This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-03-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, the rule is that a court should be careful in assessing the milieu where the doctrine of the corporate veil may be applied. Otherwise an injustice, although unintended, may result from its erroneous application.[44] Thus, cutting through the corporate cover requires an approach characterized by due care and caution: Hence, any application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be done with caution. A court should be mindful of the milieu where it is to be applied. It must be certain that the corporate fiction was misused to such an extent that injustice, fraud, or crime was committed against another, in disregard of its rights. The wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established; it cannot be presumed. x x x.[45] (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Another point being raised by DISI is the delivery and sale of Steelcase products to a Philippine client by Modernform allegedly an agent of Steelcase. Basic is the rule in corporation law that a corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its stockholders and from other corporations with which it may be connected.[19] Thus, despite the admission by Steelcase that it owns 25% of Modernform, with the remaining 75% being owned and controlled by Thai stockholders,[20] it is grossly insufficient to justify piercing the veil of corporate fiction and declare that Modernform acted as the alter ego of Steelcase to enable it to improperly conduct business in the Philippines. The records are bereft of any evidence which might lend even a hint of credence to DISI's assertions. As such, Steelcase cannot be deemed to have been doing business in the Philippines through Modernform. | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner was afforded due process and the trial court acquired jurisdiction over her person. Even assuming that petitioner did not receive the summons, she was deemed to have submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when she filed a motion to set aside/declare judgment null and void.[15] After the trial court had granted her motion and she was given the opportunity to present contrary evidence, she and her counsel failed to appear on the scheduled hearings for this purpose. | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| However, the statutorily granted privilege of a corporate veil may be used only for legitimate purposes. On equitable considerations, the veil can be disregarded when it is utilized as a shield to commit fraud, illegality or inequity; defeat public convenience; confuse legitimate issues; or serve as a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or an instrumentality, agency or adjunct of another corporation. The legal fiction of a separate corporate personality in those cited instances, for reasons of public policy and in the interest of justice, will be justifiably set aside.[27] | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of its stockholders and other corporations to which it may be connected.[14] This is a fiction created by law for convenience and to prevent injustice.[15] | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's argument is untenable. Jurisdiction is simply the power or authority to hear a case. The appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to review decisions and orders of lower courts is conferred by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. More importantly, petitioner cannot now assail the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction after having actively participated in the appeal and after praying for affirmative relief.[12] | |||||