This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-02-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| This Court, in Martinez v. Court of Appeals[76] held that, being a mere fiction of law, peculiar situations or valid grounds can exist to warrant, albeit sparingly, the disregard of its independent being and the piercing of the corporate veil. The veil of separate corporate personality may be lifted when, inter alia, the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation; or when the corporation is used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality; or to work injustice; or where necessary to achieve equity or for the protection of the creditors. In those cases where valid grounds exist for piercing the veil of corporate entity, the corporation will be considered as a mere association of persons. The liability will directly attach to them.[77] | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of its stockholders and from that of other corporations to which it may be connected.[36] | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.[26] In the case at bar, in Criminal Cases No. 26168 to 71 only the responsible officers of the petitioner are charged in the Information, while in Civil Case No. 02-102650, it is only the corporation that is impleaded, holding it liable for the unpaid customs duties and taxes as a corporate taxpayer. Taxes being personal to the taxpayer, it can only be enforced against herein petitioner because the payment of unpaid customs duties and taxes are the personal obligation of the petitioner as a corporate taxpayer, thus, it cannot be imposed on its corporate officers, much so on its individual stockholders, for this will violate the principle that a corporation has personality separate and distinct from the persons constituting it.[27] Having said that, the parties in the two actions are entirely different, hence, petitioner failed to establish the first requisite of litis pendentia as to identity of parties. | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, being a mere fiction of law, peculiar situations or valid grounds may exist to warrant the disregard of its independent being and the piercing of the corporate veil.[16] In Martinez v. Court of Appeals,[17] we held:The veil of separate corporate personality may be lifted when such personality is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime; or used as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues; or when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation; or when the corporation is used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, or to work injustice, or where necessary to achieve equity or for the protection of the creditors. In such cases, the corporation will be considered as a mere association of persons. The liability will directly attach to the stockholders or to the other corporation. | |||||
|
2006-03-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the appellate court's illation, respondents have not established possession of the subject properties. Save for the lone testimony of Orlando Buday, a neighbor, that Rosario Degala Daradar was the only one still residing in the properties in dispute, no other evidence was presented to show that respondents are in actual occupation and possession thereof. Not even Rosario herself testified. Doubts also arise as to the veracity of respondents' claim of possession since respondents themselves averred in their complaint that the spouses Delfin had immediately taken possession of the subject properties in the same year that the sale was made, and appropriated the produce found in the subject lots from then on.[39] Admissions made in the complaint are judicial admissions which are binding on the party who made them and cannot be contradicted[40] absent any showing that it was made through palpable mistake. No amount of rationalization can offset such admission.[41] By their very own admissions, it can be inferred that respondents or their predecessors-in-interest did not exercise actual occupancy, as they had ceased to perform acts of dominion over the property upon the sale thereof. | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the Court cannot review the factual findings of the trial court and the CA in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[11] It should be stressed that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 is a matter of discretion. Under this mode of review, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact. When supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties.[12] This Court will not review unless there are exceptional circumstances, viz.: (a) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (b) where the information made is manifestly mistaken; (c) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) where the judgment is based on a misapplication of facts, and the findings of facts of the trial court and the appellate court are contradicted by the evidence on record; and (e) when certain material facts and circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case.[13] There exists no exceptional circumstance in this case that would warrant a departure from the factual findings of both the trial court and the CA. | |||||