Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RAMON M. NISCE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 167530 2013-03-13	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In applying the alter ego doctrine, the courts are concerned with reality and not form, with how the corporation operated and the individual defendant's relationship to that operation.[62] With respect to the control element, it refers not to paper or formal control by majority or even complete stock control but actual control which amounts to "such domination of finances, policies and practices that the controlled corporation has, so to speak, no separate mind, will or existence of its own, and is but a conduit for its principal."[63] In addition, the control must be shown to have been exercised at the time the acts complained of took place.[64]
	GR No. 159370 2012-10-03	PALM TREE ESTATES v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A complainant's wrongful conduct respecting the matter for which injunctive relief is sought precludes the complainant from obtaining such relief.[49] A petition for a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and one who comes to claim for equity must do so with clean hands[50]: Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. x x x.[51] (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 171379 2011-01-10	JOSE MARQUES v. FAR EAST BANK CARPIO, J.
Contrary to Maxilite's and Marques' view, FEBTC is solely liable for the payment of the face value of the insurance policy and the monetary awards stated in the Court of Appeals' decision. Suffice it to state that FEBTC, FEBIBI, and Makati Insurance Company are independent and separate juridical entities, even if FEBIBI and Makati Insurance Company are subsidiaries of FEBTC. Absent any showing of its illegitimate or illegal functions, a subsidiary's separate existence shall be respected, and the liability of the parent corporation as well as the subsidiary shall be confined to those arising in their respective business.[34] Besides, the records are bereft of any evidence warranting the piercing of corporate veil in order to treat FEBTC, FEBIBI, and Makati Insurance Company as a single entity. Likewise, there is no evidence showing FEBIBI's and Makati Insurance Company's negligence as regards the non-payment of the insurance premium.
	GR No. 178989 2010-03-18	EAGLE RIDGE GOLF v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Certiorari is an extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter of right.[29] Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.[30]
	GR No. 184778 2009-10-02	BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MONETARY BOARD v. NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA VELASCO JR., J.
The respondent banks have failed to show their entitlement to the writ of preliminary injunction. It must be emphasized that an application for injunctive relief is construed strictly against the pleader.[14] The respondent banks cannot rely on a simple appeal to procedural due process to prove entitlement. The requirements for the issuance of the writ have not been proved. No invasion of the rights of respondent banks has been shown, nor is their right to copies of the ROEs clear and unmistakable. There is also no necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Indeed the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction tramples upon the powers of the MB and prevents it from fulfilling its functions. There is no right that the writ of preliminary injunction would protect in this particular case. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[15] In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified.[16]
	GR No. 170689 2009-03-17	PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA-PTGWO) v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that PNB may be held liable for the debts of PNEI, petitioners still cannot proceed against the Pantranco properties, the same being owned by PNB-Madecor, notwithstanding the fact that PNB-Madecor was a subsidiary of PNB. The general rule remains that PNB-Madecor has a personality separate and distinct from PNB. The mere fact that a corporation owns all of the stocks of another corporation, taken alone, is not sufficient to justify their being treated as one entity. If used to perform legitimate functions, a subsidiary's separate existence shall be respected, and the liability of the parent corporation as well as the subsidiary will be confined to those arising in their respective businesses.[57]
	GR No. 174042 2008-07-09	CITY OF NAGA v. ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION QUISUMBING, J.
In the interest of justice, we decided to give due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition concerning the August 17, 2006 Order of the RTC. As a rule, petitions for the issuance of such extraordinary writs against an RTC should be filed with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[27] Under the present circumstance however, we agree to take cognizance of this case as an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts.[28] For while it has been held by this Court that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the grant of a writ of certiorari, nevertheless such requirement may be dispensed with where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government.[29] Such is the situation in the case at bar.
	GR No. 169846 2008-03-28	SPS. NESTOR AND MA. NONA BORROMEO v. CA and EQUITABLE SAVINGS BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent, although a wholly-owned subsidiary of EPCIB, has an independent and separate juridical personality from its parent company. The fact that a corporation owns all of the stocks of another corporation, taken alone, is not sufficient to justify their being treated as one entity. If used to perform legitimate functions, a subsidiary's separate existence shall be respected, and the liability of the parent corporation, as well as the subsidiary, shall be confined to those arising from their respective businesses. A corporation has a separate personality distinct from its stockholders and other corporations to which it may be conducted.[44] Any claim or suit of the parent corporation cannot be pursued by the subsidiary based solely on the reason that the former owns the majority or even the entire stock of the latter.