
consideration and conse*"ently n"ll and void. She prayed that the eed
of )ssign%ent and the eed of /ortgage be ann"lled and that the
Hegister of eeds be ordered to cancel 3C3 $o. &&41 and to iss"e a new
title in her favor.
#n /arch 9, 1-9-, herein petitioners, sisters of the late senator, 7led a
%otion for intervention on the gro"nd that on 5"ne &, 1-9, their brother
conveyed to the% ones clai%s can be ventilated in a
separate proceeding. 'etitioner>s %otion for reconsideration was denied.
Lence this instant reco"rse. 'etitioners arg"e that 41.T of the entire
o"tstanding capital stock of SBIC entitles the% to a signi7cant vote on
corporate a2airs that they are a2ected by the action of the widow of their
late brother for it concerns the only tangible asset of the corporation andthat it appears that they are %ore vitally interested in the o"tco%e of the
case than SBIC.
ISSE& 6hether or not petitioners have a ega interest in the
s'/Kect )atter in itigation to entite the) to intervene in the
proceedings.
E+& No.
". . In the case of Bata%a +ar%ers? Cooperative /arketing )ssociation,
Inc. v. Hosal, we held: 8)s clearly stated in Section & of H"le 1& of the
H"les of Co"rt, to be per%itted to intervene in a pending action, the party
%"st have a legal interest in the %atter in litigation, or in the s"ccess of
either of the parties or an interest against both, or he %"st be so sit"ated
as to be adversely a2ected by a distrib"tion or other disposition of the
property in the c"stody of the co"rt or an o6cer thereof .8
3o allow intervention, FaG it %"st be shown that the %ovant has legal
interest in the %atter in litigation, or otherwise *"ali7ed; and FbG
consideration %"st be given as to whether the adA"dication of the rights
of the original parties %ay be delayed or preA"diced, or whether the
intervenor?s rights %ay be protected in a separate proceeding or not.
Both re*"ire%ents %"st conc"r as the 7rst is not %ore i%portant than
the second.
3he interest which entitles a person to intervene in a s"it between other
parties %"st be in the %atter in litigation and of s"ch direct and
i%%ediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
direct legal operation and e2ect of the A"dg%ent. #therwise, if persons
not parties of the action co"ld be allowed to intervene, proceedings willbeco%e "nnecessarily co%plicated, e!pensive and inter%inable. )nd this
is not the policy of the law.
3he words 8an interest in the s"bAect8 %ean a direct interest in the ca"se
of action as pleaded, and which wo"ld p"t the intervenor in a legal
position to litigate a fact alleged in the co%plaint, witho"t the
establish%ent of which plainti2 co"ld not recover.
Lere, the interest, if it e!ists at all, of petitioners
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
29/45
&. 3he petitioners cannot clai% the right to intervene on the strength of
the transfer of shares allegedly e!ec"ted by the late Senator. 3he
corporation did not keep books and records. ""'erforce, no transfer was
ever recorded, %"ch less e2ected as to preA"dice third parties. 3he
transfer %"st be registered in the books of the corporation to a2ect third
persons. 3he law on corporations is e!plicit. Section of the Corporation
Code provides, th"s: 8$o transfer, however, shall be valid, e!cept as
between the parties, "ntil the transfer is recorded in the books of the
corporation showing the na%es of the parties to the transaction, the date
of the transfer, the n"%ber of the certi7cate or certi7cates and the
n"%ber of shares transferred.8
)nd even ass"%ing arg"endo that there was a valid transfer, petitioners
are nonetheless barred fro% intervening inas%"ch as their rights can be
ventilated and a%ply protected in another proceeding.
!n the topic of corporate criminal liability
SI2 v. PE3PE 3% -E PIIPPINES
GR No. 9?@8#:
2pri !8, "#8?
+e Castro, ;.&
%acts&
3his case involves a petition for review of the decision of the Co"rt of
)ppeals a6r%ing the C+I of /anila convicting the appellant of estafa.
3he facts reveal that in 1-, the acc"sed 5ose Sia was the
general %anager of /etal /an"fact"ring Co%pany of the
'hilippines engaged in the %an"fact"ring of steel o6ce
e*"ip%ent. =hen the co%pany was in need of raw %aterials to be
i%ported fro% abroad, Sia applied for a letter of credit to i%port
steel sheets fro% 3okyo, 5apan, the application being directed to
Continental Bank and was opened in the a%o"nt of Y1,.
)ccording to the Continental Bank, the delivery of the steel sheets was
only per%itted "pon the e!ec"tion of the tr"st receipt. =hile according
to Sia, the steel sheets were already delivered and were even
converted to e*"ip%ent before the tr"st receipt was signed by
hi%. Lowever, there is no *"estion that when the bill of e!change
beca%e d"e, neither the acc"sed nor his co%pany %ade pay%ents,
despite de%ands of the bank. #n appeal, Sia contends that he sho"ld
not be held liable.
Iss'e&=#$ petitioner Sia %ay be liable for the cri%e charged, having
acted only for and in behalf of his co%pany.
ed&
$#. 3he Co"rt disp"ted the reliance of the lower co"rt and the C) on the
general principle that for a cri%e co%%itted by a corporation, the
responsible o6cers thereof wo"ld personally bear the cri%inal liability, as
en"nciated in 3an Boon Qong. 3he latter provides that: RFtGhe corporation
was directly re*"ired by law to do an act in a given %anner and the sa%e
law %akes the person who fails to perfor% the act in the prescribed
%anner e!pressly liable cri%inally. 3he perfor%ance of an act is anobligation directly i%posed by the law on the corporation. Since it is a
responsible o6cer or o6cers of the corporations who act"ally perfor%
the act for the corporation, they %"st of necessity be the ones to ass"%e
the cri%inal liability; otherwise this liability as created by the law wo"ld
be ill"sory, and the deterrent e2ect of the law, negated.
3he Co"rt concl"ded that the cited case does not fall s*"arely
with the circ"%stances s"rro"nding Sia since the act alleged to be a
cri%e is not in the perfor%ance of an act directly ordained by law to be
perfor%ed by the corporation. 3he act is i%posed by the agree%ent of
the parties in p"rs"it of the b"siness. 3he intention of the parties is
therefore a factor deter%inant of whether a cri%e or a civil obligation
alone is co%%itted. 3he absence of a provision of the law even in the
H'C %aking Sia cri%inally liable as the president of his co%pany created
a do"bt that %"st be r"led in his favor according to the %a!i%, that all
do"bts %"st be resolved in favor of the acc"sed.
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
30/45
%iipinas Broadcasting v. 2go edica and Ed'cationa Center9
Bico Christian Coege o edicine G.R. No. ">"##>.
;an'ary "7, !@@5
%2C-S& 'etitioner +ilipinas Broadcasting $etwork, Inc (+B$I assails the
Hesol"tion of the C) which %odi7ed the ece%ber 14, 1--& decision of
the H3C of Degapi City (as to the a%o"nt of %oral da%ages, and fo"nd
petitioner and its broadcasters Ler%ogenes )legre and Car%elo Hi%a
liable for libel. 3he lower co"rt ordered +B$I, )legre and Hi%a tosolidarily pay %oral da%ages, attorney>s fees and the costs of the s"it to
)go /edical and Ed"cational Center< Bicol Christian College of /edicine
()/EC.
3he co%plaint alleged that )legre and Hi%a had %ade R%alicio"s
i%p"tations and as s"ch destroyed plainti2s> ()/EC and )ngelita )go,
ean of the College of /edicine rep"tation by citing the alleged
co%plaints of st"dents, parents and teachers. 3he co%plaint cited that
defendants had %ade the 2 libello"s i%p"tations with no fact"al basis:
(1 3hat )/ECs ad%inistration and; ( 3hat
)/EC is a d"%ping gro"nd of %oral and physical %is7ts beca"se it
contin"ed to accept RreAects in order to %ini%ie salary e!penses. +B$I
was i%pleaded as a defendant for Rfailing to e!ercise d"e diligence in the
selection and s"pervision of its e%ployees ()legre and Hi%a. ) /otion to
is%iss was 7led in behalf of +B$I which the H3C denied. 3he lower co"rt
held that the broadcasts were liable per se and were not the res"lt of
straight reporting beca"se it had no fact"al basis beca"se the
broadcasters failed to verify their reports. +B$I failed to e!ercise the d"ediligence as re*"ired by law. Lence, the A"dg%ent re*"iring +B$I, )legre
and Hi%a to pay %oral da%ages ('hp ,, pl"s rei%b"rse%ent of
attorney>s fees ('hp , and the costs of the s"it. C) lowered the
a%o"nt of %oral da%ages to 'hp 1,.
ISSE& =hether or not )/ECs clai% for %oral da%ages was gro"nded "nder ite% 9 of )rticle
&&1- of the Civil Code which a"thories the sa%e in cases of libel,
slander, or any other for% of defa%ation. 3he provision does not *"alify
whether the plainti2 seeking s"ch award is a nat"ral or A"ridical person.
3herefore, a A"ridical person s"ch as a corporation can validly co%plain of
libel or any other for% of defa%ation and clai% for %oral da%ages as a
res"lt thereof. /oreover, evidence of an honest %istake or the want of
character or rep"tation of the party libelled serves only to %itigate the
a%o"nt of da%ages. Since the broadcasts are libello"s per se, )/EC isentitled to %oral da%ages. 3he a%o"nt is red"ced to 'hp 1,
beca"se )/EC has not s"2ered any s"bstantial or %aterial da%age to its
rep"tation.
2--
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
31/45
it within the a%bit of the stat"tory prohibitions against the
advertise%ents which it has ca"sed to be p"blished and are now assailed
in this proceeding.
F'E3I3I#$ 3# 3LE SC 3# ISSE CE)SE O ESIS3 #HEH #+
HES'#$E$3>S )JEH3ISE/E$3SG
%2C-S&
1. 'etitioner /a"ricio lep prays for the SC to iss"e a cease O desist
order to the respondent, 3he Degal Clinic, Inc., to perpet"ally refrain the%
fro% advertising their services, tagged as )nne! ) O B, to wit:
(nne) (
*+$,+T (,,I(+ %/01.11 for a valid marriage.
Info on 2I3!,$+. ('*+&$+. (&&4#+&T. 3I*(.T5+ %lease call6 /78-1909 #+(# /7897:7 /77718 $#I&I$ I&$.
lr. 3ictoria 'ldg. 4& (ve. la.
(nne) '
4( 2I3!,$+. 2!& %(,?I&*!&
an (ttorney in uam is giving >,++ '!!?* on uam 2ivorce through
The #egal $linic beginning onday to >riday during oce hours.
uam divorce. (nnulment of arriage. Immigration %roblems 3isa +)t.
@uotaA&on-quota ,es. B *pecial ,etireeCs 3isa. 2eclaration of (bsence.
,emarriage to >ilipina >iancees. (doption. Investment in the %hil.
4*A>oreign 3isa for >ilipina *pouseA$hildren. $all arivic. T5+ 9> 3ictoria
'ldg. 7D 4& (ve. #+(# +rmita anila nr. 4* +mbassy $#I&I$ I&$."
Tel. /78-97:7; /78-97/8; /77-718; /78-1909
&. 'etitioner contends that the advertise%ents are cha%perto"s,
"nethical, de%eaning of the law profession, and destr"ctive of the
con7dence of the co%%"nity in the integrity of the %e%bers of the bar
and that, to which as a %e%ber of the legal profession, he is asha%ed
and o2ended.
. Hespondent clai%s it is not engaged in the practice of law, b"t in
rendering Rlegal s"pport services thro"gh paralegals with the "se of
%odern co%p"ters and electronic %achines. +"rther, they aver that
ass"%ing the services advertised are legal services, the act ofadvertising the% sho"ld be allowed by decided A"rispr"dence (5ohn Bates
O Jan #>Steen vs State Bar of )riona.
ISSE& =hether respondent corporation < 3he Degal Clinic < is engaged in
the "na"thoried practice of law to %erit the iss"ance of the cease O
desist order.
RING&
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
32/45
'"blic policy re*"ires that the practice of law be li%ited to those
individ"als fo"nd d"ly *"ali7ed in ed"cation and character. 3he p"rpose
is to protect the p"blic, the co"rt, the client and the bar fro% the
inco%petence or dishonesty of those "nlicensed to practice law and not
s"bAect to the disciplinary control of the co"rt.
It is apt to recall that only natural personscan engage in the practice oflaw, and s"ch li%itation cannot be evaded by a corporation e%ploying
co%petent lawyers to practice for it. #bvio"sly, this is the sche%e or
device by which respondent 83he Degal Clinic, Inc.8 holds o"t itself to the
p"blic and solicits e%ploy%ent of its legal services. It is an odious
vehiclefor deception, especially so when the p"blic cannot ventilate any
grievance for malpracticeagainst the b"siness cond"it. 'recisely, the
li%itation of practice of law to persons who have been d"ly ad%itted as
%e%bers of the Bar (Sec. 1, H"le 1, Hevised H"les of Co"rt is to
s"bAect the %e%bers to the disciplineof the S"pre%e Co"rt. )ltho"gh
respondent "ses its business name, the persons and the lawyers who act
for it are s"bAect to co"rt discipline. 3he practice of law is not a
profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned toanother (See )%. 5"r. &9. It is apersonal rightli%ited to persons who
have *"ali7ed the%selves "nder the law. It follows that not only
respondent b"t also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the
persons engaged in "nethical law practice.
G.R. No. "557> Septe)/er "7, "#"#
SI-, BE C3P2N< (-+.$,petitioner,
vs.
;32MIN N2-II+2+, Coector o C'sto)s o the port o
Ce/',respondent.
) writ of mandamus is prayed for by S%ith, Bell O Co. (Dtd., against
5oa*"in $atividad, Collector of C"sto%s of the port of Ceb", 'hilippine
Islands, to co%pel hi% to iss"e a certi7cate of 'hilippine registry to the
petitioner for its %otor vessel 'ato. 3he )ttorneys %erchandise between ports in the
islands. )pplication for registration was %ade at Ceb" at the Collector ofC"sto%s
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
33/45
Leld:
$o. (A"dg%ent a6r%edNplainti2 can>t be granted registry. =hile S%ith,
Bell O Co. Dtd., a corporation having alien stockholders, is entitled to the
protection a2orded by the d"es fee.
ISSE&3he only iss"e to be resolved is whether, "pon the facts fo"nd by
the trial co"rt, +rancisco Sycip %ay be held liable, Aointly and severally
with his co
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
34/45
part, of the fact that )SS#CI)3E who% he represented and over whose
b"siness and a2airs he had absol"te control, was in no position to co%ply
with the obligation it had ass"%ed. Conse*"ently, he cannot now seek
ref"ge behind the general principle that a corporation has a personality
distinct and separate fro% that of its stockholders and that the latter are
not personally liable for the corporate obligations. 3o the contrary, "pon
the proven facts, we feel perfectly A"sti7ed in Rpiercing the veil of
corporate 7ction and in holding Sycip personally liable, Aointly andseverally with his cos sale was void, that the Corporation was the lawf"l owner
of the certi7cates and ordering +errer and 'antranco to pay attorney>s
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
35/45
fees. It also held that Jillara%a and the corporation were separate and
distinct entities.
Iss'es&(1 =hether the agree%ent that Jillara%a 8SL)DD $#3 +#H )
'EHI# #+ 1 UE)HS +H#/ 3LE )3E #+ 3LIS S)DE, )''DU +#H )$U 3'
SEHJICE IE$3IC)D #H C#/'E3I$0 =I3L 3LE BUEH,8 apply to new lines
only or does it incl"de e!isting linesM;
(& )ss"%ing that said stip"lation covers all kinds of lines, is s"chstip"lation valid and enforceableM;
( In the a6r%ative, that said stip"lation is valid, did it bind the
CorporationM
ed& )ltho"gh Jillara%a was not a stockholder or an incorporator, his
wife was an incorporator and also the treas"rer of the Corporation. 3he
evidence proved that Jillara%a had act"al control of the f"nds of the
Corporation and appeared as the act"al owner and treas"rer. In fact the
f"nds of the Corporation were deposited in his personal acco"nt. 3he
initial cash capitaliation of '1, was %ostly 7nanced by Jillara%
thro"gh an ', personal check he iss"ed hi%self. 3he tr"cks of the
Corporation were also p"rchased with his personal checks. 0asoline
p"rchases were %ade in his na%e. Lis personal acco"nts were also paid
by the Corporation. Jillara%a hi%self ad%itted that he %ingled the
corporate f"nds with his own %oney.
3he foregoing circ"%stances are strong pers"asive evidence
showing that Jillara%a has been too %"ch involved in the a2airs of the
Corporation to altogether negative the clai% that he was only a part
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
36/45
+ernando, A"dg%ent debtor, had in the certi7cates of p"blic convenience
on the day of the sale.
2+EI3 C. CR, co)painant vs MI-ERI3 . +2IS2s act"ation in enforcing a A"dg%ent against
co%plainant who is not the A"dg%ent in the case calls for disciplinary
action. Considering the %inisterial nat"re of his d"ty in enforcing writs of
e!ec"tion, what is inc"%bent "pon hi% is to ens"re that only that portion
of a decision ordained or decreed in the dispositive part sho"ld be the
s"bAect of e!ec"tion. $o %ore, no less.
-he tenor o the NRC K'dg)ent and the i)pe)enting 1rit is
cear eno'gh. It directed M'aitrans i)o'sine Service Inc to
reinstate the discharged e)poyees and pay the) '
/ac*1ages. Respondent ho1ever, chose to pierce the vei o
corporate entityQ 's'rping a po1er /eonging to the co'rt andass')ed i)providenty that since the co)painant is the
o1nerpresident o M'aitrans i)o'sine Service, Inc. they are
one and the sa)e.
It is a 1e9setted doctrine /oth in a1 and in eJ'ity that as a
ega entity, a corporation has a personaity distinct and
separate ro) its individ'a stoc*hoders or )e)/ers. -he )ere
act that one is president o a corporation does not render the
property he o1ns or possesses the property o the corporation,
since the president, as individ'a, and the corporation are
separate entities.
)CC#HI$0DU, we 7nd Hespondent ep"ty Sheri2 alisay $E0DI0E$3 in
the enforce%ent of the writ of e!ec"tion in $DHC Case no.
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
37/45
G.R. No. "@@8:: ;'y ">, "##!
REBECC2 B3
-
7/24/2019 Corpo Digests 1
38/45
chieXy of real estate ($elson v. #wen, 11 )la., 9&, &1 So. 9; /orrow v.
0o"ld14 Iowa 1, 1& $.=. 94. ) share of stock only typi7es an
ali*"ot part of the corporation?s property, or the right to share in its
proceeds to that e!tent when distrib"ted according to law and e*"ity
(Lall O +aley v. )laba%a 3er%inal, 19 )la., -, So. &, b"t its
holder is not the owner of any part of the capital of the corporation
(Bradley v. Ba"der, #hio St., &. $or is he entitled to the possession
of any de7nite portion of its property or assets (0ottfried J. /iller, 14.S., &1; 5ones v. avis, #hio St., 494. 3he stockholder is not a co