This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-05-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those of its stockholders, directors, or officers,[26]such separate and distinct personality is merely a fiction created by law for the sake of convenience and to promote the ends of justice.[27] The corporate personality may be disregarded, and the individuals composing the corporation will be treated as individuals, if the corporate entity is being used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality; as a justification for a wrong; as an alter ego, an adjunct, or a business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders.[28] As a general rule, a corporation is looked upon as a legal entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears. Thus, the courts always presume good faith, and for that reason accord prime importance to the separate personality of the corporation, disregarding the corporate personality only after the wrong doing is first clearly and convincingly established.[29] It thus behooves the courts to be careful in assessing the milieu where the piercing of the corporate veil shall be done.[30] | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in a piercing case, the test is complete control or domination, not only of finances, but of policy and business practice in respect of the transaction attacked.[14] This is not the case here. Section 31, under which this case was brought, makes a corporate director-who may or may not even be a stockholder or member-accountable for his management of the affairs of the corporation. | |||||