Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179905 2009-08-19	REPUBLIC v. NEPTUNA G. JAVIER CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Petition at bar is essentially grounded on the argument that there is insufficient evidence to support Javier's possession of the subject property in the manner and for the period required by law, as to entitle her to the registration of her title to the said property. It is basic that where it is the sufficiency of evidence that is being questioned, it is a question of fact.[38] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[39]
	GR NO. 146667 2007-01-23	JOHN F. MCLEOD v. NLRC CARPIO, J.
On Patricio's personal liability, it is settled that in the absence of malice, bad faith, or specific provision of law, a stockholder or an officer of a corporation cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.[55]
	GR NO. 163981 2005-08-12	CONSTRUCTION v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In any case, petitioner PNCC, as majority stockholder, may not be held liable for UITC's obligation. A corporation, upon coming into existence, is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those persons composing it as well as from any other legal entity to which it may be related.[38] The veil of corporate fiction may only be disregarded in cases where the corporate vehicle is being used to defeat public convenience, justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime.[39] Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality.[40] To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established.[41]
	GR NO. 156893 2005-06-21	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL PANGANIBAN, J.
But, the second question relating to the sufficiency of evidence is a question of fact.[9] As a general rule, such questions are not subject to a review by this Court. The factual findings of the CA are accorded not only respect but even finality, as long as these are supported by substantial evidence.[10] The evidence on record may be scrutinized by this Court only under recognized exceptions, such as when the CA findings are devoid of support or are in conflict with those of labor officials, or when the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[11]