1

CORPORATION LAW Atty. R. I. Gatchalian

Assignment for July 4 and 7, 2014

III. CORPORATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AND DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE VEIL

OF CORPORATE FICTION

1. Main Doctrine: Separate Juridical Personality (a) Sec. 2, Corp. Code (b) Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 177 SCRA 789 (1989) (c) National Power Corp. vs. CA, 273 SCRA 419 (1997) (d) Liddell and Co. vs. CIR, 2 SCRA 632 (1961) (e) Remo vs. IAC, 172 SCRA 405 (1989) (f) Umali vs. CA, 189 SCRA 529 (1990)

2. Appplication of Piercing Doctrine

(a) San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. vs. CA, 296 SCRA 631

(1998) (b) Luxuria Homes, Inc. vs. CA, 302 SCRA 315 (1999) (c) Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 269 SCRA 601 (1997)

3. Nature and Consequences of Piercing Doctrine

(a) Res Judicata

(1) Koppel (Phil.), Inc. vs. Yatco, G.R. No. L-47673, Oct. 10, 1946 (2) Tantongco vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana and

CIR, 106 Phil. 199 (1959)

(b) To Prevent Fraud or Wrong and for No Other Purpose

(1) Umali vs. CA, 189 SCRA 529 (1990) (2) Boyer-Roxas vs. CA, 211 SCRA 470 (1992) (3) Union Bank vs. CA, 290 SCRA 198 (1998)

(c) Judicial Prerogative

(1) Cruz vs. Dalisay, 152 SCRA 482 (1987)

4. Classification of Piercing Cases

(a) Fraud Cases

(1) Piercing Doctrine Cannot be Employed to Commit Fraud

2

1. Gregorio Araneta, Inc. vs. Tuason de Paterno and Vidal, 91

Phil. 786 (1952)

(2) Corporate Fiction Must Be Employed to Commit Fraud

1. Umali vs. CA, 189 SCRA 529 (1990)

(3) Tax Evasion Case

1. CIR vs. Norton and Harrison, 11 SCRA 714 (1964)

(4) Alter-Ego Elements

1. NAMARCO vs. Associated Finance Co. 19 SCRA 962 (1967)

(5) Evasion of Lawful Obligations

1. Palacio vs. Fely Transportation Co., 5 SCRA 1011 (1962) 2. Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Ferrer, 25 SCRA 845 (1968)

(6) Liability of Officers

1. Palay, Inc. vs. Clave, 124 SCRA 638 (1983) 2. Paradise Sauna Management Corp. vs. Ng, 181 SCRA 719

(1990) 3. Rustan Pulp & Paper Mills, Inc. vs. IAC, 214 SCRA 665

(1992)

(7) Rules in Labor Cases

1. Maglutac vs. NLRC, 189 SCRA 767 (1990)

(8) Probative Factors

1. Concept Builders, Inc. vs. NLRC, 257 SCRA 149 (1996)

(b) Alter Ego Cases

(1) Manner of Operating Corporate Business

1. Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson, Ltd., 44 Phil. 634 (1923)

(2) Tax Avoidance Cases

1. Marvel Building vs. David, 94 Phil. 470 (1992) 2. Liddell and Co. vs. CIR, 2 SCRA 632 (1961)

3

(3) Forum-Shopping

1. First Philippine International Bank vs. CA, 252 SCRA 259

(1996) (4) Parent-Subsidiary Relationship

1. Phividec vs. CA, 181 SCRA 669 (1990)

(5) Affiliated Companies

1. Azcor Mfg., Inc. vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 26 (1999)

(c) Equity Cases

(1) Telephone Engineering and Service Co., Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 104 SCRA 354 (1981)

(2) Emilio Cano Enterprises vs. CIR, 13 SCRA 291 (1965) (3) A.D. Santos vs. Vasquez, 22 SCRA 1158 (1968)

5. Piercing Doctrine and Due Process Clause

(a) Pabalan vs. NLRC, 184 SCRA 495 (1990) (b) EPG Construction Co., Inc. vs. CA, 210 SCRA 230 (1992)

--------------- o --------------