Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCEPT BUILDERS v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 171626 2014-08-06	OLONGAPO CITY v. SUBIC WATER BRION, J.
In Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC,[67] the Court enumerated the possible probative factors of identity which could justify the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. These are: (1) Stock ownership by one or common ownership of both corporations;
	GR No. 199687 2014-03-24	PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. CA REYES, J.
"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. But, this separate and distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. 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, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the veil of corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation."[61]
	GR No. 167530 2013-03-13	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must have proximately caused the injury or unjust loss complained of.[50] (Emphases omitted.)
	GR No. 182729 2010-09-29	KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES VELASCO JR., J.
In fine, to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction, it must be shown by clear and convincing proof that the separate and distinct personality of the corporation was purposefully employed to evade a legitimate and binding commitment and perpetuate a fraud or like wrongdoings. To be sure, the Court has, on numerous occasions,[38] applied the principle where a corporation is dissolved and its assets are transferred to another to avoid a financial liability of the first corporation with the result that the second corporation should be considered a continuation and successor of the first entity.
	GR No. 165442 2010-08-25	NASECO GUARDS ASSOCIATION-PEMA v. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC,[26] we explained the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, as follows: 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. But, this separate and distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. 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, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the veil of corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation.
	GR No. 160236 2009-10-16	'G' HOLDINGS v. NATIONAL MINES NACHURA, J.
In Concept Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[73] we laid down the test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, to wit: Control, not mere majority or complete control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own.
	GR No. 158262 2008-07-21	SPS. PEDRO AND FLORENCIA VIOLAGO v. BA FINANCE CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.[22] This case meets the foregoing test. VMSC is a family-owned corporation of which Avelino was president. Avelino committed fraud in selling the vehicle to petitioners, a vehicle that was previously sold to Avelino's other cousin, Esmeraldo. Nowhere in the pleadings did Avelino refute the fact that the vehicle in this case was already previously sold to Esmeraldo; he merely insisted that he cannot be held liable because he was not a party to the transaction. The fact that Avelino and Pedro are cousins, and that Avelino claimed to have a need to increase the sales quota, was likely among the factors which motivated the spouses to buy the car. Avelino, knowing fully well that the vehicle was already sold, and with abuse of his relationship with the spouses, still proceeded with the sale and collected the down payment from petitioners. The trial court found that the vehicle was not delivered to the spouses. Avelino clearly defrauded petitioners. His actions were the proximate cause of petitioners' loss. He cannot now hide behind the separate corporate personality of VMSC to escape from liability for the amount adjudged by the trial court in favor of petitioners.
	GR NO. 155056-57 2007-10-19	HEIRS OF LATE PANFILO V. PAJARILLO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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. However, this separate and distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. Hence, 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 labor laws, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the veil of the corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation. The corporate mask may be lifted and the corporate veil may be pierced when a corporation is but the alter ego of a person or another corporation.[35]