This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Wang further testified that the MOA stipulated that MADCI would execute a special power of attorney in his favor, empowering him to sell the property of MADCI in case of default in the performance of obligations.[23] Due to Sangil's subsequent default, a deed of absolute sale over the lands of MADCI was eventually executed in favor of YICRI, its designated company.[24] Wang also stated that, aside from its lands, MADCI had other assets in the form of loan advances of its directors.[25] | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The law vests corporations with a separate and distinct personality from those that represent these corporations.[61] | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Bad faith "imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, not simply bad judgment or negligence."[67] "[I]t means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud."[68] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those of its stockholders, directors, or officers,[26]such separate and distinct personality is merely a fiction created by law for the sake of convenience and to promote the ends of justice.[27] The corporate personality may be disregarded, and the individuals composing the corporation will be treated as individuals, if the corporate entity is being used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality; as a justification for a wrong; as an alter ego, an adjunct, or a business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders.[28] As a general rule, a corporation is looked upon as a legal entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears. Thus, the courts always presume good faith, and for that reason accord prime importance to the separate personality of the corporation, disregarding the corporate personality only after the wrong doing is first clearly and convincingly established.[29] It thus behooves the courts to be careful in assessing the milieu where the piercing of the corporate veil shall be done.[30] | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The above averments clearly pose factual issues which make the rendition of summary judgment not proper. Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong. It is synonymous with fraud, in that it involves a design to mislead or deceive another.[27] The trial court should have exercised prudence by requiring the presentation of evidence in a formal trial to determine the veracity of the parties' respective assertions. Whether NPC and the plaintiffs connived and acted in bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary. Bad faith has to be established by the claimant with clear and convincing evidence, and this necessitates an examination of the evidence of all the parties. As certain facts pleaded were being contested by the opposing parties, such would not warrant a rendition of summary judgment. | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Verily, fraud refers to all kinds of deception whether through insidious machination, manipulation, concealment or misrepresentation that would lead an ordinarily prudent person into error after taking the circumstances into account.[50] The deceit employed must be serious. It must be sufficient to impress or lead an ordinarily prudent person into error, taking into account the circumstances of each case.[51] | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The affidavit, being the foundation of the writ,[35] must contain such particulars as to how the fraud imputed to respondent was committed for the court to decide whether or not to issue the writ.[36] Absent any statement of other factual circumstances to show that respondent, at the time of contracting the obligation, had a preconceived plan or intention not to pay, or without any showing of how respondent committed the alleged fraud, the general averment in the affidavit that respondent is an officer and director of Wincorp who allegedly connived with the other defendants to commit a fraud, is insufficient to support the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.[37] In the application for the writ under the said ground, compelling is the need to give a hint about what constituted the fraud and how it was perpetrated[38] because established is the rule that fraud is never presumed.[39] Verily, the mere fact that respondent is an officer and director of the company does not necessarily give rise to the inference that he committed a fraud or that he connived with the other defendants to commit a fraud. While under certain circumstances, courts may treat a corporation as a mere aggroupment of persons, to whom liability will directly attach, this is only done when the wrongdoing has been clearly and convincingly established.[40] | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Based on the pleadings, this Court finds nothing to support Aparecio's allegation that fraud was employed on her to resign. Fraud exists only when, through insidious words or machinations, the other party is induced to act and without which, the latter would not have agreed to.[25] This Court has held that the circumstances evidencing fraud and misrepresentation are as varied as the people who perpetrate it, each assuming different shapes and forms and may be committed in as many different ways. Fraud and misrepresentation are, therefore, never presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and not mere preponderance of evidence.[26] Hence, this Court does not sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most, create only suspicion; otherwise, it would be indulging in speculations and surmises.[27] | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Probable cause implies mere reasonable belief of guilt. While it requires more than bare suspicion or speculation, probable cause needs only to rest on evidence of the likelihood that a crime has been committed and that the person suspected is probably guilty thereof.[32] It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, [33] nor evidence sufficient to procure a conviction.[34] Thus, as a general rule, acquittal is not to be equated with lack of probable cause.[35] | |||||