Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. DYNE-SEM ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195615 2014-04-21	BANK OF COMMERCE v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK ABAD, J.
SO ORDERED.[33]
	GR No. 170689 2009-03-17	PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA-PTGWO) v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
The general rule is that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those of its stockholders and other corporations to which it may be connected.[39] This is a fiction created by law for convenience and to prevent injustice.[40] Obviously, PNB, PNB-Madecor, Mega Prime, and PNEI are corporations with their own personalities. The "separate personalities" of the first three corporations had been recognized by this Court in PNB v. Mega Prime Realty and Holdings Corporation/Mega Prime Realty and Holdings Corporation v. PNB[41] where we stated that PNB was only a stockholder of PNB-Madecor which later sold its shares to Mega Prime; and that PNB-Madecor was the owner of the Pantranco properties. Moreover, these corporations are registered as separate entities and, absent any valid reason, we maintain their separate identities and we cannot treat them as one.
	GR No. 158086 2008-02-14	ASJ CORPORATION and ANTONIO SAN JUAN v. SPS. EFREN QUISUMBING, J.
Furthermore, although no hard and fast rule can be accurately laid down under which the juridical personality of a corporate entity may be disregarded, the following probative factors of identity justify the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction[24] in this case: (1) San Juan and his wife own the bulk of shares of ASJ Corp.; (2) The lot where the hatchery plant is located is owned by the San Juan spouses; (3) ASJ Corp. had no other properties or assets, except for the hatchery plant and the lot where it is located; (4) San Juan is in complete control of the corporation; (5) There is no bona fide intention to treat ASJ Corp. as a different entity from San Juan; and (6) The corporate fiction of ASJ Corp. was used by San Juan to insulate himself from the legitimate claims of respondents, defeat public convenience, justify wrong, defend crime, and evade a corporation's subsidiary liability for damages.[25] These findings, being purely one of fact,[26] should be respected. We need not assess and evaluate the evidence all over again where the findings of both courts on these matters coincide.
	GR NO. 149040 2007-07-04	EDGAR LEDONIO v. CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (a) the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (b) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (c) there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) the judgment is based on a misapplication of facts; (e) the findings of fact of the trial court and the appellate court are contradicted by the evidence on record and (f) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[18] None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar. After a perusal of the records, this Court can only conclude that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the RTC, are amply supported by evidence and are, resultantly, conclusive on this Court.[19]