Lawyerly

GR No. 147977

2008-03-26

CARPIO, J.

The generally accepted principle is that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court.[9] Execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party in the case, did not have his day in court.[10] Due process requires that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against one who did not have his day in court.[11]

AM No. RTJ-06-1971

2007-10-17

QBE INSURANCE PHILS. v. JUDGE CELSO D. LAVIÑA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed,[18] as it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment which is sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.[19]

GR NO. 156605

2007-08-28

EDWARD T. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

GARCIA, J.

ANSWER: Yes, defendant is signatory to the contract as President of [MFC]. Defendant Marcelo's letter-request'dated November 4, 1982, to then President Marcos who approved it in his marginal note...dated November 10, 1982. [37] (Words in bracket added.) It is basic that a corporation is clothed with a personality distinct from that of its officers,[38] its stockholders and from other corporations it may be connected.[39] Under the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate existence, however, the corporation's separate personality may be disregarded when the separate identity is used to protect a dishonest or fraudulent act, justify a wrong, or defend a crime. In such instance, the wrongdoing must clearly and convincingly be established;[40] it cannot be presumed.[41] Absent malice or bad faith, the officer or shareholder cannot be made personally liable for corporate obligations and cannot be held liable to third persons who have claims against the corporation.

GR NO. 164007

2006-08-10

LT. ARTURO PASCUA v. GEN. NARCISO ABAYA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Clearly, the instant petition for prohibition must fail. The office of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of authority and is directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27] Stated differently, prohibition is the remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power with which they have not been vested by law.[28]

GR No. 143964

2004-07-26

GLOBE TELECOM v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

TINGA, J,

Section 21 requires notice and hearing because fine is a sanction, regulatory and even punitive in character. Indeed, the requirement is the essence of due process. Notice and hearing are the bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected even in administrative proceedings.[91] The right is guaranteed by the Constitution itself and does not need legislative enactment. The statutory affirmation of the requirement serves merely to enhance the fundamental precept. The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, invalidate the administrative proceedings.[92]

GR No. 160039

2004-06-29

RAYMUNDO ODANI SECOSA v. HEIRS OF ERWIN SUAREZ FRANCISCO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The so-called veil of corporation fiction treats as separate and distinct the affairs of a corporation and its officers and stockholders. As a general rule, a corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears. When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons.[19] Also, the corporate entity may be disregarded in the interest of justice in such cases as fraud that may work inequities among members of the corporation internally, involving no rights of the public or third persons. In both instances, there must have been fraud and proof of it. For the separate juridical personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established.[20] It cannot be presumed.[21]

GR No. 141463

2002-08-06

VICTOR ORQUIOLA v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Case No. Q-12918. Since they failed to do so, petitioners cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto.[16] In our view, the spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola have valid and meritorious cause to resist the demolition of their house on their own titled lot, which is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1999, and its resolution dated December 29, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. 47422, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing the decision in

GR No. 140058

2002-08-01

MABAYO FARMS v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[11] Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[12] It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.[13] Thus, a person who is not a party in the main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695. He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[14] Second, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it observed that petitioner should have impleaded private respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. 6695 pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[15]

GR No. 123893

2001-11-22

LUISITO PADILLA v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

"Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. xxx"[12]

GR No. 123893

2001-11-22

LUISITO PADILLA v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

This veil of corporate fiction may only be disregarded in cases where the corporate vehicle is being used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.[18] PKA and Phoenix-Omega are admittedly sister companies, and may be sharing personnel and resources, but we find in the present case no allegation, much less positive proof, that their separate corporate personalities are being used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. "For the separate juridical personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed."[19] We find no reason to justify piercing the corporate veil in this instance.

	GR No. 147977 2008-03-26	ANNIE FERMIN v. ANTONIO M. ESTEVES CARPIO, J.
The generally accepted principle is that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court.[9] Execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party in the case, did not have his day in court.[10] Due process requires that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against one who did not have his day in court.[11]
	AM No. RTJ-06-1971 2007-10-17	QBE INSURANCE PHILS. v. JUDGE CELSO D. LAVIÑA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed,[18] as it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment which is sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.[19]
	GR NO. 156605 2007-08-28	EDWARD T. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN GARCIA, J.
ANSWER: Yes, defendant is signatory to the contract as President of [MFC]. Defendant Marcelo's letter-request'dated November 4, 1982, to then President Marcos who approved it in his marginal note...dated November 10, 1982. [37] (Words in bracket added.) It is basic that a corporation is clothed with a personality distinct from that of its officers,[38] its stockholders and from other corporations it may be connected.[39] Under the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate existence, however, the corporation's separate personality may be disregarded when the separate identity is used to protect a dishonest or fraudulent act, justify a wrong, or defend a crime. In such instance, the wrongdoing must clearly and convincingly be established;[40] it cannot be presumed.[41] Absent malice or bad faith, the officer or shareholder cannot be made personally liable for corporate obligations and cannot be held liable to third persons who have claims against the corporation.
	GR NO. 164007 2006-08-10	LT. ARTURO PASCUA v. GEN. NARCISO ABAYA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Clearly, the instant petition for prohibition must fail. The office of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of authority and is directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27] Stated differently, prohibition is the remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power with which they have not been vested by law.[28]
	GR No. 143964 2004-07-26	GLOBE TELECOM v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TINGA, J,
Section 21 requires notice and hearing because fine is a sanction, regulatory and even punitive in character. Indeed, the requirement is the essence of due process. Notice and hearing are the bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected even in administrative proceedings.[91] The right is guaranteed by the Constitution itself and does not need legislative enactment. The statutory affirmation of the requirement serves merely to enhance the fundamental precept. The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, invalidate the administrative proceedings.[92]
	GR No. 160039 2004-06-29	RAYMUNDO ODANI SECOSA v. HEIRS OF ERWIN SUAREZ FRANCISCO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The so-called veil of corporation fiction treats as separate and distinct the affairs of a corporation and its officers and stockholders. As a general rule, a corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears. When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons.[19] Also, the corporate entity may be disregarded in the interest of justice in such cases as fraud that may work inequities among members of the corporation internally, involving no rights of the public or third persons. In both instances, there must have been fraud and proof of it. For the separate juridical personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established.[20] It cannot be presumed.[21]
	GR No. 141463 2002-08-06	VICTOR ORQUIOLA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Case No. Q-12918. Since they failed to do so, petitioners cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto.[16] In our view, the spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola have valid and meritorious cause to resist the demolition of their house on their own titled lot, which is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1999, and its resolution dated December 29, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. 47422, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing the decision in
	GR No. 140058 2002-08-01	MABAYO FARMS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[11] Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[12] It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.[13] Thus, a person who is not a party in the main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695. He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[14] Second, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it observed that petitioner should have impleaded private respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. 6695 pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[15]
	GR No. 123893 2001-11-22	LUISITO PADILLA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
"Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. xxx"[12]
	GR No. 123893 2001-11-22	LUISITO PADILLA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
This veil of corporate fiction may only be disregarded in cases where the corporate vehicle is being used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.[18] PKA and Phoenix-Omega are admittedly sister companies, and may be sharing personnel and resources, but we find in the present case no allegation, much less positive proof, that their separate corporate personalities are being used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. "For the separate juridical personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed."[19] We find no reason to justify piercing the corporate veil in this instance.

MATUGUINA INTEGRATED WOOD PRODUCTS v. CA