This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-08-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is an elementary and fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be connected. While a corporation is allowed to exist solely for a lawful purpose, the law will regard it as an association of persons or in case of two corporations, merge them into one, when this corporate legal entity is used as a cloak for fraud or illegality.[14] This is the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction which applies only when such corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime.[15] The rationale behind piercing a corporation's identity is to remove the barrier between the corporation from the persons comprising it to thwart the fraudulent and illegal schemes of those who use the corporate personality as a shield for undertaking certain proscribed activities.[16] | |||||
|
2005-07-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is an elementary and fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be connected. While a corporation is allowed to exist solely for a lawful purpose, the law will regard it as an association of persons or in case of two corporations, merge them into one, when this corporate legal entity is used as a cloak for fraud or illegality.[14] This is the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction which applies only when such corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime.[15] The rationale behind piercing a corporation's identity is to remove the barrier between the corporation from the persons comprising it to thwart the fraudulent and illegal schemes of those who use the corporate personality as a shield for undertaking certain proscribed activities.[16] | |||||
|
2002-04-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[49] we had the occasion to resolve a similar issue. We ruled that PNB, DBP and their transferees were not liable for Marinduque Mining's unpaid obligations to Remington Industrial Sales Corporation (Remington) after the two banks had foreclosed the assets of Marinduque Mining. We likewise held that Remington failed to discharge its burden of proving bad faith on the part of Marinduque Mining to justify the piercing of the corporate veil. | |||||