This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In UCPB v. O'Halloran,[39] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 101699, respondent O'Halloran's accounts with Primetown were also assigned by Primetown to UCPB, under the same Agreement as in this case. Since Primetown failed to deliver the condominium units upon full payment of the purchase price, O'Halloran likewise sued both Primetown and UCPB for cancellation of the contracts to sell, and the case eventually reached the CA. The CA held UCPB liable to refund the amount it actually received from O'Halloran. The CA held that there is no legal, statutory or contractual basis to hold UCPB solidarily liable with Primetown for the full reimbursement of the payments made by O'Halloran. The CA found that based on the Agreement, UCPB is merely the assignee of the receivables under the contracts to sell to the extent that the assignment is a manner adopted by which Primetown can pay its loan to the bank. The CA held that the assignment of receivables did not make UCPB the owner or developer of the unfinished project to make it solidarily liable with Primetown. The CA decision dated 23 July 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 101699 became final and executory upon Entry of Judgment on 17 August 2009 for O'Halloran and 18 August 2009 for UCPB.[40] | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court, nonetheless, finds merit in the petitioners' allegation that Corazon Saguemuller should not be subsidiarily liable with Elcee Farms for separation pay and damages. It is basic that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality.[33] In the case of Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission,[34] a corporate officer was not held liable for the obligations incurred by the corporation, where the corporate officer was not even shown to have had a direct hand in the dismissal of the employee enough to attribute to him an unlawful act. | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| A corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it.[13] The rule is that obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers and employees, are its sole liabilities.[14] However, it is possible for a corporate director, trustee or officer to be held solidarily liable with the corporation in the following instances: When directors and trustees or, in appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation-- | |||||