This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ratiocinated that being one and the same entity in the eyes of the law, the service of summons upon EIB Securities, Inc. (E-Securities) has bestowed jurisdiction over both the parent and wholly-owned subsidiary.[3] The RTC cited the cases of Sps. Violago v. BA Finance Corp. et al.[4] and Arcilla v. Court of Appeals[5] where the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction was applied notwithstanding that the affected corporation was not brought to the court as a party. Thus, the RTC held in its Order[6] dated August 26, 2011: | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x In short, even if We are to assume arguendo that the obligation was incurred in the name of the corporation, the petitioner [Arcilla] would still be personally liable therefor because for all legal intents and purposes, he and the corporation are one and the same. Csar Marine Resources, Inc. is nothing more than his business conduit and alter ego. The fiction of separate juridical personality conferred upon such corporation by law should be disregarded. Significantly, petitioner does not seriously challenge the [CA's] application of the doctrine which permits the piercing of the corporate veil and the disregarding of the fiction of a separate juridical personality; this is because he knows only too well that from the beginning, he merely used the corporation for his personal purposes.[23] WHEREFORE, the CA's August 20, 2002 Decision and May 15, 2003 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 48489 are SET ASIDE insofar as they dismissed without prejudice the third party complaint of petitioners-spouses Pedro and Florencia Violago against respondent Avelino Violago. The March 5, 1994 Decision of the RTC is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against Avelino Violago. | |||||