This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Aside from the fact that Manlapaz was the principal stockholder of WPM, records do not show that WPM was organized and controlled, and its affairs conducted in a manner that made it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of Manlapaz. As held in Martinez v. Court of Appeals,[13] the mere ownership by a single stockholder of even all or nearly all of the capital stocks of a corporation is not by itself a sufficient ground to disregard the separate corporate personality. To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established.[14] | |||||
|
2005-08-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In any case, petitioner PNCC, as majority stockholder, may not be held liable for UITC's obligation. A corporation, upon coming into existence, is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those persons composing it as well as from any other legal entity to which it may be related.[38] The veil of corporate fiction may only be disregarded in cases where the corporate vehicle is being used to defeat public convenience, justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime.[39] Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality.[40] To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established.[41] | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Under certain circumstances, courts may treat a corporation as a mere aggroupment of persons, to whom liability will directly attach. The distinct and separate corporate personality may be disregarded, inter alia, when the corporate identity is used to defeat public convenience, justify a wrong, protect a fraud, or defend a crime. Likewise, the corporate veil may be pierced when the corporation acts as a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or when it is so organized and controlled and its affairs so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation.[20] But to disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established; it cannot be presumed.[21] | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners spouses claim that they have already paid private respondent Moya the total amount of P36,000.00 in acceptance and appearance fees.[17] However, a perusal of the records shows that no competent evidence, oral or documentary, was presented to prove said claim. It is settled that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; that mere allegation is not evidence.[18] Besides, records show that the alleged payment by petitioners of said amount was never raised before the lower court. It was only raised on appeal with respondent appellate court. Settled is the rule that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice.[19] | |||||