This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The separate personality of corporations means that they are "vest[ed] [with] rights, powers, and attributes [of their own] as if they were natural persons[.]"[106] Their assets and liabilities are their own and not their officers', shareholders', or another corporation's. In the same vein, the assets and liabilities of their officers and shareholders are not the corporations'. Obligations incurred by corporations are not obligations of their officers and shareholders. Obligations of officers and shareholders are not obligations of corporations.[107] In other words, corporate interests are separate from the personal interests of the natural persons that comprise corporations. | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Corporate veil is pierced when the separate personality of the corporation is being used to perpetrate fraud, illegalities, and injustices.[108] In Lanuza, Jr. v. BF Corporation:[109] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Arbitration is a mode of settling disputes between parties.[75] Like many alternative dispute resolution processes, it is a product of the meeting of minds of parties submitting a pre-defined set of disputes. They agree among themselves to a process of dispute resolution that avoids extended litigation. | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Our policy in favor of party autonomy in resolving disputes has been reflected in our laws as early as 1949 when our Civil Code was approved.[77] Republic Act No. 876[78] later explicitly recognized the validity and enforceability of parties' decision to submit disputes and related issues to arbitration.[79] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Lanuza v. BF Corporation,[109] we recognized that there are instances when non-signatories to a contract may be compelled to submit to arbitration.[110] Among those instances is when a non-signatory is allowed to invoke rights or obligations based on the contract.[111] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in Heirs ofAugusto Salas, this court affirmed its policy against multiplicity of suits and unnecessary delay. This court said that "to split the proceeding into arbitration for some parties and trial for other parties would "result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay." This court also intimated that the interest of justice would be best observed if it adjudicated rights in a single proceeding. While the facts of that case prompted this court to direct the trial court to proceed to determine the issues of that case, it did not prohibit courts from allowing the case to proceed to arbitration, when circumstances warrant.[115] | |||||