Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GENERAL CREDIT CORPORATION v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 166282 2013-02-13	HEIRS OF FE TAN UY v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK MENDOZA, J.
Under a variation of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, when two business enterprises are owned, conducted and controlled by the same parties, both law and equity will, when necessary to protect the rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that two corporations are distinct entities and treat them as identical or one and the same.[39]
	GR No. 185280 2012-01-18	TIMOTEO H. SARONA v. NLRC REYES, J.
A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law. It possesses the right of succession and such powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. It has a personality separate and distinct from the persons composing it, as well as from any other legal entity to which it may be related. This is basic.[45]
	GR No. 182729 2010-09-29	KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES VELASCO JR., J.
It would not avail Morales any to rely[44] on General Credit Corporation v. Alsons Development and Investment Corporation.[45] General Credit Corporation is factually not on all fours with the instant case. There, the common stockholders of the corporations represented 90% of the outstanding capital stock of the companies, unlike here where Michael Chan merely represents 40% of the outstanding capital stock of both KIC and Kukan, Inc., not even a majority of it. In that case, moreover, evidence was adduced to support the finding that the funds of the second corporation came from the first. Finally, there was proof in General Credit Corporation of complete control, such that one corporation was a mere dummy or alter ego of the other, which is absent in the instant case.
	GR No. 160545 2010-03-09	PRISMA CONSTRUCTION v. ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ BRION, J.
The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies only in three (3) basic instances, namely: a) when the separate and distinct corporate personality defeats public convenience, as when the corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; b) in fraud cases, or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect a fraud, or defend a crime; or c) is used in alter ego cases, i.e., where a corporation is essentially a farce, since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation.[46] In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.[47]
	GR No. 174154 2009-07-30	JESUS CUENCO v. VS.TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX NACHURA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that issues or grounds not raised below cannot be resolved on review by the Supreme Court, for to allow the parties to raise new issues is antithetical to the sporting idea of fair play, justice and due process. [9] Issues not raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and more especially on motion for reconsideration. Litigation must end at some point; once the case is finally adjudged, the parties must learn to accept victory or defeat.
	GR No. 170689 2009-03-17	PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA-PTGWO) v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
Clearly, what can be inferred from the earlier cases is that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies only in three (3) basic areas, namely: 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; 2) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; or 3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation.[54] In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.[55]
	GR NO. 159296 2006-02-10	ALLGEMEINE-BAU-CHEMIE PHILS. v. METROPOLITAN BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
On December 22, 1999, the parties executed an addendum[11] to the contract to sell whereby AAHI assigned to petitioner the right to the exclusive use of parking slot P504 covered by CTC No. 54975 for a consideration of P600,000, which petitioner paid on even date.