This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-08-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Cagayan Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[13] the Court held:xxx True it is that generally, contempt proceedings are characterized as criminal in nature, but the more accurate juridical concept is that contempt proceedings may actually be either civil or criminal, even if the distinction between one and the other may be so thin as to be almost imperceptible. But it does exist in law. It is criminal when the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court and protect its outraged dignity. It is civil when there is failure to do something ordered by a court to be done for the benefit of a party (3 Moran Rules of Court, pp. 343-344, 1970 ed.; see also Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 272; Harden vs. Director of Prisons, 81 Phil. 741.) Thus, the Court held in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[14] that: | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' contentions fail to persuade this Court. A careful reading of the judgment of the RTC and the resolution of the appellate court show that in finding petitioners' mortgaged property liable for the obligations of BEC, both courts below relied upon the alter ego doctrine or instrumentality rule, rather than fraud in piercing the veil of corporate fiction. When the corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, the separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded.[12] This is commonly referred to as the "instrumentality rule" or the alter ego doctrine, which the courts have applied in disregarding the separate juridical personality of corporations. As held in one case, | |||||