Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MR HOLDINGS v. SHERIFF CARLOS P. BAJAR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. P-11-2972 2011-09-28	YOLANDA LEACHON CORPUZ v. SERGIO V. PASCUA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone.[17] An execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. The duty of the sheriff is to levy the property of the judgment debtor not that of a third person. For, as the saying goes, one man's goods shall not be sold for another man's debts.[18]
	GR NO. 167434 2007-02-19	SPS. RAMON M. NISCE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK CALLEJO, SR., J.
Admittedly, PCI Capital is a subsidiary of respondent Bank. Even then, PCI Capital [PCI Express Padala (HK) Ltd.] has an independent and separate juridical personality from that of the respondent Bank, its parent company; hence, any claim against the subsidiary is not a claim against the parent company and vice versa.[74] The evidence on record shows that PCIB, which had been merged with Equitable Bank, owns almost all of the stocks of PCI Capital. However, the fact that a corporation owns all of the stocks of another corporation, taken alone, is not sufficient to justify their being treated as one entity. If used to perform legitimate functions, a subsidiary's separate existence shall be respected, and the liability of the parent corporation, as well as the subsidiary shall be confined to those arising in their respective business.[75] A corporation has a separate personality distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be conducted. This separate and distinct personality of a corporation is a fiction created by law for convenience and to prevent injustice.
	GR No. 160215 2004-11-10	HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It has been characterized as an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It constitutes improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice. It has also been described as deplorable because it adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[49] The test in determining the presence of this pernicious practice is whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of: (a) parties; (b) rights or causes of action; and (c) reliefs sought.[50]