This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| At the fore, the question of whether one corporation is merely an alter ego of another is purely one of fact generally beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.[35] In any case, given only these bare reiterations, this Court sustains the ruling of the LA as affirmed by the NLRC that Miramar and Mar Fishing are separate and distinct entities, based on the marked differences in their stock ownership.[36] Also, the fact that Mar Fishing's officers remained as such in Miramar does not by itself warrant a conclusion that the two companies are one and the same. As this Court held in Sesbreño v. Court of Appeals, the mere showing that the corporations had a common director sitting in all the boards without more does not authorize disregarding their separate juridical personalities.[37] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Sesbreño v. Court of Appeals,[21] Sesbreño made a money market placement of P300,000 with Philfinance for a term of 32 days at 20% interest. Philfinance then sold to him a share in Delta Motors Corporation Promissory No. 2731 which was payable to Philfinance but was in the custody of Pilipinas Bank. Unknown to Sesbreño, Philfinance and Delta agreed to set-off Promissory No. 2731 with Philfinance's Promissory Note No. 143-A which was payable to Delta. As a result, Delta's liability under Promissory No. 2731 was extinguished. Later, Philfinance failed to pay the maturity value of Sesbreño's investment when it became due. Sesbreño demanded payment from Delta and asked for the physical delivery of the promissory note from Pilipinas Bank. The two refused. Sesbreño then filed (1) a civil action for damages against Delta and Pilipinas Bank (1993 Sesbreño case),[22] and (2) a criminal case for estafa against the officers of Philfinance (1995 Sesbreño case).[23] | |||||