Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 170458 2015-11-23	REPUBLIC v. VIRGILIO M. TATLONGHARI LEONEN, J.
Philippine National Bank v. Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation[178] also involved a corporation placed under Asset Privatization Trust. Hercon, Inc. filed a Complaint for sum of money against Nocon Mining and Industrial Corporation (Nocon Mining). Nocon Mining's assets and liabilities were subsequently transferred to Asset Privatization Trust under a Trust Agreement. Thus, Asset Privatization Trust was impleaded as a party. This court held that Asset Privatization Trust could not be held liable for Nocon Mining's debt. However, Asset Privatization Trust "should ensure compliance by Nocon Mining and Industrial Corporation of the judgment against it."[179]
	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
Respondents Anglo, Sr. and Anglo Agricultural Corporation appear to have similar interests. However, in evaluating compliance with Section 95, they have to be treated as separate entities with different legal personalities.[103] Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals' Decisions treated respondents Anglo, Sr. and Anglo Agricultural Corporation as a single party.
	GR No. 182770 2014-09-17	WPM INTERNATIONAL TRADING v. FE CORAZON LABAYEN BRION, J.
The absence of any of these elements prevents piercing the corporate veil.[12]
	GR No. 195615 2014-04-21	BANK OF COMMERCE v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK ABAD, J.
The third exception to the rule on the non-accountability of a purchasing corporation is similarly non-existent in the present case. Once again, TRB still exists albeit under a different name RTH. Bancom could not, therefore, be considered to have continued TRB when TRB still exists as RTH. It is axiomatic that as a corporation is imbued with legal personality, it has the right of succession and it incurs its own liabilities and is legally responsible for payment of its obligations.[36]
	GR No. 199687 2014-03-24	PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. CA REYES, J.
The absence of any one of these elements prevents 'piercing the corporate veil' in applying the 'instrumentality' or 'alter ego' doctrine, the courts are concerned with reality and not form, with how the corporation operated and the individual defendant's relationship to that operation.[64] Hence, all three elements should concur for the alter ego doctrine to be applicable.