Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Piercing the veil of corporate fiction; requisites - March 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Commercial Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

see - March 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Commercial Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG


"x x x.


Corporation; piercing the corporate veil. - Equally well-settled is the principle that the corporate mask may be removed or the corporate veil pierced when the corporation is just an alter ego of a person or of another corporation. For reasons of public policy and in the interest of justice, the corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for fraud, illegality or inequity committed against third persons.
However, the rule is that a court should be careful in assessing the milieu where the doctrine of the corporate veil may be applied. Otherwise an injustice, although unintended, may result from its erroneous application. Thus, cutting through the corporate cover requires an approach characterized by due care and caution:
Hence, any application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be done with caution. A court should be mindful of the milieu where it is to be applied. It must be certain that the corporate fiction was misused to such an extent that injustice, fraud, or crime was committed against another, in disregard of its rights. The wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established; it cannot be presumed. x x x.
Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission has defined the scope of application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil:
The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies only in three (3) basic areas, namely: 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; 2) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; or 3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation. (Citation omitted.)
Phil. National Bank vs. Hydro Resources Contractors Corp., .G.R. Nos. 167530, 167561, 16760311. March 13, 2013

x x x."

No comments:

Post a Comment