This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The principle of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, and the resulting treatment of two related corporations as one and the same juridical person with respect to a given transaction, is basically applied only to determine established liability;[34] it is not available to confer on the court a jurisdiction it has not acquired, in the first place, over a party not impleaded in a case. Elsewise put, a corporation not impleaded in a suit cannot be subject to the court's process of piercing the veil of its corporate fiction. In that situation, the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the corporation and, hence, any proceedings taken against that corporation and its property would infringe on its right to due process. Aguedo Agbayani, a recognized authority on Commercial Law, stated as much: 23. Piercing the veil of corporate entity applies to determination of liability not of jurisdiction. x x x | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Assuming that petitioners' petition/appeal with the HLURB Regional Field Office was filed out of time and before the wrong forum, respondents should have pointed out these defects at the earliest opportunity instead of actively participating in several stages of the proceedings before the Regional Field Office and discussing the case on its merits. It is settled that the active participation of a party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction.[8] In the instant case, respondents cannot belatedly reject or repudiate the jurisdiction of the HLURB Regional Field Office after voluntarily submitting to it. They never questioned the jurisdiction of the said Office despite several opportunities to do so. It was only when petitioners appealed the decision of the Regional Field Office with the HLURB Board of Commissioners did respondents raise such question. Respondents are already estopped from doing so. | |||||