Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In addition, the wrong doing must be clearly and convincingly established. The court
must also be sure that the misuse of the corporate veil resulted to an injustice upon
another, adversely affecting his or her or its rights.
1
Ronald C. Lara Business Organization II: Private Corporation Law
Fourth Year Atty. Alizedney M. Ditucalan, LL.M.
MSU Law, Iligan Extension Class
faith. The court said that the allegations warrant the inclusion of the said officers
and
pierce the corporate veil of the corporate fiction so that the said individuals may not
seek refuge therein, but may be held individually and personally liable for their
actions.
In certain cases, the Court refused to disregard the corporate veil, and instead
upheld it, when the above requirements are not sufficiently established in the case.
In Traders Royal Bank versus Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 15 (1997), the court did
not grant the prayer of the petitioner to pierce the corporate veils of Filriters
Guaranty Assurance Corporation (FGAC) and Philippine Underwriters Finance
Corporation (PUFC), treat them as one and allow the petitioner to recover from
FGAC the alleged liabilities of PUFC. This is despite the fact that the two (2)
corporations have identical set of Directors and that PUFC owns 90% of FGAC, which
are undeniable among the factors that will justify the application of the Piercing
Doctrine. In refusing, the Court held that the corporate veil cannot be pierced at the
instance of herein petitioner just for the sake of allowing it to complete its claim
against PUFC absent the showing that the corporate veil is used to defraud it.