Bus Org22cdc

BUSINESS ORG II 2013
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION (P1,000.00) for his pocket money in going to Manila and some rediscounting papers 3 thru petitioner's LBC Office at Dipolog City. On November 16, 1984, Mrs. Concha thru her clerk, Adelina Antigo consigned thru LBC Dipolog Branch the pertinent documents and the sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) to respondent Carloto at No. 2 Greyhound Subdivision, Kinasangan, Pardo, Cebu City. This was evidenced by LBC Air Cargo, Inc., Cashpack Delivery Receipt No. 34805. On November 17, 1984, the documents arrived without the cashpack. Respondent Carloto made personal follow-ups on that same day, and also on November 19 and 20, 1984 at LBC's office in Cebu but petitioner failed to deliver to him the cashpack. Consequently, respondent Carloto said he was compelled to go to Dipolog City on November 24, 1984 to claim the money at LBC's office. His effort was once more in vain. On November 27, 1984, he went back to Cebu City at LBC's office. He was, however, advised that the money has been returned to LBC's office in Dipolog City upon shipper's request. Again, he demanded for the ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) and refund of FORTY-NINE PESOS (P49.00) LBC revenue charges. He received the money only on December 15, 1984 less the revenue charges. Respondent Carloto claimed that because of the delay in the transmittal of the cashpack, he failed to submit the rediscounting documents to Central Bank on time. As a consequence, his rural bank was made to pay the Central Bank THIRTY-TWO 4 THOUSAND PESOS (P32,000.00) as penalty interest. He allegedly suffered embarrassment and humiliation. Petitioner LBC, on the other hand, alleged that the cashpack was forwarded via PAL 5 to LBC Cebu City branch on November 22, 1984. On the same day, it was delivered at respondent Carloto's residence at No. 2 Greyhound Subdivision, Kinasangan, Pardo, Cebu City. However, he was not around to receive it. The delivery man served instead a claim notice to insure he would personally receive the money. This was annotated on Cashpack Delivery Receipt No. 342805. Notwithstanding the said notice, respondent Carloto did not claim the cashpack at LBC Cebu. On November 23, 1984, it was returned to the shipper, Elsie Carloto-Concha at Dipolog City.
G.R. No. 108670 September 21, 1994 LBC EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ADOLFO M. CARLOTO, and RURAL BANK OF LABASON, INC., respondents. Emmanuel D. Agustin for petitioner. Bernardo P. Concha for private respondents.
PUNO, J.: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner LBC questions the decision of respondent Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8, awarding moral and exemplary damages, reimbursement of P32,000.00, and costs of suit; but deleting the amount of attorney's fees. Private respondent Adolfo Carloto, incumbent President-Manager of private respondent Rural Bank of Labason, alleged that on November 12, 1984, he was in Cebu City transacting business with the Central Bank Regional Office. He was instructed to proceed to Manila on or before November 21, 1984 to follow-up the Rural Bank's plan of payment of rediscounting obligations with Central Bank's main 2 office in Manila. He then purchased a round trip plane ticket to Manila. He also phoned his sister Elsie Carloto-Concha to send him ONE THOUSAND PESOS
1

Claiming that petitioner LBC wantonly and recklessly disregarded its obligation, respondent Carloto instituted an action for Damages Arising from Non-performance of Obligation docketed as Civil Case No. 3679 before the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City on January 4, 1985. On June 25, 1988, an amended complaint was filed where respondent rural bank joined as one of the plaintiffs and prayed for the reimbursement of THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P32,000.00). After hearing, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Ordering the defendant LBC Air Cargo, Inc. to pay unto plaintiff Adolfo M. Carloto and Rural Bank of Labason, Inc., moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of P5,000.00; attorney's fees in the amount of P3,000.00 and litigation expenses of P1,000.00; 2. Sentencing defendant LBC Air Cargo, Inc., to reimburse plaintiff Rural Bank of Labason, Inc. the sum of P32,000.00 which the latter paid as penalty interest to the Central Bank of the Philippines as penalty interest for failure to rediscount its due bills on time arising from the defendant's failure to deliver the cashpack, with legal interest computed from the date of filing of this case; and 3. Ordering defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. SO ORDERED.
6
2. Whether or not the award of THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P32,000.00) was made with grave abuse of discretion. 3. Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the trial court's decision ordering petitioner LBC to pay moral and exemplary damages despite performance of its obligation. We find merit in the petition. The respondent court erred in awarding moral damages to the Rural Bank of Labason, Inc., an artificial person. Moral damages are granted in recompense for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, 7 social humiliation, and similar injury. A corporation, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, has no feelings, no emotions, no senses; therefore, it cannot experience physical suffering and mental 8 anguish. Mental suffering can be experienced only by one having a nervous system 9 and it flows from real ills, sorrows, and griefs of life all of which cannot be suffered by respondent bank as an artificial person. We can neither sustain the award of moral damages in favor of the private respondents. The right to recover moral damages is based on equity. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 of the Civil Code in 10 relation to Article 21. Part of conventional wisdom is that he who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands. In the case at bench, respondent Carloto is not without fault. He was fully aware that his rural bank's obligation would mature on November 21, 1984 and his bank 11 has set aside cash for these bills payable. He was all set to go to Manila to settle this obligation. He has received the documents necessary for the approval of their rediscounting application with the Central Bank. He has also received the plane ticket to go to Manila. Nevertheless, he did not immediately proceed to Manila but instead tarried for days allegedly claiming his ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) pocket money. Due to his delayed trip, he failed to submit the rediscounting papers to the Central Bank on time and his bank was penalized THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P32,000.00) for failure to pay its obligation on its due date. The undue
On appeal, respondent court modified the judgment by deleting the award of attorney's fees. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated January 11, 1993. Hence, this petition raising the following questions, to wit: 1. Whether or not respondent Rural Bank of Labason Inc., being an artificial person should be awarded moral damages.

importance given by respondent Carloto to his ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) pocket money is inexplicable for it was not indispensable for him to follow up his bank's rediscounting application with Central Bank. According to said respondent, 12 he needed the money to "invite people for a snack or dinner." The attitude of said respondent speaks ill of his ways of business dealings and cannot be countenanced by this Court. Verily, it will be revolting to our sense of ethics to use it as basis for awarding damages in favor of private respondent Carloto and the Rural Bank of Labason, Inc. We also hold that respondents failed to show that petitioner LBC's late delivery of the cashpack was motivated by personal malice or bad faith, whether intentional or thru gross negligence. In fact, it was proved during the trial that the cashpack was consigned on November 16, 1984, a Friday. It was sent to Cebu on November 19, 1984, the next business day. Considering this circumstance, petitioner cannot be charged with gross neglect of duty. Bad faith under the law can not be presumed; it 13 must be established by clearer and convincing evidence. Again, the unbroken jurisprudence is that in breach of contract cases where the defendant is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the branch of the obligation which the parties had foreseen or could reasonable have foreseen. The damages, however, 14 will not include liability for moral damages. Prescinding from these premises, the award of exemplary damages made by the respondent court would have no legal leg to support itself. Under Article 2232 of the Civil Code, in a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship, exemplary damages may be awarded only if the defendant had acted in "a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." The established facts of not so warrant the characterization of the action of petitioner LBC. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the respondent court dated September 30, 1992 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and the Complaint in Civil Case No. 3679 is ordered DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-22973
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC January 30, 1968
MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and ANACLETO HERALDO Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte,defendants-appellees. Ernesto P. Vilar and Arthur Tordesillas for plaintiff-appellant. Tomas Besa and Jose B. Galang for defendants-appellees. ANGELES, J.: An appeal from a decision, dated April 2, 1964, of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 52089, entitled "Mambulao Lumber Company, plaintiff, versus Philippine National Bank and Anacleto Heraldo, defendants", dismissing the complaint against both defendants and sentencing the plaintiff to pay to defendant Philippine National Bank (PNB for short) the sum of P3,582.52 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from December 22, 1961 until fully paid, and the costs of suit. In seeking the reversal of the decision, the plaintiff advances several propositions in its brief which may be restated as follows: 1. That its total indebtedness to the PNB as of November 21, 1961, was only P56,485.87 and not P58,213.51 as concluded by the court a quo; hence, the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of its real property alone in the amount of P56,908.00 on that date, added to the sum of P738.59 it remitted to the PNB thereafter was more than sufficient to liquidate its

obligation, thereby rendering the subsequent foreclosure sale of its chattels unlawful; 2. That it is not liable to pay PNB the amount of P5,821.35 for attorney's fees and the additional sum of P298.54 as expenses of the foreclosure sale; 3. That the subsequent foreclosure sale of its chattels is null and void, not only because it had already settled its indebtedness to the PNB at the time the sale was effected, but also for the reason that the said sale was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law and the venue agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract; 4. That the PNB, having illegally sold the chattels, is liable to the plaintiff for its value; and 5. That for the acts of the PNB in proceeding with the sale of the chattels, in utter disregard of plaintiff's vigorous opposition thereto, and in taking possession thereof after the sale thru force, intimidation, coercion, and by detaining its "man-in-charge" of said properties, the PNB is liable to plaintiff for damages and attorney's fees. The antecedent facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are as follows: On May 5, 1956 the plaintiff applied for an industrial loan of P155,000 with the Naga Branch of defendant PNB and the former offered real estate, machinery, logging and transportation equipments as collaterals. The application, however, was approved for a loan of P100,000 only. To secure the payment of the loan, the plaintiff mortgaged to defendant PNB a parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements existing thereon, situated in the poblacion of Jose Panganiban (formerly Mambulao), province of Camarines Norte, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 381 of the land records of said province, as well as various sawmill equipment, rolling unit and other fixed assets of the plaintiff, all situated in its compound in the aforementioned municipality. On August 2, 1956, the PNB released from the approved loan the sum of P27,500, for which the plaintiff signed a promissory note wherein it promised to pay to the PNB the said sum in five equal yearly installments at the rate of P6,528.40 beginning July 31, 1957, and every year thereafter, the last of which would be on July 31, 1961. On October 19, 1956, the PNB made another release of P15,500 as part of the approved loan granted to the plaintiff and so on the said date, the latter executed another promissory note wherein it agreed to pay to the former the said sum in five equal yearly installments at the rate of P3,679.64 beginning July 31, 1957, and ending on July 31, 1961. The plaintiff failed to pay the amortization on the amounts released to and received by it. Repeated demands were made upon the plaintiff to pay its obligation but it failed or otherwise refused to do so. Upon inspection and verification made by employees of the PNB, it was found that the plaintiff had already stopped operation about the end of 1957 or early part of 1958. On September 27, 1961, the PNB sent a letter to the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte requesting him to take possession of the parcel of land, together with the improvements existing thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 381 of the land records of Camarines Norte, and to sell it at public auction in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended, for the satisfaction of the unpaid obligation of the plaintiff, which as of September 22, 1961, amounted to P57,646.59, excluding attorney's fees. In compliance with the request, on October 16, 1961, the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte issued the corresponding notice of extra-judicial sale and sent a copy thereof to the plaintiff. According to the notice, the mortgaged property would be sold at public auction at 10:00 a.m. on November 21, 1961, at the ground floor of the Court House in Daet, Camarines Norte. On November 6, 1961, the PNB sent a letter to the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte requesting him to take possession of the chattels mortgaged to it by the plaintiff and sell them at public auction also on November 21, 1961, for the satisfaction of the sum of P57,646.59, plus 6%

annual interest therefore from September 23, 1961, attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the amount due and the costs and expenses of the sale. On the same day, the PNB sent notice to the plaintiff that the former was foreclosing extrajudicially the chattels mortgaged by the latter and that the auction sale thereof would be held on November 21, 1961, between 9:00 and 12:00 a.m., in Mambulao, Camarines Norte, where the mortgaged chattels were situated. On November 8, 1961, Deputy Provincial Sheriff Anacleto Heraldo took possession of the chattels mortgaged by the plaintiff and made an inventory thereof in the presence of a PC Sergeant and a policeman of the municipality of Jose Panganiban. On November 9, 1961, the said Deputy Sheriff issued the corresponding notice of public auction sale of the mortgaged chattels to be held on November 21, 1961, at 10:00 a.m., at the plaintiff's compound situated in the municipality of Jose Panganiban, Province of Camarines Norte. On November 19, 1961, the plaintiff sent separate letters, posted as registered air mail matter, one to the Naga Branch of the PNB and another to the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte, protesting against the foreclosure of the real estate and chattel mortgages on the grounds that they could not be effected unless a Court's order was issued against it (plaintiff) for said purpose and that the foreclosure proceedings, according to the terms of the mortgage contracts, should be made in Manila. In said letter to the Naga Branch of the PNB, it was intimated that if the public auction sale would be suspended and the plaintiff would be given an extension of ninety (90) days, its obligation would be settled satisfactorily because an important negotiation was then going on for the sale of its "whole interest" for an amount more than sufficient to liquidate said obligation. The letter of the plaintiff to the Naga Branch of the PNB was construed by the latter as a request for extension of the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged chattels and so it advised the Sheriff of Camarines Norte to defer it to December 21, 1961, at the same time and place. A copy of said advice was sent to the plaintiff for its information and guidance. The foreclosure sale of the parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 381, was, however, held on November 21, 1961, and the said property was sold to the PNB for the sum of P56,908.00, subject to the right of the plaintiff to redeem the same within a period of one year. On the same date, Deputy Provincial Sheriff Heraldo executed a certificate of sale in favor of the PNB and a copy thereof was sent to the plaintiff. In a letter dated December 14, 1961 (but apparently posted several days later), the plaintiff sent a bank draft for P738.59 to the Naga Branch of the PNB, allegedly in full settlement of the balance of the obligation of the plaintiff after the application thereto of the sum of P56,908.00 representing the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of parcel of land described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 381. In the said letter, the plaintiff reiterated its request that the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged chattels be discontinued on the grounds that the mortgaged indebtedness had been fully paid and that it could not be legally effected at a place other than the City of Manila. In a letter dated December 16, 1961, the plaintiff advised the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte that it had fully paid its obligation to the PNB, and enclosed therewith a copy of its letter to the latter dated December 14, 1961. On December 18, 1961, the Attorney of the Naga Branch of the PNB, wrote to the plaintiff acknowledging the remittance of P738.59 with the advice, however, that as of that date the balance of the account of the plaintiff was P9,161.76, to which should be added the expenses of guarding the mortgaged chattels at the rate of P4.00 a day beginning December 19, 1961. It was further explained in said letter that the sum of P57,646.59, which was stated in the request for the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, did not include the 10% attorney's fees and expenses of the sale. Accordingly, the plaintiff was advised that the foreclosure sale scheduled on the 21st of said month would be stopped if a remittance of P9,161.76, plus interest thereon and guarding fees, would be made.

On December 21, 1961, the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged chattels was held at 10:00 a.m. and they were awarded to the PNB for the sum of P4,200 and the corresponding bill of sale was issued in its favor by Deputy Provincial Sheriff Heraldo. In a letter dated December 26, 1961, the Manager of the Naga Branch of the PNB advised the plaintiff giving it priority to repurchase the chattels acquired by the former at public auction. This offer was reiterated in a letter dated January 3, 1962, of the Attorney of the Naga Branch of the PNB to the plaintiff, with the suggestion that it exercise its right of redemption and that it apply for the condonation of the attorney's fees. The plaintiff did not follow the advice but on the contrary it made known of its intention to file appropriate action or actions for the protection of its interests. On May 24, 1962, several employees of the PNB arrived in the compound of the plaintiff in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, and they informed Luis Salgado, Chief Security Guard of the premises, that the properties therein had been auctioned and bought by the PNB, which in turn sold them to Mariano Bundok. Upon being advised that the purchaser would take delivery of the things he bought, Salgado was at first reluctant to allow any piece of property to be taken out of the compound of the plaintiff. The employees of the PNB explained that should Salgado refuse, he would be exposing himself to a litigation wherein he could be held liable to pay big sum of money by way of damages. Apprehensive of the risk that he would take, Salgado immediately sent a wire to the President of the plaintiff in Manila, asking advice as to what he should do. In the meantime, Mariano Bundok was able to take out from the plaintiff's compound two truckloads of equipment. In the afternoon of the same day, Salgado received a telegram from plaintiff's President directing him not to deliver the "chattels" without court order, with the information that the company was then filing an action for damages against the PNB. On the following day, May 25, 1962, two trucks and men of Mariano Bundok arrived but Salgado did not permit them to take out any equipment from inside the compound of the plaintiff. Thru the intervention, however, of the local police and PC soldiers, the trucks of Mariano Bundok were able finally to haul the properties originally mortgaged by the plaintiff to the PNB, which were bought by it at the foreclosure sale and subsequently sold to Mariano Bundok. Upon the foregoing facts, the trial court rendered the decision appealed from which, as stated in the first paragraph of this opinion, sentenced the Mambulao Lumber Company to pay to the defendant PNB the sum of P3,582.52 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from December 22, 1961 (day following the date of the questioned foreclosure of plaintiff's chattels) until fully paid, and the costs. Mambulao Lumber Company interposed the instant appeal. We shall discuss the various points raised in appellant's brief in seriatim. The first question Mambulao Lumber Company poses is that which relates to the amount of its indebtedness to the PNB arising out of the principal loans and the accrued interest thereon. It is contended that its obligation under the terms of the two promissory notes it had executed in favor of the PNB amounts only to P56,485.87 as of November 21, 1961, when the sale of real property was effected, and not P58,213.51 as found by the trial court. There is merit to this claim. Examining the terms of the promissory note executed by the appellant in favor of the PNB, we find that the agreed interest on the loan of P43,000.00 P27,500.00 released on August 2, 1956 as per promissory note of even date (Exhibit C-3), and P15,500.00 released on October 19, 1956, as per promissory note of the same date (Exhibit C-4) was six per cent (6%) per annum from the respective date of said notes "until paid". In the statement of account of the appellant as of September 22, 1961, submitted by the PNB, it appears that in arriving at the total indebtedness of P57,646.59 as of that date, the PNB had compounded the principal of the loan and the accrued 6% interest thereon each time the yearly amortizations became due, and on the basis of these compounded amounts charged additional delinquency interest on them up to September 22, 1961; and to this erroneously computed total of P57,646.59, the trial court added 6% interest per annum from September 23, 1961 to November 21 of the same year. In effect, the PNB has claimed, and the trial court has adjudicated to it, interest on accrued interests from the time the various amortizations of the loan became due until the real estate mortgage executed to secure the loan was extrajudicially foreclosed on November 21, 1961. This is an error. Section 5 of Act No.

2655 expressly provides that in computing the interest on any obligation, promissory note or other instrument or contract, compound interest shall not be reckoned, except by agreement, or in default thereof, whenever the debt is judicially claimed. This is also the clear mandate of Article 2212 of the new Civil Code which provides that interest due shall earn legal interest only from the time it is judicially demanded, and of Article 1959 of the same code which ordains that interest due and unpaid shall not earn interest. Of course, the parties may, by stipulation, capitalize the interest due and unpaid, which as added principal shall earn new interest; but such stipulation is nowhere to be found in the terms of the promissory notes involved in this case. Clearly therefore, the trial court fell into error when it awarded interest on accrued interests, without any agreement to that effect and before they had been judicially demanded. Appellant next assails the award of attorney's fees and the expenses of the foreclosure sale in favor of the PNB. With respect to the amount of P298.54 allowed as expenses of the extra-judicial sale of the real property, appellant maintains that the same has no basis, factual or legal, and should not have been awarded. It likewise decries the award of attorney's fees which, according to the appellant, should not be deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the real property, not only because there is no express agreement in the real estate mortgage contract to pay attorney's fees in case the same is extra-judicially foreclosed, but also for the reason that the PNB neither spent nor incurred any obligation to pay attorney's fees in connection with the said extra-judicial foreclosure under consideration. There is reason for the appellant to assail the award of P298.54 as expenses of the sale. In this respect, the trial court said: The parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements existing thereon covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 381, was sold for P56,908. There was, however, no evidence how much was the expenses of the foreclosure sale although from the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, the Sheriff's fees would be P1 for advertising the sale (par. k, Sec. 7, Rule 130 of the Old Rules) and P297.54 as his commission for the sale (par. n, Sec. 7, Rule 130 of the Old Rules) or a total of P298.54. There is really no evidence of record to support the conclusion that the PNB is entitled to the amount awarded as expenses of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale. The court below committed error in applying the provisions of the Rules of Court for purposes of arriving at the amount awarded. It is to be borne in mind that the fees enumerated under paragraphs k and n, Section 7, of Rule 130 (now Rule 141) are demandable, only by a sheriff serving processes of the court in connection with judicial foreclosure of mortgages under Rule 68 of the new Rules, and not in cases of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages under Act 3135. The law applicable is Section 4 of Act 3135 which provides that the officer conducting the sale is entitled to collect a fee of P5.00 for each day of actual work performed in addition to his expenses in connection with the foreclosure sale. Admittedly, the PNB failed to prove during the trial of the case, that it actually spent any amount in connection with the said foreclosure sale. Neither may expenses for publication of the notice 1 be legally allowed in the absence of evidence on record to support it. It is true, as pointed out by the appellee bank, that courts should take judicial notice of the fees provided for by law which need not be proved; but in the absence of evidence to show at least the number of working days the sheriff concerned actually spent in connection with the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, the most that he may be entitled to, would be the amount of P10.00 as a reasonable allowance for two day's work one for the preparation of the necessary notices of sale, and the other for conducting the auction sale and issuance of the corresponding certificate of sale in favor of the buyer. Obviously, therefore, the award of P298.54 as expenses of the sale should be set aside. But the claim of the appellant that the real estate mortgage does not provide for attorney's fees in case the same is extra-judicially foreclosed, cannot be favorably considered, as would readily be revealed by an examination of the pertinent provision of the mortgage contract. The parties to the mortgage appear to have stipulated under paragraph (c) thereof, inter alia: . . . For the purpose of extra-judicial foreclosure, the Mortgagor hereby appoints the Mortgagee his attorney-in-fact to sell the property mortgaged under Act 3135, as amended, to sign all documents and to perform all acts requisite and necessary to accomplish said purpose and to appoint its substitute as such attorney-in-fact with the same powers as above specified. In case of judicial foreclosure, the Mortgagor hereby consents to the appointment of the Mortgagee or any of its employees as receiver, without any bond, to take charge of the mortgaged property at once, and to hold possession of the same and the rents, benefits and profits derived from the mortgaged property before the sale, less the costs

and expenses of the receivership; the Mortgagor hereby agrees further that in all cases, attorney's fees hereby fixed at Ten Per cent (10%) of the total indebtedness then unpaid which in no case shall be less than P100.00 exclusive of all fees allowed by law, and the expenses of collection shall be the obligation of the Mortgagor and shall with priority, be paid to the Mortgagee out of any sums realized as rents and profits derived from the mortgaged property or from the proceeds realized from the sale of the said property and this mortgage shall likewise stand as security therefor. . . . We find the above stipulation to pay attorney's fees clear enough to cover both cases of foreclosure sale mentioned thereunder, i.e., judicially or extrajudicially. While the phrase "in all cases" appears to be part of the second sentence, a reading of the whole context of the stipulation would readily show that it logically refers to extra-judicial foreclosure found in the first sentence and to judicial foreclosure mentioned in the next sentence. And the ambiguity in the stipulation suggested and pointed out by the appellant by reason of the faulty sentence construction should not be made to defeat the otherwise clear intention of the parties in the agreement. It is suggested by the appellant, however, that even if the above stipulation to pay attorney's fees were applicable to the extra-judicial foreclosure sale of its real properties, still, the award of P5,821.35 for attorney's fees has no legal justification, considering the circumstance that the PNB did not actually spend anything by way of attorney's fees in connection with the sale. In support of this proposition, appellant cites authorities to the effect: (1) that when the mortgagee has neither paid nor incurred any obligation to pay an attorney in connection with the 2 foreclosure sale, the claim for such fees should be denied; and (2) that attorney's fees will not be allowed when the attorney conducting the foreclosure proceedings is an officer of the corporation (mortgagee) who receives a salary for all the legal 3 services performed by him for the corporation. These authorities are indeed enlightening; but they should not be applied in this case. The very same authority first cited suggests that said principle is not absolute, for there is authority to the contrary. As to the fact that the foreclosure proceeding's were handled by an attorney of the legal staff of the PNB, we are reluctant to exonerate herein appellant from the payment of the stipulated attorney's fees on this ground alone, considering the express agreement between the parties in the mortgage contract under which appellant became liable to pay the same. At any rate, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the award of P5,821.35 in favor of the PNB as attorney's fees is unconscionable and unreasonable, considering that all that the branch attorney of the said bank did in connection with the foreclosure sale of the real property was to file a petition with the provincial sheriff of Camarines Norte requesting the latter to sell the same in accordance with the provisions of Act 3135. The principle that courts should reduce stipulated attorney's fees whenever it is found under the circumstances of the case that the same is unreasonable, is now deeply rooted in this jurisdiction to entertain any serious objection to it. Thus, this Court has explained: But the principle that it may be lawfully stipulated that the legal expenses involved in the collection of a debt shall be defrayed by the debtor does not imply that such stipulations must be enforced in accordance with the terms, no matter how injurious or oppressive they may be. The lawful purpose to be accomplished by such a stipulation is to permit the creditor to receive the amount due him under his contract without a deduction of the expenses caused by the delinquency of the debtor. It should not be permitted for him to convert such a stipulation into a source of speculative profit at the expense of the debtor. Contracts for attorney's services in this jurisdiction stands upon an entirely different footing from contracts for the payment of compensation for any other services. By express provision of section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an attorney is not entitled in the absence of express contract to recover more than a reasonable compensation for his services; and even when an express contract is made the court can ignore it and limit the recovery to reasonable compensation if the amount of the stipulated fee is found by the court to be unreasonable. This is a very different rule from that announced in section 1091 of the Civil Code with reference to the obligation of contracts in general, where it is said that such obligation has the force of law between the contracting parties. Had the plaintiff herein made an express contract to pay his attorney an uncontingent fee of P2,115.25 for the services to be rendered in reducing the note here in suit to judgment, it would not have been enforced against him had he seen fit to oppose it, as such a fee is obviously far greater than is necessary to remunerate the attorney for the work involved and is

therefore unreasonable. In order to enable the court to ignore an express contract for an attorney's fees, it is not necessary to show, as in other contracts, that it is contrary to morality or public policy (Art. 1255, Civil 4 Code). It is enough that it is unreasonable or unconscionable. Since then this Court has invariably fixed counsel fees on a quantum meruit basis whenever the fees stipulated appear excessive, unconscionable, or unreasonable, because a lawyer is primarily a court officer charged with the duty of assisting the court in administering impartial justice between the parties, and hence, the fees should be subject to judicial control. Nor should it be ignored that sound public policy demands that courts disregard stipulations for counsel fees, whenever they appear to be a source of speculative profit at the expense of the 5 debtor or mortgagor. And it is not material that the present action is between the debtor and the creditor, and not between attorney and client. As court have power to fix the fee as between attorney and client, it must necessarily have the right to 6 say whether a stipulation like this, inserted in a mortgage contract, is valid. In determining the compensation of an attorney, the following circumstances should be considered: the amount and character of the services rendered; the responsibility imposed; the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy, or involved in the employment; the skill and experience called for in the performance of the service; the professional standing of the attorney; the results secured; and whether or not the fee is contingent or absolute, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is 7 to be contingent than when it is not. From the stipulation in the mortgage contract earlier quoted, it appears that the agreed fee is 10% of the total indebtedness, irrespective of the manner the foreclosure of the mortgage is to be effected. The agreement is perhaps fair enough in case the foreclosure proceedings is prosecuted judicially but, surely, it is unreasonable when, as in this case, the mortgage was foreclosed extra-judicially, and all that the attorney did was to file a petition for foreclosure with the sheriff concerned. It is to be assumed though, that the said branch attorney of the PNB made a study of the case before deciding to file the petition for foreclosure; but even with this in mind, we believe the amount of P5,821.35 is far too excessive a fee for such services. Considering the above circumstances mentioned, it is our considered opinion that the amount of P1,000.00 would be more than sufficient to compensate the work aforementioned. The next issue raised deals with the claim that the proceeds of the sale of the real properties alone together with the amount it remitted to the PNB later was more than sufficient to liquidate its total obligation to herein appellee bank. Again, we find merit in this claim. From the foregoing discussion of the first two errors assigned, and for purposes of determining the total obligation of herein appellant to the PNB as of November 21, 1961 when the real estate mortgage was foreclosed, we have the following illustration in support of this conclusion:1wph1.t A. I. Principal Loan (a) Promissory note dated August 2, 1956 (1) Interest at 6% per annum from Aug. 2, 1956 to Nov. 21, 1961 (b) Promissory note dated October 19, 1956 (1) Interest at 6% per annum from Oct.19, 1956 to Nov. 21, 1961 II. Sheriff's fees [for two (2) day's work] P27,500.00 8,751.78 P15,500.00 4,734.08 10.00 1,000.00 Total obligation as of Nov. 21, 1961 P57,495.86 B. I. II. Proceeds of the foreclosure sale of the real estate mortgage on Nov. 21, 1961 Additional amount remitted to the PNB on Dec. 18, 1961 P56,908.00 738.59
III. Attorney's fee
Total amount of Payment made to PNB as of Dec. 18, 1961 P57,646.59 Deduct: Total obligation to the PNB P57,495.86 Excess Payment to the PNB

P 150.73 ======== From the foregoing illustration or computation, it is clear that there was no further necessity to foreclose the mortgage of herein appellant's chattels on December 21, 1961; and on this ground alone, we may declare the sale of appellant's chattels on the said date, illegal and void. But we take into consideration the fact that the PNB must have been led to believe that the stipulated 10% of the unpaid loan for attorney's fees in the real estate mortgage was legally maintainable, and in accordance with such belief, herein appellee bank insisted that the proceeds of the sale of appellant's real property was deficient to liquidate the latter's total indebtedness. Be that as it may, however, we still find the subsequent sale of herein appellant's chattels illegal and objectionable on other grounds. That appellant vigorously objected to the foreclosure of its chattel mortgage after the foreclosure of its real estate mortgage on November 21, 1961, can not be doubted, as shown not only by its letter to the PNB on November 19, 1961, but also in its letter to the provincial sheriff of Camarines Norte on the same date. These letters were followed by another letter to the appellee bank on December 14, 1961, wherein herein appellant, in no uncertain terms, reiterated its objection to the scheduled sale of its chattels on December 21, 1961 at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte for the reasons therein stated that: (1) it had settled in full its total obligation to the PNB by the sale of the real estate and its subsequent remittance of the amount of P738.59; and (2) that the contemplated sale at Jose Panganiban would violate their agreement embodied under paragraph (i) in the Chattel Mortgage which provides as follows: (i) In case of both judicial and extra-judicial foreclosure under Act 1508, as amended, the parties hereto agree that the corresponding complaint for foreclosure or the petition for sale should be filed with the courts or the sheriff of the City of Manila, as the case may be; and that the Mortgagor shall pay attorney's fees hereby fixed at ten per cent (10%) of the total indebtedness then unpaid but in no case shall it be less than P100.00, exclusive of all costs and fees allowed by law and of other expenses incurred in connection with the said foreclosure. [Emphasis supplied] Notwithstanding the abovequoted agreement in the chattel mortgage contract, and in utter disregard of the objection of herein appellant to the sale of its chattels at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte and not in the City of Manila as agreed upon, the PNB proceeded with the foreclosure sale of said chattels. The trial court, however, justified said action of the PNB in the decision appealed from in the following rationale: While it is true that it was stipulated in the chattel mortgage contract that a petition for the extra-judicial foreclosure thereof should be filed with the Sheriff of the City of Manila, nevertheless, the effect thereof was merely to provide another place where the mortgage chattel could be sold in addition to those specified in the Chattel Mortgage Law. Indeed, a stipulation in a contract cannot abrogate much less impliedly repeal a specific provision of the statute. Considering that Section 14 of Act No. 1508 vests in the mortgagee the choice where the foreclosure sale should be held, hence, in the case under consideration, the PNB had three places from which to select, namely: (1) the place of residence of the mortgagor; (2) the place of the mortgaged chattels were situated; and (3) the place stipulated in the contract. The PNB selected the second and, accordingly, the foreclosure sale held in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, was legal and valid. To the foregoing conclusion, We disagree. While the law grants power and authority to the mortgagee to sell the mortgaged property at a public place in the 8 municipality where the mortgagor resides or where the property is situated, this Court has held that the sale of a mortgaged chattel may be made in a place other than that where it is found, provided that the owner thereof consents thereto; or that there is an agreement to this effect between the mortgagor and the 9 mortgagee. But when, as in this case, the parties agreed to have the sale of the mortgaged chattels in the City of Manila, which, any way, is the residence of the mortgagor, it cannot be rightly said that mortgagee still retained the power and authority to select from among the places provided for in the law and the place designated in their agreement over the objection of the mortgagor. In providing that the mortgaged chattel may be sold at the place of residence of the mortgagor or the place where it is situated, at the option of the mortgagee, the law clearly contemplated benefits not only to the mortgagor but to the mortgagee as well. Their right arising thereunder, however, are personal to them; they do not affect either public policy or the rights of third persons. They may validly be waived. So,
10

when herein mortgagor and mortgagee agreed in the mortgage contract that in cases of both judicial and extra-judicial foreclosure under Act 1508, as amended, the corresponding complaint for foreclosure or the petition for sale should be filed with the courts or the Sheriff of Manila, as the case may be , they waived their corresponding rights under the law. The correlative obligation arising from that agreement have the force of law between them and should be complied with in 10 good faith. By said agreement the parties waived the legal venue, and such waiver is valid and legally effective, because it, was merely a personal privilege they waived, which is not contrary, to public policy or to the prejudice of third persons. It is a general principle that a person may renounce any right which the law gives unless such renunciation is expressly prohibited or the right conferred is of such nature that its 11 renunciation would be against public policy. On the other hand, if a place of sale is specified in the mortgage and statutory requirements in regard thereto are complied with, a sale is properly conducted in that place. Indeed, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, a sale conducted at a place other than that stipulated for in the 12 mortgage is invalid, unless the mortgagor consents to such sale. Moreover, Section 14 of Act 1508, as amended, provides that the officer making the sale should make a return of his doings which shall particularly describe the articles sold and the amount received from each article. From this, it is clear that the law requires that sale be made article by article, otherwise, it would be impossible for him to state the amount received for each item. This requirement was totally disregarded by the Deputy Sheriff of Camarines Norte when he sold the chattels in question in bulk, notwithstanding the fact that the said chattels 13 consisted of no less than twenty different items as shown in the bill of sale. This makes the sale of the chattels manifestly objectionable. And in the absence of any evidence to show that the mortgagor had agreed or consented to such sale in gross, the same should be set aside. It is said that the mortgagee is guilty of conversion when he sells under the mortgage but not in accordance with its terms, or where the proceedings as to the 14 sale of foreclosure do not comply with the statute. This rule applies squarely to the facts of this case where, as earlier shown, herein appellee bank insisted, and the appellee deputy sheriff of Camarines Norte proceeded with the sale of the mortgaged chattels at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, in utter disregard of the valid objection of the mortgagor thereto for the reason that it is not the place of sale agreed upon in the mortgage contract; and the said deputy sheriff sold all the chattels (among which were a skagit with caterpillar engine, three GMC 6 x 6 trucks, a Herring Hall Safe, and Sawmill equipment consisting of a 150 HP Murphy Engine, plainer, large circular saws etc.) as a single lot in violation of the requirement of the law to sell the same article by article. The PNB has resold the chattels to another buyer with whom it appears to have actively cooperated in subsequently taking possession of and removing the chattels from appellant compound by force, as shown by the circumstance that they had to take along PC soldiers and municipal policemen of Jose Panganiban who placed the chief security officer of the premises in jail to deprive herein appellant of its possession thereof. To exonerate itself of any liability for the breach of peace thus committed, the PNB would want us to believe that it was the subsequent buyer alone, who is not a party to this case, that was responsible for the forcible taking of the property; but assuming this to be so, still the PNB cannot escape liability for the conversion of the mortgaged chattels by parting with its interest in the property. Neither would its claim that it afterwards gave a chance to herein appellant to repurchase or redeem the chattels, improve its position, for the mortgagor is not under obligation to take affirmative steps to 15 repossess the chattels that were converted by the mortgagee. As a consequence of the said wrongful acts of the PNB and the Deputy Sheriff of Camarines Norte, therefore, We have to declare that herein appellant is entitled to collect from them, jointly and severally, the full value of the chattels in question at the time they were illegally sold by them. To this effect was the holding of this Court in a similar 16 situation. The effect of this irregularity was, in our opinion to make the plaintiff liable to the defendant for the full value of the truck at the time the plaintiff thus carried it off to be sold; and of course, the burden is on the defendant to prove the damage to which he was thus subjected. . . . This brings us to the problem of determining the value of the mortgaged chattels at the time of their sale in 1961. The trial court did not make any finding on the value of the chattels in the decision appealed from and denied altogether the right of the appellant to recover the same. We find enough evidence of record, however, which may be used as a guide to ascertain their value. The record shows
11

that at the time herein appellant applied for its loan with the PNB in 1956, for which the chattels in question were mortgaged as part of the security therefore, herein appellant submitted a list of the chattels together with its application for the loan with a stated value of P107,115.85. An official of the PNB made an inspection of the chattels in the same year giving it an appraised value of P42,850.00 and a market 17 value of P85,700.00. The same chattels with some additional equipment acquired by herein appellant with part of the proceeds of the loan were reappraised in a reinspection conducted by the same official in 1958, in the report of which he gave all the chattels an appraised value of P26,850.00 and a market value of 18 P48,200.00. Another re-inspection report in 1959 gave the appraised value as 19 P19,400.00 and the market value at P25,600.00. The said official of the PNB who made the foregoing reports of inspection and re-inspections testified in court that in giving the values appearing in the reports, he used a conservative method of appraisal which, of course, is to be expected of an official of the appellee bank. And it appears that the values were considerably reduced in all the re-inspection reports for the reason that when he went to herein appellant's premises at the time, he found the chattels no longer in use with some of the heavier equipments dismantled with parts thereof kept in the bodega; and finding it difficult to ascertain the value of the dismantled chattels in such condition, he did not give them anymore any value in his reports. Noteworthy is the fact, however, that in the last re-inspection report he made of the chattels in 1961, just a few months before the foreclosure sale, the same inspector of the PNB reported that the heavy equipment of herein appellant were "lying idle and rusty" but were "with a shed free from 20 rains" showing that although they were no longer in use at the time, they were kept in a proper place and not exposed to the elements. The President of the appellant company, on the other hand, testified that its caterpillar (tractor) alone is worth P35,000.00 in the market, and that the value of its two trucks acquired by it with part of the proceeds of the loan and included as additional items in the mortgaged chattels were worth no less than P14,000.00. He likewise appraised the worth of its Murphy engine at P16,000.00 which, according to him, when taken together with the heavy equipments he mentioned, the sawmill itself and all other equipment forming part of the chattels under consideration, and bearing in mind the current cost of equipments these days which he alleged to have increased by about five (5) times, could safely be estimated at P120,000.00. This testimony, except for the appraised and market values appearing in the inspection and reinspection reports of the PNB official earlier mentioned, stand uncontroverted in the record; but We are not inclined to accept such testimony at its par value, knowing that the equipments of herein appellant had been idle and unused since it stopped operating its sawmill in 1958 up to the time of the sale of the chattels in 1961. We have no doubt that the value of chattels was depreciated after all those years of inoperation, although from the evidence aforementioned, We may also safely conclude that the amount of P4,200.00 for which the chattels were sold in the foreclosure sale in question was grossly unfair to the mortgagor. Considering, however, the facts that the appraised value of P42,850.00 and the market value of P85,700.00 originally given by the PNB official were admittedly conservative; that two 6 x 6 trucks subsequently bought by the appellant company had thereafter been added to the chattels; and that the real value thereof, although depreciated after several years of inoperation, was in a way maintained because the depreciation is off-set by the marked increase in the cost of heavy equipment in the market, it is our opinion that the market value of the chattels at the time of the sale should be fixed at the original appraised value of P42,850.00. Herein appellant's claim for moral damages, however, seems to have no legal or factual basis. Obviously, an artificial person like herein appellant corporation cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation which are basis of moral 21 damages. A corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages. The same cannot be considered under the facts of this case, however, not only because it is admitted that herein appellant had already ceased in its business operation at the time of the foreclosure sale of the chattels, but also for the reason that whatever adverse effects of the foreclosure sale of the chattels could have upon its reputation or business standing would undoubtedly be the same whether the sale was conducted at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, or in Manila which is the place agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract. But for the wrongful acts of herein appellee bank and the deputy sheriff of Camarines Norte in proceeding with the sale in utter disregard of the agreement to have the chattels sold in Manila as provided for in the mortgage contract, to which their attentions were timely called by herein appellant, and in disposing of the chattels in gross for the miserable amount of P4,200.00, herein appellant should be awarded exemplary damages in the sum of P10,000.00. The circumstances of the case also warrant the award of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees for herein appellant.
12

WHEREFORE AND CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from should be, as hereby, it is set aside. The Philippine National Bank and the Deputy Sheriff of the province of Camarines Norte are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to Mambulao Lumber Company the total amount of P56,000.73, broken as follows: P150.73 overpaid by the latter to the PNB, P42,850.00 the value of the chattels at the time of the sale with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from December 21, 1961, until fully paid, P10,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against both appellees. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, C Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990 SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA), INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondents. Don P. Porcuincula for petitioner. San Juan, Gonzalez, San Agustin & Sinense for private respondent. 5. Check No. 215474 dated June 10, 1981, in favor of Malabon Longlife Trading Corporation in the amount of P12,953.00: CRUZ, J.: We are concerned in this case with the question of damages, specifically moral and exemplary damages. The negligence of the private respondent has already been established. All we have to ascertain is whether the petitioner is entitled to the said damages and, if so, in what amounts. 6. Check No. 215477 dated June 9, 1981, in favor of Sea-Land Services, Inc. in the amount of P27,024.45: 7. Check No. 215412 dated June 10, 1981, in favor of Baguio Country Club Corporation in the amount of P4,385.02: and The parties agree on the basic facts. The petitioner is a private corporation engaged in the exportation of food products. It buys these products from various local suppliers and then sells them abroad, particularly in the United States, Canada and the Middle East. Most of its exports are purchased by the petitioner on credit. The petitioner was a depositor of the respondent bank and maintained a checking account in its branch at Romulo Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City. On May 25, 1981, the petitioner deposited to its account in the said bank the amount of P100,000.00, 1 thus increasing its balance as of that date to P190,380.74. Subsequently, the petitioner issued several checks against its deposit but was suprised to learn later that they had been dishonored for insufficient funds. The dishonored checks are the following: 1. Check No. 215391 dated May 29, 1981, in favor of California Manufacturing Company, Inc. for P16,480.00: 2. Check No. 215426 dated May 28, 1981, in favor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the amount of P3,386.73: 3. Check No. 215451 dated June 4, 1981, in favor of Mr. Greg Pedreo in the amount of P7,080.00; 4. Check No. 215441 dated June 5, 1981, in favor of Malabon Longlife Trading Corporation in the amount of P42,906.00:
13

8. Check No. 215480 dated June 9, 1981, in favor of Enriqueta 2 Bayla in the amount of P6,275.00. As a consequence, the California Manufacturing Corporation sent on June 9, 1981, a letter of demand to the petitioner, threatening prosecution if the dishonored check issued to it was not made good. It also withheld delivery of the order made by the petitioner. Similar letters were sent to the petitioner by the Malabon Long Life Trading, on June 15, 1981, and by the G. and U. Enterprises, on June 10, 1981. Malabon also canceled the petitioner's credit line and demanded that future payments be made by it in cash or certified check. Meantime, action on the pending orders of the petitioner with the other suppliers whose checks were dishonored was also deferred. The petitioner complained to the respondent bank on June 10, 1981. Investigation disclosed that the sum of P100,000.00 deposited by the petitioner on May 25, 1981, had not been credited to it. The error was rectified on June 17, 1981, and the 4 dishonored checks were paid after they were re-deposited. In its letter dated June 20, 1981, the petitioner demanded reparation from the respondent bank for its "gross and wanton negligence." This demand was not met. The petitioner then filed a complaint in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal claiming from the private respondent moral damages in the sum of P1,000,000.00 and exemplary damages in the sum of P500,000.00, plus 25% attorney's fees, and costs. After trial, Judge Johnico G. Serquinia rendered judgment holding that moral and exemplary damages were not called for under the circumstances. However, observing that the plaintiff's right had been violated, he ordered the defendant to pay nominal damages in the amount of P20,000.00 plus P5,000.00 attorney's fees 5 6 and costs. This decision was affirmed in toto by the respondent court. The respondent court found with the trial court that the private respondent was guilty of negligence but agreed that the petitioner was nevertheless not entitled to moral damages. It said: The essential ingredient of moral damages is proof of bad faith (De Aparicio vs. Parogurga, 150 SCRA 280). Indeed, there was the
3
omission by the defendant-appellee bank to credit appellant's deposit of P100,000.00 on May 25, 1981. But the bank rectified its records. It credited the said amount in favor of plaintiff-appellant in less than a month. The dishonored checks were eventually paid. These circumstances negate any imputation or insinuation of malicious, fraudulent, wanton and gross bad faith and negligence on the part of the defendant-appellant. It is this ruling that is faulted in the petition now before us. This Court has carefully examined the facts of this case and finds that it cannot share some of the conclusions of the lower courts. It seems to us that the negligence of the private respondent had been brushed off rather lightly as if it were a minor infraction requiring no more than a slap on the wrist. We feel it is not enough to say that the private respondent rectified its records and credited the deposit in less than a month as if this were sufficient repentance. The error should not have been committed in the first place. The respondent bank has not even explained why it was committed at all. It is true that the dishonored checks were, as the Court of Appeals put it, "eventually" paid. However, this took almost a month when, properly, the checks should have been paid immediately upon presentment. As the Court sees it, the initial carelessness of the respondent bank, aggravated by the lack of promptitude in repairing its error, justifies the grant of moral damages. This rather lackadaisical attitude toward the complaining depositor constituted the gross negligence, if not wanton bad faith, that the respondent court said had not been established by the petitioner. We also note that while stressing the rectification made by the respondent bank, the decision practically ignored the prejudice suffered by the petitioner. This was simply glossed over if not, indeed, disbelieved. The fact is that the petitioner's credit line was canceled and its orders were not acted upon pending receipt of actual payment by the suppliers. Its business declined. Its reputation was tarnished. Its standing was reduced in the business community. All this was due to the fault of the respondent bank which was undeniably remiss in its duty to the petitioner. Article 2205 of the Civil Code provides that actual or compensatory damages may be received "(2) for injury to the plaintiff s business standing or commercial credit."
14

There is no question that the petitioner did sustain actual injury as a result of the dishonored checks and that the existence of the loss having been established 7 "absolute certainty as to its amount is not required." Such injury should bolster all the more the demand of the petitioner for moral damages and justifies the examination by this Court of the validity and reasonableness of the said claim. We agree that moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to 8 compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he may have suffered. In the case at bar, the petitioner is seeking such damages for the prejudice sustained by it as a result of the private respondent's fault. The respondent court said that the claimed losses are purely speculative and are not supported by substantial evidence, but if failed to consider that the amount of such losses need not be established with exactitude precisely because of their nature. Moral damages are not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. Article 2216 of the Civil Code specifically provides that "no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated." That is why the determination of the amount to be awarded (except liquidated damages) is left to the sound discretion of the court, according to "the circumstances of each case." From every viewpoint except that of the petitioner's, its claim of moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00 is nothing short of preposterous. Its business certainly is not that big, or its name that prestigious, to sustain such an extravagant pretense. Moreover, a corporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is 9 debased, resulting in its social humiliation. We shall recognize that the petitioner did suffer injury because of the private respondent's negligence that caused the dishonor of the checks issued by it. The immediate consequence was that its prestige was impaired because of the bouncing checks and confidence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished. The private respondent makes much of the one instance when the petitioner was sued in a collection case, but that did not prove that it did not have a good reputation 10 that could not be marred, more so since that case was ultimately settled. It does not appear that, as the private respondent would portray it, the petitioner is an unsavory and disreputable entity that has no good name to protect. Considering all this, we feel that the award of nominal damages in the sum of P20,000.00 was not the proper relief to which the petitioner was entitled. Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, "nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him." As we have found that the petitioner has indeed incurred loss through the fault of the private respondent, the proper remedy is the award to it of moral damages, which we impose, in our discretion, in the same amount of P20,000.00. Now for the exemplary damages. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code are the following: Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. The banking system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized nation. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence. Thus, even the humble wage-earner has not hesitated to entrust his life's savings to the bank of his choice, knowing that they will be safe in its custody and will even earn some interest for him. The ordinary person, with equal faith, usually maintains a modest checking account for security and convenience in the settling of his monthly bills and the payment of ordinary expenses. As for business entities like the petitioner, the bank is a trusted and active associate that can help in the running of their affairs, not only in the form of loans when needed but more often in the conduct of their day-to-day transactions like the issuance or encashment of checks.
15

In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not a little embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation. The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In the case at bar, it is obvious that the respondent bank was remiss in that duty and violated that relationship. What is especially deplorable is that, having been informed of its error in not crediting the deposit in question to the petitioner, the respondent bank did not immediately correct it but did so only one week later or twenty-three days after the deposit was made. It bears repeating that the record does not contain any satisfactory explanation of why the error was made in the first place and why it was not corrected immediately after its discovery. Such ineptness comes under the concept of the wanton manner contemplated in the Civil Code that calls for the imposition of exemplary damages. After deliberating on this particular matter, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, hereby imposes upon the respondent bank exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00, "by way of example or correction for the public good," in the words of the law. It is expected that this ruling will serve as a warning and deterrent against the repetition of the ineptness and indefference that has been displayed here, lest the confidence of the public in the banking system be further impaired. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment is hereby MODIFIED and the private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner, in lieu of nominal damages, moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 plus the original award of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Gancayco, Grino-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Footnotes 1 Rollo, p. 4. 2 Exhibits 1-a to 1-h. 3 Rollo, p. 6. Navarro vs. Escobido, GR 153788, November 27, 2009 Posted by Pius Morados on August 21, 2012 (Provisional Remedies: Replevin: Prior demand is not a condition precedent) Facts: Private respondent (Karen Go) files a complaint with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of replevin against petitioner (Navarro) for the seizure of 2 motor vehicles under lease agreement. Petitioner maintains among others in the case at bar that the complaints were premature because no prior demand was made on him to comply with the provisions of the lease agreements before the complaints for replevin were filed. Issue: WON prior demand is a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. Held: No. Petitioner erred in arguing that prior demand is required before an action for a writ of replevin is filed since we cannot liken a replevin action to an unlawful detainer. For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states: Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond. The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:
16

(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof; (b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; (c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodialegis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and (d) The actual market value of the property. The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the action. The SC held that there is nothing in the afore-quoted provision which requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. Don P. Porcuincula for petitioner. San Juan, Gonzalez, San Agustin & Sinense for private respondent.
CRUZ, J.: We are concerned in this case with the question of damages, specifically moral and exemplary damages. The negligence of the private respondent has already been established. All we have to ascertain is whether the petitioner is entitled to the said damages and, if so, in what amounts. The parties agree on the basic facts. The petitioner is a private corporation engaged in the exportation of food products. It buys these products from various local suppliers and then sells them abroad, particularly in the United States, Canada and the Middle East. Most of its exports are purchased by the petitioner on credit. The petitioner was a depositor of the respondent bank and maintained a checking account in its branch at Romulo Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City. On May 25, 1981, the petitioner deposited to its account in the said bank the amount of P100,000.00, 1 thus increasing its balance as of that date to P190,380.74. Subsequently, the petitioner issued several checks against its deposit but was suprised to learn later that they had been dishonored for insufficient funds. The dishonored checks are the following: 1. Check No. 215391 dated May 29, 1981, in favor of California Manufacturing Company, Inc. for P16,480.00: 2. Check No. 215426 dated May 28, 1981, in favor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the amount of P3,386.73: 3. Check No. 215451 dated June 4, 1981, in favor of Mr. Greg Pedreo in the amount of P7,080.00;
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990 SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA), INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondents.
17

4. Check No. 215441 dated June 5, 1981, in favor of Malabon Longlife Trading Corporation in the amount of P42,906.00: 5. Check No. 215474 dated June 10, 1981, in favor of Malabon Longlife Trading Corporation in the amount of P12,953.00: 6. Check No. 215477 dated June 9, 1981, in favor of Sea-Land Services, Inc. in the amount of P27,024.45: 7. Check No. 215412 dated June 10, 1981, in favor of Baguio Country Club Corporation in the amount of P4,385.02: and 8. Check No. 215480 dated June 9, 1981, in favor of Enriqueta 2 Bayla in the amount of P6,275.00. As a consequence, the California Manufacturing Corporation sent on June 9, 1981, a letter of demand to the petitioner, threatening prosecution if the dishonored check issued to it was not made good. It also withheld delivery of the order made by the petitioner. Similar letters were sent to the petitioner by the Malabon Long Life Trading, on June 15, 1981, and by the G. and U. Enterprises, on June 10, 1981. Malabon also canceled the petitioner's credit line and demanded that future payments be made by it in cash or certified check. Meantime, action on the pending orders of the petitioner with the other suppliers whose checks were dishonored was also deferred. The petitioner complained to the respondent bank on June 10, 1981. Investigation disclosed that the sum of P100,000.00 deposited by the petitioner on May 25, 1981, had not been credited to it. The error was rectified on June 17, 1981, and the 4 dishonored checks were paid after they were re-deposited. In its letter dated June 20, 1981, the petitioner demanded reparation from the respondent bank for its "gross and wanton negligence." This demand was not met. The petitioner then filed a complaint in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal claiming from the private respondent moral damages in the sum of P1,000,000.00 and exemplary damages in the sum of P500,000.00, plus 25% attorney's fees, and costs.
3
After trial, Judge Johnico G. Serquinia rendered judgment holding that moral and exemplary damages were not called for under the circumstances. However, observing that the plaintiff's right had been violated, he ordered the defendant to pay nominal damages in the amount of P20,000.00 plus P5,000.00 attorney's fees 5 6 and costs. This decision was affirmed in toto by the respondent court. The respondent court found with the trial court that the private respondent was guilty of negligence but agreed that the petitioner was nevertheless not entitled to moral damages. It said: The essential ingredient of moral damages is proof of bad faith (De Aparicio vs. Parogurga, 150 SCRA 280). Indeed, there was the omission by the defendant-appellee bank to credit appellant's deposit of P100,000.00 on May 25, 1981. But the bank rectified its records. It credited the said amount in favor of plaintiff-appellant in less than a month. The dishonored checks were eventually paid. These circumstances negate any imputation or insinuation of malicious, fraudulent, wanton and gross bad faith and negligence on the part of the defendant-appellant. It is this ruling that is faulted in the petition now before us. This Court has carefully examined the facts of this case and finds that it cannot share some of the conclusions of the lower courts. It seems to us that the negligence of the private respondent had been brushed off rather lightly as if it were a minor infraction requiring no more than a slap on the wrist. We feel it is not enough to say that the private respondent rectified its records and credited the deposit in less than a month as if this were sufficient repentance. The error should not have been committed in the first place. The respondent bank has not even explained why it was committed at all. It is true that the dishonored checks were, as the Court of Appeals put it, "eventually" paid. However, this took almost a month when, properly, the checks should have been paid immediately upon presentment. As the Court sees it, the initial carelessness of the respondent bank, aggravated by the lack of promptitude in repairing its error, justifies the grant of moral damages. This rather lackadaisical attitude toward the complaining depositor constituted the
18

gross negligence, if not wanton bad faith, that the respondent court said had not been established by the petitioner. We also note that while stressing the rectification made by the respondent bank, the decision practically ignored the prejudice suffered by the petitioner. This was simply glossed over if not, indeed, disbelieved. The fact is that the petitioner's credit line was canceled and its orders were not acted upon pending receipt of actual payment by the suppliers. Its business declined. Its reputation was tarnished. Its standing was reduced in the business community. All this was due to the fault of the respondent bank which was undeniably remiss in its duty to the petitioner. Article 2205 of the Civil Code provides that actual or compensatory damages may be received "(2) for injury to the plaintiff s business standing or commercial credit." There is no question that the petitioner did sustain actual injury as a result of the dishonored checks and that the existence of the loss having been established 7 "absolute certainty as to its amount is not required." Such injury should bolster all the more the demand of the petitioner for moral damages and justifies the examination by this Court of the validity and reasonableness of the said claim. We agree that moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to 8 compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he may have suffered. In the case at bar, the petitioner is seeking such damages for the prejudice sustained by it as a result of the private respondent's fault. The respondent court said that the claimed losses are purely speculative and are not supported by substantial evidence, but if failed to consider that the amount of such losses need not be established with exactitude precisely because of their nature. Moral damages are not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. Article 2216 of the Civil Code specifically provides that "no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated." That is why the determination of the amount to be awarded (except liquidated damages) is left to the sound discretion of the court, according to "the circumstances of each case." From every viewpoint except that of the petitioner's, its claim of moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00 is nothing short of preposterous. Its business certainly is not that big, or its name that prestigious, to sustain such an extravagant pretense. Moreover, a corporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is 9 debased, resulting in its social humiliation. We shall recognize that the petitioner did suffer injury because of the private respondent's negligence that caused the dishonor of the checks issued by it. The immediate consequence was that its prestige was impaired because of the bouncing checks and confidence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished. The private respondent makes much of the one instance when the petitioner was sued in a collection case, but that did not prove that it did not have a good reputation 10 that could not be marred, more so since that case was ultimately settled. It does not appear that, as the private respondent would portray it, the petitioner is an unsavory and disreputable entity that has no good name to protect. Considering all this, we feel that the award of nominal damages in the sum of P20,000.00 was not the proper relief to which the petitioner was entitled. Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, "nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him." As we have found that the petitioner has indeed incurred loss through the fault of the private respondent, the proper remedy is the award to it of moral damages, which we impose, in our discretion, in the same amount of P20,000.00. Now for the exemplary damages. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code are the following: Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
19

The banking system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized nation. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence. Thus, even the humble wage-earner has not hesitated to entrust his life's savings to the bank of his choice, knowing that they will be safe in its custody and will even earn some interest for him. The ordinary person, with equal faith, usually maintains a modest checking account for security and convenience in the settling of his monthly bills and the payment of ordinary expenses. As for business entities like the petitioner, the bank is a trusted and active associate that can help in the running of their affairs, not only in the form of loans when needed but more often in the conduct of their day-to-day transactions like the issuance or encashment of checks. In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not a little embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation. The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In the case at bar, it is obvious that the respondent bank was remiss in that duty and violated that relationship. What is especially deplorable is that, having been informed of its error in not crediting the deposit in question to the petitioner, the respondent bank did not immediately correct it but did so only one week later or twenty-three days after the deposit was made. It bears repeating that the record does not contain any satisfactory explanation of why the error was made in the first place and why it was not corrected immediately after its discovery. Such ineptness comes under the concept of the wanton manner contemplated in the Civil Code that calls for the imposition of exemplary damages. After deliberating on this particular matter, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, hereby imposes upon the respondent bank exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00, "by way of example or correction for the public good," in the words of the law. It is expected that this ruling will serve as a warning and deterrent against the repetition of the ineptness and indefference that has been displayed here, lest the confidence of the public in the banking system be further impaired. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment is hereby MODIFIED and the private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner, in lieu of nominal damages, moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 plus the original award of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Gancayco, Grino-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 103576. August 22, 1996]
ACME SHOE, RUBBER & PLASTIC CORPORATION and CHUA PAC, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and REGIONAL SHERIFF OF CALOOCAN CITY, respondents. DECISION VITUG, J.: Would it be valid and effective to have a clause in a chattel mortgage that purports to likewise extend its coverage to obligations yet to be contracted or
20

incurred? This question is the core issue in the instant petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner Chua Pac, the president and general manager of co-petitioner "Acme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corporation," executed on 27 June 1978, for and in behalf of the company, a chattel mortgage in favor of private respondent Producers Bank of the Philippines. The mortgage stood by way of security for petitioner's corporate loan of three million pesos (P3,000,000.00). A provision in the chattel mortgage agreement was to this effect "(c) If the MORTGAGOR, his heirs, executors or administrators shall well and truly perform the full obligation or obligations above-stated according to the terms thereof, then this mortgage shall be null and void. x x x. "In case the MORTGAGOR executes subsequent promissory note or notes either as a renewal of the former note, as an extension thereof, or as a new loan, or is given any other kind of accommodations such as overdrafts, letters of credit, acceptances and bills of exchange, releases of import shipments on Trust Receipts, etc., this mortgage shall also stand as security for the payment of the said promissory note or notes and/or accommodations without the necessity of executing a new contract and this mortgage shall have the same force and effect as if the said promissory note or notes and/or accommodations were existing on the date thereof. This mortgage shall also stand as security for said obligations and any and all other obligations of the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE of whatever kind and nature, whether such obligations have been contracted before, during or after the [1] constitution of this mortgage." In due time, the loan of P3,000,000.00 was paid by petitioner corporation. Subsequently, in 1981, it obtained from respondent bank additional [2] financial accommodations totalling P2,700,000.00. These borrowings were on due date also fully paid. On 10 and 11 January 1984, the bank yet again extended to petitioner corporation a loan of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) covered by four promissory notes for P250,000.00 each. Due to financial constraints, the loan was not settled [3] at maturity. Respondent bank thereupon applied for an extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, hereinbefore cited, with the Sheriff of Caloocan City, prompting petitioner corporation to forthwith file an action for injunction, with damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Civil Case No. C-12081). Ultimately, the court dismissed the complaint and ordered the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. It held petitioner corporation bound by the stipulations, aforequoted, of the chattel mortgage. Petitioner corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on 14 August 1991, affirmed, "in all respects," the decision of the court a quo. The motion for reconsideration was denied on 24 January 1992. The instant petition interposed by petitioner corporation was initially denied on 04 March 1992 by this Court for having been insufficient in form and substance. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition while petitioner corporation filed a compliance and an opposition to private respondent's motion to dismiss. The Court denied petitioner's first motion for reconsideration but granted a second motion for reconsideration, thereby reinstating the petition [5] and requiring private respondent to comment thereon. Except in criminal cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death is [6] imposed which the Court so reviews as a matter of course, an appeal from judgments of lower courts is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. The circulars of the Court prescribing technical and other procedural requirements are meant to weed out unmeritorious petitions that can unnecessarily clog the docket and needlessly consume the time of the Court. These technical and procedural rules, however, are intended to help secure, not suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from the rigid enforcement of the rules may thus be allowed to attain the prime objective for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts. In this instance, once again, the Court is constrained to relax the rules in order to give way to and uphold the paramount and overriding interest of justice. Contracts of security are either personal or real. In contracts of personal security, such as a guaranty or a suretyship, the faithful performance of the obligation by the principal debtor is secured by the personal commitment of another (the guarantor or surety). In contracts of real security, such as a pledge, a mortgage or an antichresis, that fulfillment is secured by an encumbrance of property - in pledge, the placing of movable property in the possession of the creditor; in chattel mortgage, by the execution of the corresponding deed substantially in the form prescribed by law; in real estate mortgage, by the execution of a public instrument encumbering the real property covered thereby; and in antichresis, by a written instrument granting to the creditor the right to
[4]
21

receive the fruits of an immovable property with the obligation to apply such fruits to the payment of interest, if owing, and thereafter to the principal of his credit upon the essential condition that if the principal obligation becomes due and the debtor defaults, then the property encumbered can be alienated for the payment [7] of the obligation, but that should the obligation be duly paid, then the contract is [8] automatically extinguished proceeding from the accessory character of the agreement. As the law so puts it, once the obligation is complied with, then the [9] contract of security becomes, ipso facto, null and void. While a pledge, real estate mortgage, or antichresis may exceptionally secure after-incurred obligations so long as these future debts are accurately [10] described, a chattel mortgage, however, can only cover obligations existing at the time the mortgage is constituted. Although a promise expressed in a chattel mortgage to include debts that are yet to be contracted can be a binding commitment that can be compelled upon, the security itself, however, does not come into existence or arise until after a chattel mortgage agreement covering the newly contracted debt is executed either by concluding a fresh chattel mortgage or by amending the old contract conformably with the form prescribed by the Chattel [11] Mortgage Law. Refusal on the part of the borrower to execute the agreement so as to cover the after-incurred obligation can constitute an act of default on the part of the borrower of the financing agreement whereon the promise is written but, of course, the remedy of foreclosure can only cover the debts extant at the time of constitution and during the life of the chattel mortgage sought to be foreclosed. A chattel mortgage, as hereinbefore so intimated, must comply substantially with the form prescribed by the Chattel Mortgage Law itself. One of the requisites, under Section 5 thereof, is an affidavit of good faith. While it is not doubted that if such an affidavit is not appended to the agreement, the chattel mortgage would [12] still be valid between the parties (not against third persons acting in good faith ), the fact, however, that the statute has provided that the parties to the contract must execute an oath that "x x x (the) mortgage is made for the purpose of securing the obligation specified in the conditions thereof, and for no other purpose, and that the same is a just and [13] valid obligation, and one not entered into for the purpose of fraud." makes it obvious that the debt referred to in the law is a current, not an obligation that is yet merely contemplated. In the chattel mortgage here involved, the only obligation specified in the chattel mortgage contract was the P3,000,000.00 loan which petitioner corporation later fully paid. By virtue of Section 3 of the Chattel Mortgage Law, the payment of the obligation automatically rendered the chattel mortgage void or terminated. In Belgian Catholic Missionaries, Inc., vs. Magallanes [14] Press, Inc., et al., the Court said "x x x A mortgage that contains a stipulation in regard to future advances in the credit will take effect only from the date the same are made and not from the date [15] of the mortgage." The significance of the ruling to the instant problem would be that since the 1978 chattel mortgage had ceased to exist coincidentally with the full payment of the [16] P3,000,000.00 loan, there no longer was any chattel mortgage that could cover the new loans that were concluded thereafter. We find no merit in petitioner corporation's other prayer that the case should be remanded to the trial court for a specific finding on the amount of damages it has sustained "as a result of the unlawful action taken by respondent bank against [17] it." This prayer is not reflected in its complaint which has merely asked for the [18] amount of P3,000,000.00 by way of moral damages. In LBC Express, Inc. vs. Court [19] of Appeals, we have said: "Moral damages are granted in recompense for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. A corporation, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, has no feelings, no emotions, no senses; therefore, it cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. Mental suffering can be experienced only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real ills, sorrows, and griefs of life - all of which cannot be suffered [20] by respondent bank as an artificial person." While Chua Pac is included in the case, the complaint, however, clearly states that he has merely been so named as a party in representation of petitioner corporation. Petitioner corporation's counsel could be commended for his zeal in pursuing his client's cause. It instead turned out to be, however, a source of disappointment for this Court to read in petitioner's reply to private respondent's comment on the petition his so-called "One Final Word;" viz:
22

"In simply quoting in toto the patently erroneous decision of the trial court, respondent Court of Appeals should be required to justify its decision which completely disregarded the basic laws on obligations and contracts, as well as the clear provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law and well-settled jurisprudence of this Honorable Court; that in the event that its explanation is wholly unacceptable, this Honorable Court should impose appropriate sanctions on the erring justices. This is one positive step in ridding our courts of law of incompetent and dishonest magistrates especially members of a superior court of appellate [21] jurisdiction." (Italics supplied.) The statement is not called for. The Court invites counsel's attention to the [22] admonition in Guerrero vs. Villamor; thus: "(L)awyers x x x should bear in mind their basic duty `to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and x x x (to) insist on similar conduct by others.' This respectful attitude towards the court is to be observed, `not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.' And it is `through a scrupulous preference for respectful language that a lawyer best demonstrates his observance [23] of the respect due to the courts and judicial officers x x x.'" The virtues of humility and of respect and concern for others must still live on even in an age of materialism. WHEREFORE, the questioned decisions of the appellate court and the lower court are set aside without prejudice to the appropriate legal recourse by private respondent as may still be warranted as an unsecured creditor. No costs. Atty. Francisco R. Sotto, counsel for petitioners, is admonished to be circumspect in dealing with the courts. SO ORDERED. Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. Padilla, J., took no part in view of lessor-lessee relationship with respondent bank. Bellosillo, J., on leave. SECOND DIVISION BELLOSILLO, J.: This is rather a simple case for specific performance with damages which could have been resolved through mediation and conciliation during its infancy stage had the parties been earnest in expediting the disposal of this case. They opted however to resort to full court proceedings and denied themselves the benefits of alternative dispute resolution, thus making the process more arduous and long-drawn. The controversy started in 1992 at the height of the power crisis which the country was then experiencing. To remedy and curtail further losses due to the series of power failures, petitioner PURE FOODS CORPORATION (hereafter PUREFOODS) decided to install two (2) 1500 KW generators in its food processing plant in San Roque, Marikina City. Sometime in November 1992 a bidding for the supply and installation of the generators was held. Several suppliers and dealers were invited to attend a prebidding conference to discuss the conditions, propose scheme and specifications that would best suit the needs of PUREFOODS. Out of the eight (8) prospective bidders who attended the pre-bidding conference, only three (3) bidders, namely, respondent FAR EAST MILLS SUPPLY CORPORATION (hereafter FEMSCO), MONARK and ADVANCE POWER submitted bid proposals and gave bid bonds equivalent to 5% of their respective bids, as required. Thereafter, in a letter dated 12 December 1992 addressed to FEMSCO President Alfonso Po, PUREFOODS confirmed the award of the contract to FEMSCO [G.R. No. 128066. June 19, 2000] JARDINE DAVIES INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FAR EAST MILLS SUPPLY CORPORATION, respondents. [G.R. No. 128069 June 19, 2000] PURE FOODS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FAR EAST MILLS SUPPLY CORPORATION, respondents. DECISION
23

Gentlemen: This will confirm that Pure Foods Corporation has awarded to your firm the project: Supply and Installation of two (2) units of 1500 KW/unit Generator Sets at the Processed Meats Plant, Bo. San Roque, Marikina, based on your proposal number PC 28-92 dated November 20, 1992, subject to the following basic terms and conditions: 1. Lump sum contract of P6,137,293.00 (VAT included), for the supply of materials and labor for the local portion and the labor for the imported materials, payable by progress billing twice a month, with ten percent (10%) retention. The retained amount shall be released thirty (30) days after acceptance of the completed project and upon posting of Guarantee Bond in an amount equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the contract price. The Guarantee Bond shall be valid for one (1) year from completion and acceptance of project. The contract price includes future increase/s in costs of materials and labor; 2. The project shall be undertaken pursuant to the attached specifications. It is understood that any item required to complete the project, and those not included in the list of items shall be deemed included and covered and shall be performed; 3. All materials shall be brand new; 4. The project shall commence immediately and must be completed within twenty (20) working days after the delivery of Generator Set to Marikina Plant, penalty equivalent to 1/10 of 1% of the purchase price for every day of delay; 5. The Contractor shall put up Performance Bond equivalent to thirty (30%) of the contract price, and shall procure All Risk Insurance equivalent to the contract price upon commencement of the project. The All Risk Insurance Policy shall be endorsed in favor of and shall be delivered to Pure Foods Corporation; 6. Warranty of one (1) year against defective material and/or workmanship. Once finalized, we shall ask you to sign the formal contract embodying the foregoing terms and conditions. Immediately, FEMSCO submitted the required performance bond in the amount of P1,841,187.90 and contractors all-risk insurance policy in the amount of P6,137,293.00 which PUREFOODS through its Vice President Benedicto G. Tope acknowledged in a letter dated 18 December 1992. FEMSCO also made arrangements with its principal and started the PUREFOODS project by purchasing the necessary materials. PUREFOODS on the other hand returned FEMSCOs Bidders Bond in the amount of P1,000,000.00, as requested. Later, however, in a letter dated 22 December 1992, PUREFOODS through its Senior Vice President Teodoro L. Dimayuga unilaterally canceled the award as "significant factors were uncovered and brought to (their) attention which dictate (the) cancellation and warrant a total review and re-bid of (the) project." Consequently, FEMSCO protested the cancellation of the award and sought a meeting with PUREFOODS. However, on 26 March 1993, before the matter could be resolved, PUREFOODS already awarded the project and entered into a contract with JARDINE NELL, a division of Jardine Davies, Inc. (hereafter JARDINE), which incidentally was not one of the bidders. FEMSCO thus wrote PUREFOODS to honor its contract with the former, and to JARDINE to cease and desist from delivering and installing the two (2) generators at PUREFOODS. Its demand letters unheeded, FEMSCO sued both PUREFOODS and JARDINE: PUREFOODS for reneging on its contract, and JARDINE for its unwarranted interference and inducement. Trial ensued. After FEMSCO presented its evidence, JARDINE filed a Demurrer to Evidence. On 27 June 1994 the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Br. 68, granted JARDINEs Demurrer to Evidence. The trial court concluded that "[w]hile it may seem to the plaintiff that by the actions of the two defendants there is something underhanded going on, this is all a matter of perception, and unsupported by hard evidence, mere suspicions and suppositions would not stand up very well in a court [2] of law." Meanwhile trial proceeded as regards the case against PUREFOODS.
[1]
24

On 28 July 1994 the trial court rendered a decision ordering PUREFOODS: (a) to indemnify FEMSCO the sum of P2,300,000.00 representing the value of engineering services it rendered; (b) to pay FEMSCO the sum of US$14,000.00 or its peso equivalent, and P900,000.00 representing contractor's mark-up on installation work, considering that it would be impossible to compel PUREFOODS to honor, perform and fulfill its contractual obligations in view of PUREFOOD's contract with JARDINE and noting that construction had already started thereon; (c) to pay attorneys fees in an amount equivalent to 20% of the total amount due; and, (d) to pay the costs. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim filed by PUREFOODS for lack of factual and legal basis. Both FEMSCO and PUREFOODS appealed to the Court of Appeals. FEMSCO appealed the 27 June 1994 Resolution of the trial court which granted the Demurrer to Evidence filed by JARDINE resulting in the dismissal of the complaint against it, while PUREFOODS appealed the 28 July 1994 Decision of the same court which ordered it to pay FEMSCO. On 14 August 1996 the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 28 July 1994 Decision [3] of the trial court. It also reversed the 27 June 1994 Resolution of the lower court and ordered JARDINE to pay FEMSCO damages for inducing PUREFOODS to violate the latters contract with FEMSCO. As such, JARDINE was ordered to pay FEMSCO P2,000,000.00 for moral damages. In addition, PUREFOODS was also directed to pay FEMSCO P2,000,000.00 as moral damages and P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages as well as 20% of the total amount due as attorney's fees. On 31 January 1997 the Court of Appeals denied for lack of merit the separate motions for reconsideration filed by PUREFOODS and JARDINE. Hence, these two (2) petitions for review filed by PUREFOODS and JARDINE which were subsequently consolidated. PUREFOODS maintains that the conclusions of both the trial court and the appellate court are premised on a misapprehension of facts. It argues that its 12 December 1992 letter to FEMSCO was not an acceptance of the latter's bid proposal and award of the project but more of a qualified acceptance constituting a counter-offer which required FEMSCO's express conforme. Since PUREFOODS never received FEMSCOs conforme, PUREFOODS was very well within reason to revoke its qualified acceptance or counter-offer. Hence, no contract was perfected between PUREFOODS and FEMSCO. PUREFOODS also contends that it was never in bad faith when it dealt with FEMSCO. Hence moral and exemplary damages should not have been awarded. Corollarily, JARDINE asserts that the records are bereft of any showing that it had prior knowledge of the supposed contract between PUREFOODS and FEMSCO, and that it induced PUREFOODS to violate the latters alleged contract with FEMSCO. Moreover, JARDINE reasons that FEMSCO, an artificial person, is not entitled to moral damages. But granting arguendo that the award of moral damages is proper, P2,000,000.00 is extremely excessive. In the main, these consolidated cases present two (2) issues: first, whether there existed a perfected contract between PUREFOODS and FEMSCO; and second, granting there existed a perfected contract, whether there is any showing that JARDINE induced or connived with PUREFOODS to violate the latter's contract with FEMSCO. A contract is defined as "a juridical convention manifested in legal form, by virtue of which one or more persons bind themselves in favor of another or others, or [4] reciprocally, to the fulfillment of a prestation to give, to do, or not to do." There can be no contract unless the following requisites concur: (a) consent of the contracting parties; (b) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; [5] and, (c) cause of the obligation which is established. A contract binds both contracting parties and has the force of law between them. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, upon the acceptance by the offeree of the offer made by the offeror. From that moment, the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, [6] usage and law. To produce a contract, the acceptance must not qualify the terms [7] of the offer. However, the acceptance may be express or implied. For a contract to arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror. Accordingly, the acceptance can be withdrawn or revoked before it is made known to the offeror. In the instant case, there is no issue as regards the subject matter of the contract and the cause of the obligation. The controversy lies in the consent - whether there
25

was an acceptance of the offer, and if so, if it was communicated, thereby perfecting the contract. To resolve the dispute, there is a need to determine what constituted the offer and the acceptance. Since petitioner PUREFOODS started the process of entering into the contract by conducting a bidding, Art. 1326 of the Civil Code, which provides that "[a]dvertisements for bidders are simply invitations to make proposals," applies. Accordingly, the Terms and Conditions of the Biddingdisseminated by petitioner PUREFOODS constitutes the "advertisement" to bid on the project. The bid proposals or quotations submitted by the prospective suppliers including respondent FEMSCO, are the offers. And, the reply of petitioner PUREFOODS, the acceptance or rejection of the respective offers. Quite obviously, the 12 December 1992 letter of petitioner PUREFOODS to FEMSCO constituted acceptance of respondent FEMSCOs offer as contemplated by law. The tenor of the letter, i.e.,"This will confirm that Pure Foods has awarded to your firm (FEMSCO) the project," could not be more categorical. While the same letter enumerated certain "basic terms and conditions," these conditions were imposed on the performance of the obligation rather than on the perfection of the contract. Thus, the first "condition" was merely a reiteration of the contract price and billing scheme based on the Terms and Conditions of Bidding and the bid or previous offer of respondent FEMSCO. The second and third "conditions" were nothing more than general statements that all items and materials including those excluded in the list but necessary to complete the project shall be deemed included and should be brand new. The fourth "condition" concerned the completion of the work to be done, i.e., within twenty (20) days from the delivery of the generator set, the purchase of which was part of the contract. The fifth "condition" had to do with the putting up of a performance bond and an all-risk insurance, both of which should be given upon commencement of the project. The sixth "condition" related to the standard warranty of one (1) year. In fine, the enumerated "basic terms and conditions" were prescriptions on how the obligation was to be performed and implemented. They were far from being conditions imposed on the perfection of the contract. In Babasa v. Court of Appeals we distinguished between a condition imposed on the perfection of a contract and a condition imposed merely on the performance of an obligation. While failure to comply with the first condition results in the failure
[8]
of a contract, failure to comply with the second merely gives the other party options and/or remedies to protect his interests. We thus agree with the conclusion of respondent appellate court which affirmed the trial court As can be inferred from the actual phrase used in the first portion of the letter, the decision to award the contract has already been made. The letter only serves as a confirmation of such decision. Hence, to the Courts mind, there is already an acceptance made of the offer received by Purefoods. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions enumerated therein, the offer has been accepted and/or amplified the details of the terms and conditions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Bidding given out by [9] Purefoods to prospective bidders. But even granting arguendo that the 12 December 1992 letter of petitioner PUREFOODS constituted a "conditional counter-offer," respondent FEMCO's submission of the performance bond and contractor's all-risk insurance was an implied acceptance, if not a clear indication of its acquiescence to, the "conditional counter-offer," which expressly stated that the performance bond and the contractor's all-risk insurance should be given upon the commencement of the contract. Corollarily, the acknowledgment thereof by petitioner PUREFOODS, not to mention its return of FEMSCO's bidder's bond, was a concrete manifestation of its knowledge that respondent FEMSCO indeed consented to the "conditional counteroffer." After all, as earlier adverted to, an acceptance may either be express or [10] implied, and this can be inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties. Accordingly, for all intents and purposes, the contract at that point has been perfected, and respondent FEMSCO's conforme would only be a mere surplusage. The discussion of the price of the project two (2) months after the 12 December 1992 letter can be deemed as nothing more than a pressure being exerted by petitioner PUREFOODS on respondent FEMSCO to lower the price even after the contract had been perfected. Indeed from the facts, it can easily be surmised that petitioner PUREFOODS was haggling for a lower price even after agreeing to the earlier quotation, and was threatening to unilaterally cancel the contract, which it
26

eventually did. Petitioner PUREFOODS also makes an issue out of the absence of a purchase order (PO). Suffice it to say that purchase orders or POs do not make or break a contract. Thus, even the tenor of the subsequent letter of petitioner PUREFOODS, i.e., "Pure Foods Corporation is hereby canceling the award to your company of the project," presupposes that the contract has been perfected. For, there can be no cancellation if the contract was not perfected in the first place. Petitioner PUREFOODS also argues that it was never in bad faith. On the contrary, it believed in good faith that no such contract was perfected. We are not convinced. We subscribe to the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court which were affirmed by the appellate court Hence, by the unilateral cancellation of the contract, the defendant (petitioner PURE FOODS) has acted with bad faith and this was further aggravated by the subsequent inking of a contract between defendant Purefoods and erstwhile co-defendant Jardine. It is very evident that Purefoods thought that by the expedient means of merely writing a letter would automatically cancel or nullify the existing contract entered into by both parties after a process of bidding. This, to the Courts mind, is a flagrant violation of the express provisions of the law and is contrary to [11] fair and just dealings to which every man is due. This Court has awarded in the past moral damages to a corporation whose [12] reputation has been besmirched. In the instant case, respondent FEMSCO has sufficiently shown that its reputation was tarnished after it immediately ordered equipment from its suppliers on account of the urgency of the project, only to be canceled later. We thus sustain respondent appellate court's award of moral damages. We however reduce the award from P2,000,000.00 to P1,000,000.00, as moral damages are never intended to enrich the recipient. Likewise, the award of exemplary damages by way of example for the public good is excessive and should be reduced to P100,000.00. Petitioner JARDINE maintains on the other hand that respondent appellate court erred in ordering it to pay moral damages to respondent FEMSCO as it supposedly induced PUREFOODS to violate the contract with FEMSCO. We agree. While it may seem that petitioners PUREFOODS and JARDINE connived to deceive respondent FEMSCO, we find no specific evidence on record to support such perception. Likewise, there is no showing whatsoever that petitioner JARDINE induced petitioner PUREFOODS. The similarity in the design submitted to petitioner PUREFOODS by both petitioner JARDINE and respondent FEMSCO, and the tender of a lower quotation by petitioner JARDINE are insufficient to show that petitioner JARDINE indeed induced petitioner PUREFOODS to violate its contract with respondent FEMSCO. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: (a) The petition in G.R. No. 128066 is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the 27 June 1994 resolution of the trial court and ordering petitioner JARDINE DAVIES, INC., to pay private respondent FAR EAST MILLS SUPPLY CORPORATION P2,000,000.00 as moral damages is REVERSED and SET ASIDE for insufficiency of evidence; and (b) The petition in G.R. No. 128069 is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals ordering petitioner PURE FOODS CORPORATION to pay private respondent FAR EAST MILLS SUPPLY CORPORATION the sum of P2,300,000.00 representing the value of engineering services it rendered, US$14,000.00 or its peso equivalent, and P900,000.00 representing the contractor's mark-up on installation work, as well as attorney's fees equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the total amount due, is AFFIRMED. In addtion, petitioner PURE FOODS CORPORATION is ordered to pay private respondent FAR EAST MILLS SUPPLY CORPORATION moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount ofP1,000,000.00. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 141994. January 17, 2005]
27

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs. AGO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, (AMECBCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO, respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This petition for review assails the 4 January 1999 Decision and 26 January 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40151. The Court of [3] Appeals affirmed with modification the 14 December 1992 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 10, in Civil Case No. 8236. The Court of Appeals held Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. and its broadcasters Hermogenes Alegre and Carmelo Rima liable for libel and ordered them to solidarily pay Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine moral damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit. The Antecedents Expos is a radio documentary program hosted by Carmelo Mel Rima [5] (Rima) and Hermogenes Jun Alegre (Alegre). Expos is aired every morning over DZRC-AM which is owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI). Expos is heard over Legazpi City, the Albay municipalities and other Bicol [6] areas. In the morning of 14 and 15 December 1989, Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged complaints from students, teachers and parents against Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC) and its administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, AMEC and Angelita Ago (Ago), as Dean of AMECs College of Medicine, filed a complaint for [7] damages against FBNI, Rima and Alegre on 27 February 1990. Quoted are portions of the allegedly libelous broadcasts: JUN ALEGRE:
[4] [1] [2]
Let us begin with the less burdensome: if you have children taking medical course at AMEC-BCCM, advise them to pass all subjects because if they fail in any subject they will repeat their year level, taking up all subjects including those they have passed already. Several students had approached me stating that they had consulted with the DECS which told them that there is no such regulation. If [there] is no such regulation why is AMEC doing the same? xxx Second: Earlier AMEC students in Physical Therapy had complained that the course is not recognized by DECS. xxx Third: Students are required to take and pay for the subject even if the subject does not have an instructor - such greed for money on the part of AMECs administration. Take the subject Anatomy: students would pay for the subject upon enrolment because it is offered by the school. However there would be no instructor for such subject. Students would be informed that course would be moved to a later date because the school is still searching for the appropriate instructor. xxx It is a public knowledge that the Ago Medical and Educational Center has survived and has been surviving for the past few years since its inception because of funds support from foreign foundations. If you will take a look at the AMEC premises youll find out that the names of the buildings there are foreign soundings. There is a McDonald Hall. Why not Jose Rizal or Bonifacio Hall? That is a very concrete and undeniable evidence that the support of foreign foundations for AMEC is substantial, isnt it? With the report which is the basis of the expose in DZRC today, it would be very easy for detractors and enemies of the Ago family to stop the flow of support of foreign foundations who assist the medical school on the basis of the latters purpose. But if the purpose of the institution (AMEC) is to deceive students at cross purpose with its reason for being it is possible for these foreign foundations [8] to lift or suspend their donations temporarily. xxx
28

On the other hand, the administrators of AMEC-BCCM, AMEC Science High School and the AMEC-Institute of Mass Communication in their effort to minimize expenses in terms of salary are absorbing or continues to accept rejects. For example how many teachers in AMEC are former teachers of Aquinas University but were removed because of immorality? Does it mean that the present administration of AMEC have the total definite moral foundation from catholic administrator of Aquinas University. I will prove to you my friends, that AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage, not merely of moral and physical misfits . Probably they only qualify in terms of intellect. The Dean of Student Affairs of AMEC is Justita Lola, as the family name implies. She is too old to work, being an old woman. Is the AMEC administration exploiting the very [e]nterprising or compromising and undemanding Lola? Could it be that AMEC is just patiently making use of Dean Justita Lola were if she is very old. As in atmospheric situation zero visibility the plane cannot land, meaning she is very old, low pay follows. By the way, Dean Justita Lola is also the chairman of the committee on scholarship in AMEC. She had retired from Bicol University a long time ago but AMEC has patiently made use of her. xxx MEL RIMA: xxx My friends based on the expose, AMEC is a dumping ground for moral and physically misfit people. What does this mean? Immoral and physically misfits as teachers. May I say Im sorry to Dean Justita Lola. But this is the truth. The truth is this, that your are no longer fit to teach. You are too old. As an aviation, your case is zero visibility. Dont insist. xxx Why did AMEC still absorb her as a teacher, a dean, and chairman of the scholarship committee at that. The reason is practical cost saving in salaries, because an old person is not fastidious, so long as she has money to buy the ingredient of beetle juice. The elderly can get by thats why she (Lola) was taken in as Dean. xxx xxx On our end our task is to attend to the interests of students. It is likely that the students would be influenced by evil. When they become members of society outside of campus will be liabilities rather than assets. What do you expect from a doctor who while studying at AMEC is so much burdened with unreasonable imposition? What do you expect from a student who aside from peculiar problems because not all students are rich in their struggle to improve their social status [9] are even more burdened with false regulations. xxx (Emphasis supplied) The complaint further alleged that AMEC is a reputable learning institution. With the supposed exposs, FBNI, Rima and Alegre transmitted malicious imputations, and as such, destroyed plaintiffs (AMEC and Ago) reputation. AMEC and Ago included FBNI as defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. On 18 June 1990, FBNI, Rima and Alegre, through Atty. Rozil Lozares, filed an [10] Answer alleging that the broadcasts against AMEC were fair and true. FBNI, Rima and Alegre claimed that they were plainly impelled by a sense of public duty to report the goings-on in AMEC, [which is] an institution imbued with public interest. Thereafter, trial ensued. During the presentation of the evidence for the defense, Atty. Edmundo Cea, collaborating counsel of Atty. Lozares, filed a Motion [11] to Dismiss on FBNIs behalf. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Consequently, FBNI filed a separate Answer claiming that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Rima and Alegre. FBNI claimed that before hiring a broadcaster, the broadcaster should (1) file an application; (2) be interviewed; and (3) undergo an apprenticeship and training program after passing the interview. FBNI likewise claimed that it always reminds its broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and objectivity in their broadcasts and to refrain from using libelous and indecent language. Moreover, FBNI requires all broadcasters to pass the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) accreditation test and to secure a KBP permit. On 14 December 1992, the trial court rendered a Decision finding FBNI and Alegre liable for libel except Rima. The trial court held that the broadcasts are libelous per se. The trial court rejected the broadcasters claim that their utterances were the result of straight reporting because it had no factual basis. The broadcasters did not even verify their reports before airing them to show good
[12]
29

faith. In holding FBNI liable for libel, the trial court found that FBNI failed to exercise diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In absolving Rima from the charge, the trial court ruled that Rimas only participation was when he agreed with Alegres expos. The trial court found Rimas statement within the bounds of freedom of speech, expression, and of the press. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds for the plaintiff. Considering the degree of damages caused by the controversial utterances, which are not found by this court to be really very serious and damaging, and there being no showing that indeed the enrollment of plaintiff school dropped, defendants Hermogenes Jun Alegre, Jr. and Filipinas Broadcasting Network (owner of the radio station DZRC), are hereby jointly and severally ordered to pay plaintiff Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM) the amount of P300,000.00 moral damages, plus P30,000.00 reimbursement of attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.
[13]
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals upheld the trial courts ruling that the questioned broadcasts are libelous per se and that FBNI, Rima and Alegre failed to overcome the legal presumption of malice. The Court of Appeals found Rima and Alegres claim that they were actuated by their moral and social duty to inform the public of the students gripes as insufficient to justify the utterance of the defamatory remarks. Finding no factual basis for the imputations ag ainst AMECs administrators, the Court of Appeals ruled that the broadcasts were made with reckless disregard as to whether they were true or false. The appellate court pointed out that FBNI, Rima and Alegre failed to present in court any of the students who allegedly complained against AMEC. Rima and Alegre merely gave a single name when asked to identify the students. According to the Court of Appeals, these circumstances cast doubt on the veracity of the broadcasters claim that they were impelled b y their moral and social duty to inform the public about the students gripes. The Court of Appeals found Rima also liable for libel since he remarked that (1) AMEC-BCCM is a dumping ground for morally and physically misfit teachers; (2) AMEC obtained the services of Dean Justita Lola to minimize expenses on its employees salaries; and (3) AMEC burdened the students with unreasonable [16] imposition and false regulations. The Court of Appeals held that FBNI failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees for allowing Rima and Alegre to make the radio broadcasts without the proper KBP accreditation. The Court of Appeals denied Agos claim for damages and attorneys fees because the libelous remarks were directed against AMEC, and not against her. The Court of Appeals adjudged FBNI, Rima and Alegre solidarily liable to pay AMEC moral damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit. Issues FBNI raises the following issues for resolution: I. WHETHER THE BROADCASTS ARE LIBELOUS;
(Emphasis supplied)
Both parties, namely, FBNI, Rima and Alegre, on one hand, and AMEC and Ago, on the other, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment with modification. The appellate court made Rima solidarily liable with FBNI and Alegre. The appellate court denied Agos claim for damages and attorneys fees because the broadcasts were directed against AMEC, and not against her. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that broadcaster Mel Rima is SOLIDARILY ADJUDGED liable with FBN[I] and Hermo[g]enes Alegre. SO ORDERED.
[14]
FBNI, Rima and Alegre filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its 26 January 2000 Resolution. Hence, FBNI filed this petition.
[15]
30

II. III. IV. WHETHER AMEC IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES; WHETHER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES IS PROPER; and WHETHER FBNI IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH RIMA AND ALEGRE FOR PAYMENT OF MORAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT. The Courts Ruling physical misfits; and AMEC students who graduate will be liabilities rather than assets of the society are libelous per se. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest that AMEC is a money-making institution where physically and morally unfit teachers abound. However, FBNI contends that the broadcasts are not malicious. FBNI claims that Rima and Alegre were plainly impelled by their civic duty to air the students gripes. FBNI alleges that there is no evidence that ill will or spite motivated Rima and Alegre in making the broadcasts. FBNI further points out that Rima and Alegre exerted efforts to obtain AMECs side and gave Ago the opportunity to defend AMEC and its administrators. FBNI concludes that since there is no malice, there is no libel. FBNIs contentions are untenable. Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious. Rima and Alegre failed to show adequately their good intention and justifiable motive in airing the supposed gripes of the students. As hosts of a documentary or public affairs program, Rima and Alegre should have presented the public issues free [26] from inaccurate and misleading information. Hearing the students alleged [27] complaints a month before the expos, they had sufficient time to verify their sources and information. However, Rima and Alegre hardly made a thorough investigation of the students alleged gripes. Neither did they inquire about nor confirm the purported irregularities in AMEC from the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Alegre testified that he merely went to AMEC to verify his report from an alleged AMEC official who refused to disclose any information. Alegre simply relied on the words of the students because they were many and not [28] because there is proof that what they are saying is true. This plainly shows Rima and Alegres reckless disregard of whether their report was true or not. Contrary to FBNIs claim, the broadcasts were not the result of straight reporting. Significantly, some courts in the United States apply the privilege of neutral reportage in libel cases involving matters of public interest or public figures. Under this privilege, a republisher who accurately and disinterestedly reports certain defamatory statements made against public figures is shielded from liability, regardless of the republishers subjectiv e awareness of the truth or falsity [29] of the accusation. Rima and Alegre cannot invoke the privilege of neutral reportage because unfounded comments abound in the broadcasts. Moreover, there is no existing controversy involving AMEC when the broadcasts were made. The privilege of neutral reportage applies where the defamed person is a public
[25]
We deny the petition. This is a civil action for damages as a result of the allegedly defamatory [17] remarks of Rima and Alegre against AMEC. While AMEC did not point out clearly the legal basis for its complaint, a reading of the complaint reveals that AMECs cause of action is based on Articles 30 and 33 of the Civil Code. Article [18] 30 authorizes a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a [19] criminal offense. On the other hand, Article 33 particularly provides that the injured party may bring a separate civil action for damages in cases of defamation, [20] fraud, and physical injuries. AMEC also invokes Article 19 of the Civil Code to [21] [22] justify its claim for damages. AMEC cites Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code to hold FBNI solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre. I. Whether the broadcasts are libelous A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act or omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to [24] blacken the memory of one who is dead. There is no question that the broadcasts were made public and imputed to AMEC defects or circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt. Rima and Alegres remarks such as greed for money on the part of AMECs administrators; AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage of xxx moral and
[23]
31

figure who is involved in an existing controversy, and a party to that controversy [30] makes the defamatory statement. However, FBNI argues vigorously that malice in law does not apply to this [31] case. Citing Borjal v. Court of Appeals, FBNI contends that the broadcasts fall within the coverage of qualifiedly privileged communications for being commentaries on matters of public interest. Such being the case, AMEC should prove malice in fact or actual malice. Since AMEC allegedly failed to prove actual malice, there is no libel. FBNIs reliance on Borjal is misplaced. In Borjal, the Court elucidated on the doctrine of fair comment, thus: [F]air commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the [32] facts. (Emphasis supplied) True, AMEC is a private learning institution whose business of educating students is genuinely imbued with public interest. The welfare of the youth in general and AMECs students in particular is a matter which the public has the right to know. Thus, similar to the newspaper articles in Borjal, the subject broadcasts dealt with matters of public interest. However, unlike inBorjal, the questioned broadcasts are not based on established facts. The record supports the following findings of the trial court: xxx Although defendants claim that they were motivated by consistent reports of students and parents against plaintiff, yet, defendants have not presented in court, nor even gave name of a single student who made the complaint to them, much less present written complaint or petition to that effect. To accept this defense of defendants is too dangerous because it could easily give license to the media to malign people and establishments based on flimsy excuses that there were reports to them although they could not satisfactorily establish it. Such laxity would encourage careless and irresponsible broadcasting which is inimical to public interests. Secondly, there is reason to believe that defendant radio broadcasters, contrary to the mandates of their duties, did not verify and analyze the truth of the reports before they aired it, in order to prove that they are in good faith. Alegre contended that plaintiff school had no permit and is not accredited to offer Physical Therapy courses. Yet, plaintiff produced a certificate coming from DECS that as of Sept. 22, 1987 or more than 2 years before the controversial broadcast, accreditation to offer Physical Therapy course had already been given the plaintiff, which certificate is signed by no less than the Secretary of Education and Culture herself, Lourdes R. Quisumbing (Exh. C-rebuttal). Defendants could have easily known this were they careful enough to verify. And yet, defendants were very categorical and sounded too positive when they made the erroneous report that plaintiff had no permit to offer Physical Therapy courses which they were offering. The allegation that plaintiff was getting tremendous aids from foreign foundations like Mcdonald Foundation prove not to be true also. The truth is there is no Mcdonald Foundation existing. Although a big building of plaintiff school was given the name Mcdonald building, that was only in order to honor the first missionary in Bicol of plaintiffs religion, as explained by Dr. Lita Ago. Contrary to the claim of defendants over the air, not a single centavo appears to be received by plaintiff school from the aforementioned McDonald Foundation which does not exist. Defendants did not even also bother to prove their claim, though denied by Dra. Ago, that when medical students fail in one subject, they are made to repeat all the other subject[s], even those they have already passed, nor their claim that the school charges laboratory fees even if there are no laboratories in the school. No evidence was presented to prove the bases for these claims, at least in order to give semblance of good faith. As for the allegation that plaintiff is the dumping ground for misfits, and immoral teachers, defendant[s] singled out Dean Justita Lola who is said to be so old, with
32

zero visibility already. Dean Lola testified in court last Jan. 21, 1991, and was found to be 75 years old. xxx Even older people prove to be effective teachers like Supreme Court Justices who are still very much in demand as law professors in their late years. Counsel for defendants is past 75 but is found by this court to be still very sharp and effective. So is plaintiffs counsel. Dr. Lola was observed by this court not to be physically decrepit yet, nor mentally infirmed, but is still alert and docile. The contention that plaintiffs graduates become liabilities rather than assets of our society is a mere conclusion. Being from the place himself, this court is aware that majority of the medical graduates of plaintiffs pass the board examination easily [33] and become prosperous and responsible professionals. Had the comments been an expression of opinion based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might [34] reasonably be inferred from the facts. However, the comments of Rima and Alegre were not backed up by facts. Therefore, the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous per se. The broadcasts also violate the Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, Ink. (Radio Code). Item I(B) of the Radio Code provides: B. PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PUBLIC ISSUES AND COMMENTARIES 1. 4. xxx Public affairs program shall present public issues free from personal bias, prejudice and inaccurate and misleading information. x x x Furthermore, the station shall strive to present balanced discussion of issues. x x x. FBNI contends that AMEC is not entitled to moral damages because it is a [39] corporation. A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as [40] wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The Court of [41] Appeals cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral damages. However, the Courts statement in Mambulaothat a corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of [42] moral damages is an obiter dictum. Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a
[43] [35]
8.
It shall be the responsibility of the newscaster, commentator, host and announcer to protect public interest, general welfare and good order in the presentation of public affairs and public [36] issues. (Emphasis supplied)
The broadcasts fail to meet the standards prescribed in the Radio Code, which lays down the code of ethical conduct governing practitioners in the radio broadcast industry. The Radio Code is a voluntary code of conduct imposed by the radio broadcast industry on its own members. The Radio Code is a public warranty by the radio broadcast industry that radio broadcast practitioners are subject to a code by which their conduct are measured for lapses, liability and sanctions. The public has a right to expect and demand that radio broadcast practitioners live up to the code of conduct of their profession, just like other professionals. A professional code of conduct provides the standards for determining whether a person has acted justly, honestly and with good faith in the exercise of his rights [37] and performance of his duties as required by Article 19 of the Civil Code. A professional code of conduct also provides the standards for determining whether a person who willfully causes loss or injury to another has acted in a manner contrary [38] to morals or good customs under Article 21 of the Civil Code. II. Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages
xxx 7. The station shall be responsible at all times in the supervision of public affairs, public issues and commentary programs so that they conform to the provisions and standards of this code.
33

juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain for libel or any other [44] form of defamation and claim for moral damages. Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implies [45] damages. In such a case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of character [46] or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of damages. Neither in such a case is the plaintiff required to introduce evidence of actual damages as a [47] condition precedent to the recovery of some damages. In this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. Thus, AMEC is entitled to moral damages. However, we find the award of P300,000 moral damages unreasonable. The record shows that even though the broadcasts were libelous per se, AMEC has not suffered any substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, we reduce the award of moral damages from P300,000 to P150,000. While it mentioned about the award of attorneys fees by stating that it lies within the discretion of the court and depends upon the circumstances of each case, the Court of Appeals failed to point out any circumstance to justify the award. IV. Whether FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre for moral damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit FBNI contends that it is not solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre for the payment of damages and attorneys fees because it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. FBNI maintains that its broadcasters, including Rima and Alegre, undergo a very regimented process before they are allowed to go on air. Those who apply for broadcaster are subjected to interviews, examinations and an apprenticeship program. FBNI further argues that Alegres age and lack of training are irrelevant to his competence as a broadcaster. FBNI points out that the minor deficiencies in the KBP accreditation of Rima and Alegre do not in any way prove that FBNI did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising them. Rimas accreditation lapsed due to his non-payment of the KBP annual fees while Alegres accreditation card was delayed allegedly for reasons attributable to the KBP Manila Office. FBNI claims that membership in the KBP is merely voluntary and not required by any law or government regulation. FBNIs arguments do not persuade us. The basis of the present action is a tort. Joint tort feasors are jointly and [52] severally liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tort feasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is [53] done, if done for their benefit. Thus, AMEC correctly anchored its cause of action against FBNI on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. As operator of DZRC-AM and employer of Rima and Alegre, FBNI is solidarily liable to pay for damages arising from the libelous broadcasts. As stated by the Court of Appeals, recovery for defamatory statements published by radio or
III. Whether the award of attorneys fees is proper FBNI contends that since AMEC is not entitled to moral damages, there is no basis for the award of attorneys fees. FBNI adds that the instant case does not fall [48] under the enumeration in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorneys fees is not proper because AMEC failed to justify satisfactorily its claim for attorneys fees. AMEC did not adduce evidence to warrant the award of attorneys fees. Moreover, both the trial and appellate courts failed to explicitly state in their respective decisions the rationale for the award of attorneys [49] [50] fees. In Inter-Asia Investment Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that: [I]t is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsels fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorneys fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason [51] for the award of attorneys fees. (Emphasis supplied)
34

television may be had from the owner of the station, a licensee, the operator of the station, or a person who procures, or participates in, the making of the [54] defamatory statements. An employer and employee are solidarily liable for a defamatory statement by the employee within the course and scope of his or her employment, at least when the employer authorizes or ratifies the [55] defamation. In this case, Rima and Alegre were clearly performing their official duties as hosts of FBNIs radio program Expos when they aired the broadcasts. FBNI neither alleged nor proved that Rima and Alegre went beyond the scope of their work at that time. There was likewise no showing that FBNI did not authorize and ratify the defamatory broadcasts. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence on record that FBNI exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. FBNI merely showed that it exercised diligence in the selection of its broadcasters without introducing any evidence to prove that it observed the same diligence in the supervision of Rima and Alegre. FBNI did not show how it exercised diligence in supervising its broadcasters. FBNIs alleged constant reminder to its broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and objectivity and t o refrain from using libelous and indecent language is not enough to prove due diligence in the supervision of its broadcasters. Adequate training of the broadcasters on the industrys code of conduct, sufficient information on libel laws, and continuous evaluation of the broadcasters performance are but a few of the many ways of showing diligence in the supervision of broadcasters. FBNI claims that it has taken all the precaution in the selection of Rima and Alegre as broadcasters, bearing in mind their qualifications. However, no clear and convincing evidence shows that Rima and Alegre underwent FBNIs regimented process of application. Furthermore, FBNI admits that Rima and Alegre had [56] deficiencies in their KBP accreditation, which is one of FBNIs requirements before it hires a broadcaster. Significantly, membership in the KBP, while voluntary, indicates the broadcasters strong commitment to observe the broadcast industrys rules and regulations. Clearly, these circumstances show FBNIs lack of diligence in selecting and supervising Rima and Alegre. Hence, FBNI is solidarily liable to pay damages together with Rima and Alegre. WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of 4 January 1999 and Resolution of 26 January 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40151 with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced from P300,000 to P150,000 and the award of attorneys fees is deleted. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119292. July 31, 1998]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, IMELDA COJUANGCO, THE ESTATE OF RAMON COJUANGCO represented by IMELDA COJUANGCO, and PRIME HOLDINGS, INC.,respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: Should a sequestration order be deemed invalid and automatically lifted on the grounds that (1) it was signed by only one PCGG Commissioner in contravention of the Presidential Commission on Good Government Rules and Regulations (PCGG Rules or simply Rules) requiring the authority of at least two commissioners; and in any event, (2) the PCGG failed, within the prescribed period, to institute or to implead or include private respondents in the proper judicial action, as required by the 1987 Constitution?
The Case The Sandiganbayan answered the foregoing question in the affirmative in two [1] [2] [3] Resolutions dated December 17, 1993, and August 29, 1994. Declared
35

automatically lifted in the earlier Resolution were the writs of sequestration that the PCGG had issued (a) against Prime Holdings, Inc. (PHI) and (b) over 111,415 shares of stock of the Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC) registered in the name of PHI. The later Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the PCGG. Disagreeing with the above rulings, the PCGG filed the instant petition for certiorari before us, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the antigraft court. An amended Complaint filed on April 23, 1990, included in Civil Case No. 0002 as additional parties-defendants herein Private Respondents Imelda Cojuangco, the estate of Ramon Cojuangco represented by its administratrix Imelda Cojuangco, and Prime Holdings, Inc. The amended complaint further alleged inter alia that these new defendants held shares of stock in PLDT, which in truth and in fact belong to defendants Ferdinand Marcos and his family. Three years later, on May 4, 1993, private respondents filed in Civil Case No. [8] 0002 a Motion seeking to declare the order of sequestration against PHI automatically lifted. In support of their Motion, private respondents cited (1) the non-observance by PCGG of its own rules and regulations requiring the authority of at least two commissioners for the issuance of sequestration orders; and (2) the failure of PCGG to file the appropriate judicial action within the period prescribed [9] under Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, or not later than 2 August 1987, since the sequestration order was issued on May 9, 1986, which was a date before the ratification of the Philippine Constitution on 2 February 1987. On December 20, 1993, the first assailed Resolution of public respondent, which granted the above-mentioned Motion, was promulgated. The sequestration orders against PHI and its shares of stock in PTIC were declared automatically lifted by the Sandiganbayan, which upheld the movants contentions in this wise: WHEREFORE, the Order of Sequestration dated May 9, 1986 directed (against) defendant Prime Holdings, Inc. and the Order dated May 9, 1986 sequestering 111,415 shares of stocks of Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation registered in the name of Prime Holdings, Inc. are hereby declared automatically [10] lifted pursuant to Section 26 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Philippines Constitution. Expectedly, PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Noting that petitioner raised no new issue or matter that might materially affect its findings in its previous [12] Resolution, public respondent denied said Motion for lack of merit. Hence, the [13] present recourse.
[11] [7]
The Facts The petition alleges that the PCGG issued the following communications, all [4] dated May 9, 1986: (1) an Order of Sequestration directed against all properties, [5] assets, records and documents of PHI; (2) another Order sequestering 111,415 shares of stock of PTIC registered in the books of PTIC in the name of PHI; and (3) a [6] letter addressed to Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako, advising the said law firm that the PCGG, in its session on May 2, 1986, resolved inter alia *t+o order the sequestration of all the shareholdings of PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. (PHI), which owns approximately 46% of PHILIPPINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INVESTMENT CORPORATION (PTIC), which in turn owns approximately 26% of PLDT [Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company+. The two Orders were signed solely by the late PCGG Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista, while the letter was signed by both Commissioner Bautista and then PCGG Commissioner Raul Daza. On July 16, 1987, petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan a Complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against Spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Spouses Imelda (Imee) and Tomas Manotoc, Spouses Irene and Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., Constante Rubio, Nemesio G. Co, Yeung Chun Kam, Yeung Chun Ho and Yeung Chun Fan. Said Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 0002, principally sought to recover from defendants their alleged ill-gotten wealth, consisting of funds and property which were manifestly out of proportion to their salaries and other lawful income, having been allegedly acquired during the incumbency of the Spouses Marcos as public officers. Among such properties mentioned in the Complaint were shares of stock in various corporations, including PTIC and PLDT, a list of which was annexed to the Complaint.
The Issues
36

Petitioner PCGG charges Respondent Sandiganbayan with grave abuse of discretion and act*ing+ without jurisdiction, viz.: I. In declaring the writs of sequestration as defective for not being authorized by at least two commissioners pursuant to Section 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations. II. In declaring the writs of sequestration to have been automatically lifted for alleged failure of petitioner to file the proper judicial action against private respondent corporation within the period fixed in Section 26 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. III. In applying the rulings in PCGG vs. International Copra Export Corp. (G.R. No. 92755, July 26, 1991) and Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (200 SCRA 530 [1991]) that the filing by petitioner of the judicial action against a stockholder is not the judicial action contemplated by the Constitution. IV. By misinterpreting or misapplying the ruling in Filmerco vs. IAC (149 SCRA 193 [1987]) as said ruling, being a mere obiter dictum, had not overturned the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction as held in a long line of decisions by this Honorable [14] Court. Simply stated, the principal issues being raised by petitioner are: (1) the validity of the sequestration orders against PHI and PHI-held shares in PTIC; and (2) the alleged failure of PCGG to file the proper judicial action as contemplated under Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. Before this Court, private respondents initially filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of laches, the petition having been filed only after six and a half months from petitioners receipt of the public respondents denial of its Motion for Reconsideration. They assert that this interval of time was clearly beyond the [16] reasonable period allowed under Rule 65 for filing a petition for certiorari. Prior to the amendment of the Rules of Court on July 1, 1997, we had ruled in several cases that three (3) months from receipt of the challenged decision, order or resolution was a reasonable period within which to institute [17] [18] a certiorari proceeding. Thus, in People vs. Magallanes, the lapse of nine to ten months before assailing a denial of bail was no longer considered
[15]
reasonable. Furthermore, in Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, where certiorari was sought after more than two years, we held that there was unreasonable delay in the filing of the petition. We also ruled that laches sets in after an interval of seven [20] [21] months or of ninety-nine days has passed since the rendition of the order sought to be set aside. Indeed, if three months is to be used as the yardstick for filing an action for certiorari, the present petition should have been dismissed long ago. In view, [22] however, of this Courts past pronouncements that cases involving sequestered corporations are endowed with public interest and involve a matter of public policy; and in order to dispose, once and for all, the recurring issues herein raised, we (1) resolved on May 22, 1995, to note without action private respondents Motion to Dismiss and (2) reiterated the March 25, 1995 Resolution requiring them to comment on the petition. In effect, the three-month rule was suspended, but only in regard to this case.
[19]
The Courts Ruling After a careful study and analysis of both parties arguments, as well as the applicable law and jurisprudence, we find the petition to be without merit.
First Issue: Validity of Sequestration Orders Signed by Only One Commissioner Section 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations, which took effect immediately after its promulgation on April 11, 1986, explicitly provides: Sec. 3. Who may issue. A writ of sequestration or a freeze or hold order may be issued by the Commission upon the authority of at least two Commissioners, based on the affirmation or complaint of an interested party or motu proprio when the Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that the issuance thereof is warranted. Undisputed is the fact that only one commissioner, the late Mary Concepcion Bautista, signed the two sequestration orders subject of this petition. To support its
37

contention that there is no need for the signatures of two commissioners [23] authorizing said orders, petitioner submits this excerpt from the minutes of a PCGG meeting held on October 15, 1987: The authority of at least two commissioners which is required under Sec. 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations may be written or verbal authority. Such authority may be reflected in the Minutes of the Commission Meeting held en banc covering the pertinent recommendation/approval on the issuance of the order; or the Commissioner-in-charge intending to issue the Order may simply obtain the concurrence of another Commissioner after explaining the evidence supporting such order. It is sufficient for only one Commissioner to sign the Order FOR THE COMMISSION. After April 11, 1986, the Commission has encouraged the practice of two Commissioners signing the Order. Generally, the interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls [24] the construction of the courts. The reason behind this rule was explained [25] in Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals in this wise: The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute. In Asturias [26] Sugar Central, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs the Court stressed that executive officials are presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed an independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon. The courts give much weight to the government agency or officials charged with the implementation of the law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret. As a general rule, contemporaneous construction is resorted to for certainty [27] and predictability in the laws, especially those involving specific terms having technical meanings. However, courts will not hesitate to set aside such executive interpretation [28] when it is clearly erroneous, or when there is no ambiguity in the rule, or when the language or words used are clear and plain or readily understandable to any [29] ordinary reader without need for interpretation or construction. The construction advanced by petitioner creates rather than clears ambiguity. The fair and sensible interpretation of the PCGG Rule in question is that the authority given by two commissioners for the issuance of a sequestration, freeze or hold order should be evident in the order itself. Simply stated, the writ must bear the signatures of two commissioners, because their signatures are the best evidence of their approval thereof. Otherwise, the validity of such order will be open to question and the very evil sought to be avoided -- the use of spurious or fictitious sequestration orders -- will persist. The corporation or entity against which such writ is directed will not be able to visually determine its validity, unless the required signatures of at least two commissioners authorizing its issuance appear on the very document itself. The issuance of sequestration orders requires the existence of a prima facie case. The two-commissioner rule is obviously intended to assure a collegial determination of such fact. In this light, a writ bearing only one signature is an obvious transgression of the PCGG Rules. Inasmuch as sequestration tends to impede or limit the exercise of [30] proprietary rights by private citizens, it should be construed strictly against the state, pursuant to the legal maxim that statutes in derogation of common rights are in general strictly construed and rigidly confined to cases clearly within their scope [31] and purpose. As Mme. Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera aptly said: Sequestration is an extraordinary, harsh, and even severe remedy. It should be confined to its lawful parameters and exercised, with due regard, in the words of its [32] enabling laws, to the requirements of fairness, due process, and justice. Concededly, even the exercise of the inherent and plenary police power of the state to impose restrictions on property rights is subject to the conditions of [33] reasonableness, public welfare, and necessity.
38

Furthermore, petitioners attempted clarification of Section 3 of the PCGG Rules was made only on October 15, 1987, or a full year and six months from the [34] promulgation of said Rules. Such clarification by the then commissioners was obviously self-serving and cannot be given much value. Apparently, the commissioners were simply trying to save face over their mistaken issuance of sequestration orders contrary to the very Rules they themselves had crafted and promulgated. Even conceding for the nonce that the adverted Rule is indeed ambiguous, the dictum is that such ambiguity should be taken contra proferentem; that is, it should be construed against the party who had caused the [35] ambiguity and who could have avoided it by the exercise of a little more care. Significantly, in that same meeting where the strained clarification of the subject Rule was made, the commissioners also affirmed that the signing of sequestration orders by two commissioners had already been encouraged after April [36] 11, 1986, presumably pursuant to the PCGG Rules which took effect on said date. This affirmation plainly bolsters the proposition that the real intent behind the Rule was to require two commissioners to sign such orders. But still, on May 9, 1986, or only four weeks after the Rules had been promulgated, the Commission failed to heed its own declaration as proven by the signing of the questioned writs by only one commissioner. by a non-commissioner was not valid, the Court explained that Section 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations, which is couched in clear and simple language, leaves no room for interpretation. On the basis thereof, it is indubitable that under no circumstances can a sequestration or freeze order be validly issued by one not a [39] Commissioner of the PCGG. Furthermore, PCGG may not delegate to its representatives and subordinates its authority to sequester, and any such [40] delegation is invalid and ineffective. In sum, not only was the authority of the official who issued the order absent; no such authority legally existed. In Republic vs. Provident, on the other hand, the questioned writ bore the signature of only one commissioner, as in this case. Yet, the Court upheld its validity for the reason that the writ was issued on March 19, 1986, before the promulgation of the PCGG Rules and Regulations. In refusing to lift the writ, we reasoned that we cannot reasonably expect the Commission to abide by said rules which were nonexistent at the time the subject writ was issued by then Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista. Basic is the rule that no statute, decree, ordinance, rule or regulation (or even policy) shall be given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated so. We find no provision in said Rules which expressly gives them retroactive effect, or implies the abrogation of previous writs issued not in [41] accordance with the same Rules. Thus, the writ signed by only one commissioner was held valid. The rationale in Provident has no relevance or application to the instant case, since the writ bearing the sole signature of the late Commissioner Bautista was issued after the promulgation and effectivity of the PCGG Rule requiring the authority of at least two commissioners for the issuance of a sequestration order. Obviously, Section 3 of the PCGG Rules was intended to protect the public from improvident, reckless and needless sequestrations of private property. And since these Rules were issued by Respondent Commission, it should be the first entity to observe them.
Republic vs. Dio Island Resort and Republic vs. Provident International Resources Not Applicable to the Present Case
At this point, the present case will be examined and compared with two others involving the validity of sequestration orders issued by less than two PCGG commissioners: Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, Romualdez and Dio Island [37] Resort, (Republic vs. Dio Island), which voided the writ issued against the resort; and Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), Provident International [38] Resources Corp., and Phil. Casino Operators Corp . (Republic vs. Provident), which upheld the writs issued against the respondent corporations. In Republic vs. Dio Island, the sequestration order was issued on April 14, 1986, by the head of the PCGG Task Force in Region VIII. Ruling that such issuance
Letter to Law Firm Not a Sequestration Writ Nor can we accord probative value to the communication signed by Commissioners Daza and Bautista and addressed to Siguion Reyna, Montecillo &
39

Ongsiako. First, this letter is definitely not a writ of sequestration; it does not even purport to be one. It merely relays the information to the said law firm, and not to PHI (the company purported to be sequestered), that the Commission has resolved (t)o order the sequestration of all the shareholdings of PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. Second, the letter makes no reference to the questioned writ as one that embodies the Resolution of the Commission ordering the sequestration of the shareholdings of PHI. Third, nothing in the records shows that on the date the letter was written (May 9, 1986), the law firm to which it was addressed was the legal counsel of PHI on the matter at hand. And fourth, there is no proof that said letter was received by the law firm for and on behalf of PHI. With all the above considerations, private respondents cannot be presumed to have had constructive knowledge of the alleged sequestration order against PHI. the investigation or otherwise prevent the Commission from accomplishing [45] its task. It appears, therefore, that while then President Corazon C. Aquino, through EO 2, froze all assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President Marcos and his wife, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees had any interest or participation, EO 1 is more specific in delegating to the PCGG the power to issue writs of sequestration. While EO 2 is a general policy statement affirming the right and duty of the government to [46] recover ill-gotten wealth, as well as a general notice to the public that it is pursuing such right, EO 1 gives authority to the PCGG to undertake the details to enable it to achieve such purpose. This is but logical, because sequestration [47] presupposes the existence of a prima facie case, the determination of which lies with the PCGG which is vested with investigatory powers pursuant to its [48] mandate. Furthermore, by virtue of the requirements of due process, EO 1, by itself, obviously cannot be equated with an all-encompassing writ of sequestration, since it names no particular person or property against whom or which it is directed.
EO 2 Not a General Writ of Sequestration Petitioner also argues that Executive Order No. 2 (EO 2), issued on March 12, 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino by virtue of her revolutionary powers under the Freedom Constitution, partakes of a general freeze and sequestration order which cannot be lifted by this Court without altogether nullifying the law. This contention is utterly without merit. The PCGG was created precisely with the task of assisting the President in regard to x x x matters among which was *t+he recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using [44] their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship. More specifically, the PCGG was granted this power and authority: to sequester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession any building or office wherein any ill-gotten wealth or properties may be found, and any records pertaining thereto, in order to prevent their destruction, concealment or disappearance which would frustrate or hamper
[43] [42]
Second Issue: Respondents Impleaded Beyond Prescribed Period Petitioner contends that there is no need (1) to file a separate action or (2) to independently implead PHI in Civil Case No. 0002, because PTIC has already been included in the list of alleged ill-gotten wealth of defendants in said case. To buttress its position, petitioner cites Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (First [49] Division), in which the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, held: 1) Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution does not, by its terms or any fair interpretation thereof, require that corporations or business enterprises alleged to be repositories of ill-gotten wealth, as the term is used in said provision, be actually and formally impleaded in the actions for the recovery thereof, in order to maintain in effect existing sequestrations thereof;
40

2) complaints for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth which merely identify and/or allege said corporations or enterprises to be the instruments, repositories or the fruits of ill-gotten wealth, without more, come within the meaning of the phrase corresponding judicial action or proceeding contemplated by the constitutional provision referred to; the more so, that normally, said corporations, as distinguished from their stockholders or members, are not generally suable for the latters illegal or criminal actuations in the acquisition of the assets invested by them in the former; 3) even assuming the impleading of said corporations to be necessary and proper so that judgment may comprehensively and effectively be rendered in the actions, amendment of the complaints to implead them as defendants may, under existing rules of procedure, be done at any time during the pendency of the actions thereby initiated, and even during the pendency of an appeal to the Supreme Court -- a procedure that, in any case, is not inconsistent with or proscribed by the constitutional time limits to the filing of the corresponding complaints for -i.e., with regard or in relation to, in respect of, or in connection with, or concerning [50] - orders of sequestration, freezing, or provisional takeover. Petitioner misapplies our above-quoted pronouncements. The filing of an action directly against a sequestered corporation, or its impleading in a complaint for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, is not necessary when (1) a formal complaint has already been filed against the persons alleged to have unlawfully amassed wealth; (2) such complaint, whether in its body or in an attachment or annex, refers to specific funds or properties, among which is the sequestered entity or asset; and (3) such complaint was filed within the period prescribed in Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. These requisites do not obtain in the case at bar. First, the original Complaint for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth filed on July 16, 1987, did not implead any of private respondents as parties thereto. Neither were they included in the annexed list of alleged ill-gotten wealth. It was only on April 23, 1990, via an amended Complaint, that Imelda Cojuangco, the estate of Ramon Cojuangco, and Prime Holdings, Inc., were made parties-defendants. By then, three years -- well beyond the six months prescribed by the Constitution -had passed since the issuance of the sequestration orders against the PHI and the PTIC shares it owned. Second, even if PTIC was listed in the Annex to the Complaint, it must be understood that the case refers only to the extent of the shares in PTIC illegally acquired by the original defendants. As we stated in the aforecited Republic vs. [51] Sandiganbayan (First Division): As regards actions in which the complaints seek recovery of defendants shares of stock in existing corporations (e.g., San Miguel Corporation, Benguet Corporation, Meralco, etc.) allegedly purchased with misappropriated public funds, in breach of fiduciary duty, or otherwise under illicit or anomalous conditions, the impleading of said firms would clearly appear to be unnecessary. If warranted by the evidence, judgments may be handed against the corresponding defendants divesting them of ownership of their stock, the acquisition thereof being illegal and consequently burdened with a constructive trust, and imposing on them the obligation of surrendering them to the Government. Thus, whether PHI itself -- an entirely different corporate entity, though a major investor in PTIC -- has shareholdings unlawfully or anomalously acquired, or whether it was organized with ill-gotten wealth, is a different matter. Notably, the individual respondents are the registered owners of PHI and, as earlier stated, they had not been included as original defendants in Civil Case No. 0002. The judicial action against them was belatedly instituted long after the lapse of the constitutional time frame. In its Memorandum, petitioner vehemently argues that although PHI was not initially included in the enumeration of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses x x x in Annex A of the original complaint, it is enough that PTIC and PLDT were included in said list of ill-gotten wealth of the principal defendants. This argument is absolutely in contravention of the due process guarantee. PHI is a corporation completely separate from PTIC and PLDT. Indeed, it has a personality distinct from said entities. Petitioner has shown no commonality in shareholding, management or operation among them. Neither has it alleged, much less proven, any ground why the separate corporate personality of PHI should be set aside or pierced. And definitely, the most basic considerations of due process prevent a suit against PTIC and PLDT from adversely affecting and prejudicing the proprietary rights of PHI and [53] its likewise unimpleaded shareholders. Third, the filing of the amended Complaint on April 23, 1990 for the purpose of specifically impleading PHI, Imelda Cojuangco and the estate of Ramon
[52]
41

Cojuangco represented by its administratrix, as defendants, cannot be deemed to date back to the filing of the original Complaint and to thereby imply compliance with the constitutional provision. The filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original; hence, the statute of limitations [54] runs until the submission of the amendment. While it has been held that an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which [55] expired after the service of the original complaint, such rule does not apply to a party who is impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint that was filed [56] beyond the prescriptive period. Prescription is a legal defense accorded any person against whom a judicial action is belatedly brought after the lapse of the time specified by law. Here, it is the Constitution itself which defines the period within which judicial proceedings may be brought against sequestered entities. From the foregoing, it is clear that no judicial action was instituted against the private respondents within the prescribed period. All in all, the sequestration orders issued against private respondents and the 111,415 shares of PTIC registered under the name of PHI must perforce be deemed automatically lifted due to (1) the invalidity of the alleged sequestration writs themselves, owing to the non-observance of the PCGG Rule requiring the authority of at least two commissioners; and, in any event, (2) the failure of PCGG to commence the proper judicial action, or to implead private respondents therein, within the period prescribed by Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. against private respondents. The substantive issue on whether PHI or the PTIC shares are ill-gotten wealth is another matter and should be litigated in the main case for recovery and reconveyance (Civil Case No. 0002). The lifting of the writs of sequestration will not necessarily be fatal to the main case. It is in the latter proceeding that Campos testimony may be properly offered and its value and credit-worthiness appreciated. Even with the lifting of the sequestration orders against PHI and the PTIC shares, these properties may still be recovered by the government upon substantial proof, proffered in the proper suit, that they indeed constitute unlawfully amassed wealth of the Marcoses and/or their conduits. The lifting of the subject orders does not ipso facto mean that the sequestered properties are not ill-gotten; neither does it preempt a finding to that effect in the main action. The effect of the lifting of the sequestration against PHI and the subject PTIC shares will merely be the termination of the role of the government as conservator thereof. In other words, the PCGG may no longer exercise administrative or [57] housekeeping powers, and its nominees may no longer vote the heretofore sequestered shares to enable them to sit on the corporate board of the subject firm. In brief, sequestration is not the be-all and end-all of the efforts of the government to recover unlawfully amassed wealth. The PCGG may still proceed to prove in the main suit who the real owners of these assets are. Besides, as we [58] reasserted in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, the PCGG may still avail itself of ancillary writs, since Sandiganbayans jurisdiction over the sequestration cases demands that it should also have the authority to preserve the subject matter of the cases, the alleged ill-gotten wealth properties x x x. With the use of proper remedies and upon substantial proof, properties in litigation may, when necessary, be placed in custodia legis for the complete determination of the controversy or for the effective enforcement of the judgment. However, for violating the Constitution and its own Rules, the PCGG may no longer exercise dominion and custody over Respondent Corporation and the shares it owns in PTIC.
Corollary Matter: Disclosures of Jose Yao Campos Petitioner, in a desperate final attempt to justify the continued sequestration of PHI and the subject shares it owns in PTIC, invokes an alleged deposition of Jose Yao Campos declaring that former President Marcos was the true owner of PHI. This argument is irrelevant and immaterial to the present petition. The focal issues of this case pertain only to the validity of the sequestration order signed by just one commissioner and the timeliness of the judicial action
Epilogue
42

As stated earlier, sequestration is simply a provisional remedy; an extraordinary measure intended to prevent the destruction, concealment or dissipation of sequestered properties and, thereby, to conserve and preserve them, pending the judicial determination in the appropriate proceeding of whether the [59] property was in truth ill-gotten. Sequestration effectively deprives, to a considerable extent, the ostensible or apparent owners of administrative powers and voting rights. Essentially then, sequestration intrudes into private rights. In the stead of the ostensible owners, PCGG nominees vote the shares and sit on the boards of private corporations supposedly for the purpose only of safeguarding or preserving the sequestered assets until they are finally [60] adjudicated. But beyond such custodial powers, the PCGG must hurdle its more important task: that of proving the ill-gotten nature of the sequestered assets and [61] of causing their reversion or reconveyance to the people. About twelve years have now passed since most of the sequestration orders against corporations and assets, alleged to be unlawfully amassed by the Marcoses and their cronies, were issued; and the so-called ill-gotten wealth cases filed in the Sandiganbayan. Sadly, however, the substantiation of the claim that they are in fact ill-gotten most often remains pendent. In the instant case alone, the questioned sequestration orders were issued more than twelve years ago; and Civil Case No. 0002 has been pending before the Sandiganbayan for about eleven years now. Yet, we are still discussing the validity of such orders. Undoubtedly, the PCGG has, in the past, reportedly shown some success in: preventing improper dispositions of alleged ill-gotten properties in the United States; securing a landmark judgment in the Swiss Supreme Court turning over, albeit conditionally, certain criminally acquired bank deposits; entering into compromises with certain respondents in a number of cases; and transmitting recovered ill-gotten funds to the national treasury. Petitioner Commission, however, has yet to show its firm determination to prosecute to final resolution any of the cases it has dauntlessly filed in Philippine courts over a decade ago. Time and again, we have prodded the petitioner and the Sandiganbayan to speedily proceed with the hearings and resolutions of the main cases for recovery and reconveyance. It is about time that the PCGG, created with the primary and paramount task of recovering ill-gotten wealth, act with deliberate dispatch on its primordial work of substantiating its claims and, thereby, perform its bounden duty to the Filipino people: to render justice to all.
[63] [62]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for failure of petitioner to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of Respondent Court. The assailed Resolutions of Respondent Sandiganbayan are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., (Chairman), and Quisumbing, JJ., concur. Bellosillo, J., see concurring opinion. Vitug, J., reiterates his dissenting opinion in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 515.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 82797 February 27, 1991 GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM INC., and LIM KA PING, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROCES-REYES REALTY INC., respondents. A.E. Dacanay for petitioners. Antonio Quintos Law Office for private respondent.
PARAS, J.:p This is a petition for review on certiorari of the December 29, 1987 decision * of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11960 entitled "ROCES-REYES REALTY, INC. vs.
43

HONORABLE JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 44, GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM, INC. and LIM KA PING" reversing the decision of respondent Judge ** of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 44 in Civil Case No. 85-30484, which reversed the resolution of the Metropolitan Trial Court Of Manila, Branch 28 in Civil Case No. 09639, *** denying herein petitioners' motion to quash the alias writ of execution issued against them. As gathered from the records, the antecedent facts of this case, are as follows: A Lease Contract, dated October 16, 1981, was entered into by and between ROCES-REYES REALTY, INC., as lessor, and GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM, INC., as lessee, for a term of three years beginning November 1, 1981 and ending October 31, 1984 at a monthly rental of P65,000.00 (Rollo, p. 32; Annex "C" of Petition). The building which was the subject of the contract of lease is a five-storey building located at the corner of Rizal Avenue and Bustos Street in Sta. Cruz, Manila. From March 1983, up to the time the complaint was filed, the lessee had defaulted in the payment of rentals, as a consequence of which, private respondent ROCESREYES REALTY, INC., (hereinafter designated as ROCES for brevity) filed on October 14, 1984, an ejectment case (Unlawful Detainer) against herein petitioners, GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM, INC. and LIM KA PING, hereinafter designated as GEE, (Rollo, p. 21; Annex "B" of the Petition). After the latter had tendered their responsive pleading, the lower court (MTC, Manila) on motion of Roces rendered judgment on the pleadings dated April 17, 1984, the dispositive portion of which states: Judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants (herein petitioners) and all persons claiming title under him to vacate the premises and surrender the same to the plaintiffs (herein respondents); ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the rental of P65,000.00 a month beginning March 1983 up to the time defendants actually vacate the premises and deliver possession to the plaintiff; to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 and to pay the costs of this suit. (Rollo, p. 111; Memorandum of Respondents) On May 16, 1984, Roces filed a motion for execution which was opposed by GEE on May 28, 1984 simultaneous with the latter's filing of a Notice of Appeal ( Rollo, p. 112, Ibid.). On June 13, 1984, the trial court resolved such motion ruling: After considering the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution filed by counsel for the plaintiff (herein respondents) and the opposition filed in relation thereto and finding that the defendant failed to file the necessary supersedeas bond, this court resolved to grant the same for being meritorious. (Rollo, p. 112) On June 14, 1984, a writ of execution was issued by the lower court. Meanwhile, the appeal was assigned to the Regional Trial Court (Manila) Branch XLVI. However, on August 15, 1984, GEE thru counsel filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, a motion to withdraw appeal citing as reason that they are satisfied with the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXVIII, which said court granted in its Order of August 27, 1984 and the records were remanded to the trial court (Rollo, p. 32; CA Decision). Upon an ex-parte Motion of ROCES, the trial court issued an Alias Writ of Execution dated February 25, 1985 (Rollo, p. 104; Annex "D" of Petitioner's Memorandum), which was implemented on February 27, 1985. GEE thru counsel filed a motion to quash the writ of execution and notice of levy and an urgent Ex-parte Supplemental Motion for the issuance of a restraining order, on March 7, and 20, 1985, respectively. On March 21, 1985, the lower court issued a restraining order to the sheriff to hold the execution of the judgment pending hearing on the motion to quash the writ of execution (Rollo, p. 22; RTC Decision). While said motion was pending resolution, GEE filed a Petition for Relief from judgment before another court, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IX, which petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 80-30019, but the petition was dismissed and the injunctive writ issued in connection therewith set aside. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals; GEE on the order of dismissal and Roces on denial of his motion for indemnity, both docketed as CA-G.R. No. 15873-CV. Going back to the original case, the Metropolitan Trial Court after hearing and disposing some other incidents, promulgated the questioned Resolution, dated April 8, 1985, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: Premises considered, the motion to quash the writ is hereby denied for lack of merit.
44

The restraining orders issued on March 11 and 23, 1985 are hereby recalled, lifted and set aside. (Rollo, p. 20, MTC Decision) GEE appealed and by coincidence. was raffled to the same Court, RTC Branch IX. Roces moved to dismiss the appeal but the Court denied the motion. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals dismissed Roces' petition and remanded the case to the RTC. Meantime, Branch IX became vacant and the case was re-raffled to Branch XLIV. On April 6, 1987, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, finding that the amount of P1 million evidenced by Exhibit "I" and another P1 million evidenced by the pacto de retro sale instrument (Exhibit "2") were in full satisfaction of the judgment obligation, reversed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court, the dispositive portion of which reads: Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the Resolution appealed from quashing the writ of execution and ordering the cancellation of the notice of levy and declaring the judgment debt as having been fully paid and/or Liquidated. ( Rollo, p. 29). On further appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the Resolution of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, the dispositive portion of which is as follows: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the Resolution dated April 8, 1985, of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila Branch XXXIII is hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs. (Rollo, p. 40). GEE's Motion for Reconsideration of April 5, 1988 was denied (Rollo, p. 43). Hence, this petition. The main issue in this case is whether or not there was full satisfaction of the judgment debt in favor of respondent corporation which would justify the quashing of the Writ of Execution. A careful study of the common exhibits (Exhibits 1/A and 2/B) shows that nowhere in any of said exhibits was there any writing alluding to or referring to any settlement between the parties of petitioners' judgment obligation (Rollo, pp. 4548). Moreover, there is no indication in the receipt, Exhibit "1", that it was in payment, full or partial, of the judgment obligation. Likewise, there is no indication in the pacto de retro sale which was drawn in favor of Jesus Marcos Roces and Marcos V. Roces and not the respondent corporation, that the obligation embodied therein had something to do with petitioners' judgment obligation with respondent corporation. Finding that the common exhibit, Exhibit 1/A had been signed by persons other than judgment creditors (Roces-Reyes Realty, Inc.) coupled with the fact that said exhibit was not even alleged by GEE and Lim Ka Ping in their original motion to quash the alias writ of execution (Rollo, p. 37) but produced only during the hearing (Ibid.) which production resulted in petitioners having to claim belatedly that there was an "overpayment" of about half a million pesos (Rollo, pp. 25-27) and remarking on the utter absence of any writing in Exhibits "1/A" and "2/B" to indicate payment of the judgment debt, respondent Appellate Court correctly concluded that there was in fact no payment of the judgment debt. As aptly observed by the said court: What immediately catches one's attention is the total absence of any writing alluding to or referring to any settlement between the parties of private respondents' (petitioners') judgment obligation. In moving for the dismissal of the appeal Lim Ka Ping who was then assisted by counsel simply stated that defendants (herein petitioners) are satisfied with the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (Records of CA, p. 54). Notably, in private respondents' (petitioners') Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution and Notice of Levy dated March 7, 1985, there is absolutely no reference to the alleged payment of one million pesos as evidenced by Exhibit 1 dated September 20, 1984. As pointed out by petitioner (respondent corporation) this
45

was brought out by Linda Panutat, Manager of Good Earth only in the course of the latter's testimony. (Rollo, p. 37) Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that: Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it. In the case at bar, the supposed payments were not made to Roces-Reyes Realty, Inc. or to its successor in interest nor is there positive evidence that the payment was made to a person authorized to receive it. No such proof was submitted but merely inferred by the Regional Trial Court (Rollo, p. 25) from Marcos Roces having signed the Lease Contract as President which was witnessed by Jesus Marcos Roces. The latter, however, was no longer President or even an officer of Roces-Reyes Realty, Inc. at the time he received the money (Exhibit "1") and signed the sale with pacto de retro (Exhibit "2"). He, in fact, denied being in possession of authority to receive payment for the respondent corporation nor does the receipt show that he signed in the same capacity as he did in the Lease Contract at a time when he was President for respondent corporation (Rollo, p. 20, MTC decision). On the other hand, Jesus Marcos Roces testified that the amount of P1 million evidenced by the receipt (Exhibit "1") is the payment for a loan extended by him and Marcos Roces in favor of Lim Ka Ping. The assertion is home by the receipt itself whereby they acknowledged payment of the loan in their names and in no other capacity. A corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. Being an officer or stockholder of a corporation does not make one's property also of the corporation, and vice-versa, for they are separate entities (Traders Royal Bank v. CA-G.R. No. 78412, September 26, 1989; Cruz v. Dalisay, 152 SCRA 482). Shareowners are in no legal sense the owners of corporate property (or credits) which is owned by the corporation as a distinct legal person (Concepcion Magsaysay-Labrador v. CA-G.R. No. 58168, December 19, 1989). As a consequence of the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate debt or credit is not the debt or credit of the stockholder, nor is the stockholder's debt or credit that of the corporation (Prof. Jose Nolledo's "The Corporation Code of the Philippines, p. 5, 1988 Edition, citing Professor Ballantine). The absence of a note to evidence the loan is explained by Jesus Marcos Roces who testified that the IOU was subsequently delivered to private respondents ( Rollo, pp. 97-98). Contrary to the Regional Trial Court's premise that it was incumbent upon respondent corporation to prove that the amount was delivered to the Roces brothers in the payment of the loan in the latter's favor, the delivery of the amount to and the receipt thereof by the Roces brothers in their names raises the presumption that the said amount was due to them. There is a disputable presumption that money paid by one to the other was due to the latter (Sec. 5(f) Rule 131, Rules of Court). It is for GEE and Lim Ka Ping to prove otherwise. In other words, it is for the latter to prove that the payments made were for the satisfaction of their judgment debt and not vice versa. The fact that at the time payment was made to the two Roces brothers, GEE was also indebted to respondent corporation for a larger amount, is not supportive of the Regional Trial Court's conclusions that the payment was in favor of the latter, especially in the case at bar where the amount was not receipted for by respondent corporation and there is absolutely no indication in the receipt from which it can be reasonably inferred, that said payment was in satisfaction of the judgment debt. Likewise, no such inference can be made from the execution of the pacto de retro sale which was not made in favor of respondent corporation but in favor of the two Roces brothers in their individual capacities without any reference to the judgment obligation in favor of respondent corporation. In addition, the totality of the amount covered by the receipt (Exhibit "1/A") and that of the sale with pacto de retro(Exhibit "2/B") all in the sum of P2 million, far exceeds petitioners' judgment obligation in favor of respondent corporation in the sum of P1,560,000.00 by P440,000.00, which militates against the claim of petitioner that the aforesaid amount (P2M) was in full payment of the judgment obligation. Petitioners' explanation that the excess is interest and advance rentals for an extension of the lease contract (Rollo, pp. 25-28) is belied by the absence of any interest awarded in the case and of any agreement as to the extension of the lease
46

nor was there any such pretense in the Motion to Quash the Alias Writ of Execution. Petitioners' averments that the respondent court had gravely abused its discretion in arriving at the assailed factual findings as contrary to the evidence and applicable decisions of this Honorable Court are therefore, patently unfounded. Respondent court was correct in stating that it "cannot go beyond what appears in the documents submitted by petitioners themselves (Exhibits "1" and "2") in the absence of clear and convincing evidence" that would support its claim that the judgment obligation has indeed been fully satisfied which would warrant the quashal of the Alias Writ of Execution. It has been an established rule that when the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence (which has been done in this case), the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of the plaintiff creditor (herein respondent corporation) (Chua Chienco v. Vargas, 11 Phil. 219; Ramos v. Ledesma, 12 Phil. 656; Pinon v. De Osorio, 30 Phil. 365). For indeed, it is well-entrenched in Our jurisprudence that each party in a case must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law (Stronghold Insurance Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 83376, May 29,1989; Tai Tong Chuache & Co. v. Insurance Commission, 158 SCRA 366). The appellate court cannot, therefore, be said to have gravely abused its discretion in finding lack of convincing and reliable evidence to establish payment of the judgment obligation as claimed by petitioner. The burden of evidence resting on the petitioners to establish the facts upon which their action is premised has not been satisfactorily discharged and therefore, they have to bear the consequences. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the Respondent court is hereby AFFIRMED, reinstating the April 8, 1985 Resolution of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. SO ORDERED. EN BANC [G.R. No. 147402. January 14, 2004]
ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO, in his capacity as General Manager of the Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD), Tacloban City, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Chairman CELSO D. GANGAN, Commissioners RAUL C. FLORES and EMMANUEL M. DALMAN, and Regional Director of COA Region VIII, respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.:
The Case This is a petition for certiorari to annul the Commission on Audits (COA) Resolution dated 3 January 2000 and the Decision dated 30 January 2001 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. The COA denied petitioner Ranulfo C. Felicianos request for COA to cease all audit services, and to stop charging auditing fees, to Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD). The COA also denied petitioners request for COA to refund all auditing fees previously paid by LMWD.
[1]
Antecedent Facts A Special Audit Team from COA Regional Office No. VIII audited the accounts of LMWD. Subsequently, LMWD received a letter from COA dated 19 July 1999 requesting payment of auditing fees. As General Manager of LMWD, petitioner sent a reply dated 12 October 1999 informing COAs Regional Director that the water district could not pay the auditing fees. Petitioner cited as basis for his action [2] Sections 6 and 20 of Presidential Decree 198 (PD 198) , as well as Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 (RA 6758). The Regional Director referred petitioners reply to the COA Chairman on 18 October 1999.
47

On 19 October 1999, petitioner wrote COA through the Regional Director asking for refund of all auditing fees LMWD previously paid to COA. On 16 March 2000, petitioner received COA Chairman Celso D. Gangans Resolution dated 3 January 2000 denying his requests. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on 31 March 2000, which COA denied on 30 January 2001. On 13 March 2001, petitioner filed this instant petition. Attached to the petition were resolutions of the Visayas Association of Water Districts (VAWD) and the Philippine Association of Water Districts (PAWD) supporting the petition. Petitioner contends that COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by auditing LMWD and requiring it to pay auditing fees. Petitioner raises the following issues for resolution: 1. Whether a Local Water District (LWD) created under PD 198, as amended, is a government-owned or controlled corporation subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA; Whether Section 20 of PD 198, as amended, prohibits COAs certified public accountants from auditing local water districts; and Whether Section 18 of RA 6758 prohibits the COA from charging government-owned and controlled corporations auditing fees.
2.
The Ruling of the Commission on Audit 3. The COA ruled that this Court has already settled COAs audit jurisdiction over local water districts in Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission and [3] Commission on Audit, as follows: The above-quoted provision [referring to Section 3(b) PD 198] definitely sets to naught petitioners contention that they are private corporations. It is clear therefrom that the power to appoint the members who will comprise the members of the Board of Directors belong to the local executives of the local subdivision unit where such districts are located. In contrast, the members of the Board of Directors or the trustees of a private corporation are elected from among members or stockholders thereof. It would not be amiss at this point to emphasize that a private corporation is created for the private purpose, benefit, aim and end of its members or stockholders. Necessarily, said members or stockholders should be given a free hand to choose who will compose the governing body of their corporation. But this is not the case here and this clearly indicates that petitioners are not private corporations. The COA also denied petitioners request for COA to stop charging auditing fees as well as petitioners request for COA to refund all auditing fees already paid.
The Ruling of the Court The petition lacks merit. The Constitution and existing laws mandate COA to audit all government agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) with original charters. An LWD is a GOCC with an original charter. Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution provides for COAs audit jurisdiction, as follows: SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control
[4]
The Issues
48

system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. (Emphasis supplied) The COAs audit jurisdiction extends not only to government agencies or instrumentalities, but also to government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters as well as other government-owned or controlled corporations without original charters. We begin by explaining the general framework under the fundamental law. The Constitution recognizes two classes of corporations. The first refers to private corporations created under a general law. The second refers to government-owned or controlled corporations created by special charters. Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution provides: Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. The Constitution emphatically prohibits the creation of private corporations except [9] by a general law applicable to all citizens. The purpose of this constitutional provision is to ban private corporations created by special charters, which historically gave certain individuals, families or groups special privileges denied to [10] other citizens. In short, Congress cannot enact a law creating a private corporation with a special charter. Such legislation would be unconstitutional. Private corporations may exist only under a general law. If the corporation is private, it must necessarily exist under a general law. Stated differently, only corporations created under a general law can qualify as private corporations. Under existing laws, that general [11] law is the Corporation Code, except that the Cooperative Code governs the [12] incorporation of cooperatives. The Constitution authorizes Congress to create government-owned or controlled corporations through special charters. Since private corporations cannot have special charters, it follows that Congress can create corporations with special charters only if such corporations are government-owned or controlled. Obviously, LWDs are not private corporations because they are not created under the Corporation Code. LWDs are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Section 14 of the Corporation Code states that *A+ll corporations organized under this code shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission articles of incorporation x x x. LWDs have no articles of incorporation, no incorporators and no stockholders or members. There are no stockholders or members to elect the board directors of LWDs as in the case of all corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The local mayor or the
Whether LWDs are Private or Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations with Original Charters Petitioner seeks to revive a well-settled issue. Petitioner asks for a reexamination of a doctrine backed by a long line of cases culminating in Davao City [5] Water District v. Civil Service Commission and just recently reiterated in De Jesus [6] v. Commission on Audit. Petitioner maintains that LWDs are not governmentowned and controlled corporations with original charters. Petitioner even argues that LWDs are private corporations. Petitioner asks the Court to consider certain interpretations of the applicable laws, which would give a new perspective to the [7] issue of the true character of water districts. Petitioner theorizes that what PD 198 created was the Local Waters Utilities Administration (LWUA) and not the LWDs. Petitioner claims that LWDs are created pursuant to and not created directly by PD 198. Thus, petitioner concludes that PD 198 is not an original charter that would place LWDs within the audit jurisdiction of COA as defined in Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution. Petitioner elaborates that PD 198 does not create LWDs since it does not expressly direct the creation of such entities, but only provides for their [8] formation on an optional or voluntary basis. Petitioner adds that the operative act that creates an LWD is the approval of the Sanggunian Resolution as specified in PD 198. Petitioners contention deserves scant consideration.
49

provincial governor appoints the directors of LWDs for a fixed term of office. This Court has ruled that LWDs are not created under the Corporation Code, thus: From the foregoing pronouncement, it is clear that what has been excluded from the coverage of the CSC are those corporations created pursuant to the Corporation Code. Significantly, petitioners are not created under the said code, but on the contrary, they were created pursuant to a special law and are governed primarily [13] by its provision. (Emphasis supplied) LWDs exist by virtue of PD 198, which constitutes their special charter. Since under the Constitution only government-owned or controlled corporations may have special charters, LWDs can validly exist only if they are government-owned or controlled. To claim that LWDs are private corporations with a special charter is to admit that their existence is constitutionally infirm. Unlike private corporations, which derive their legal existence and power from the Corporation Code, LWDs derive their legal existence and power from PD [14] 198. Sections 6 and 25 of PD 198 provide: Section 6. Formation of District. This Act is the source of authorization and power to form and maintain a district. For purposes of this Act, a district shall be considered as a quasi-public corporation performing public service and supplying public wants. As such, a district shall exercise the powers, rights and privileges given to private corporations under existing laws, in addition to the powers granted in, and subject to such restrictions imposed, under this Act. (a) The name of the local water district, which shall include the name of the city, municipality, or province, or region thereof, served by said system, followed by the words Water District. (b) A description of the boundary of the district. In the case of a city or municipality, such boundary may include all lands within the city or municipality. A district may include one or more municipalities, cities or provinces, or portions thereof. (c) A statement completely transferring any and all waterworks and/or sewerage facilities managed, operated by or under the control of such city, municipality or province to such district upon the filing of resolution forming the district. (d) A statement identifying the purpose for which the district is formed, which shall include those purposes outlined in Section 5 above. (e) The names of the initial directors of the district with the date of expiration of term of office for each. (f) A statement that the district may only be dissolved on the grounds and under the conditions set forth in Section 44 of this Title. (g) A statement acknowledging the powers, rights and obligations as set forth in Section 36 of this Title. Nothing in the resolution of formation shall state or infer that the local legislative body has the power to dissolve, alter or affect the district beyond that specifically provided for in this Act. If two or more cities, municipalities or provinces, or any combination thereof, desire to form a single district, a similar resolution shall be adopted in each city, municipality and province. xxx Sec. 25. Authorization. The district may exercise all the powers which are expressly granted by this Title or which are necessarily implied from or incidental to the powers and purposes herein stated . For the purpose of carrying out the objectives of this Act, a district is hereby granted the power of eminent domain, the exercise thereof shall, however, be subject to review by the Administration. (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, LWDs exist as corporations only by virtue of PD 198, which expressly confers on LWDs corporate powers. Section 6 of PD 198 provides that LWDs shall exercise the powers, rights and privileges given to private corporations under existing laws. Without PD 198, LWDs would have no corporate powers. Thus, PD 198 constitutes the special enabling charter of LWDs. The ineluctable conclusion is
50

that LWDs are government-owned and controlled corporations with a special charter. The phrase government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters means GOCCs created under special laws and not under the general incorporation law. There is no difference between the term original charters and special charters. The Court clarified this in National Service Corporation v. [15] NLRC by citing the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, as follows: THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). The session is resumed. Commissioner Romulo is recognized. MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am amending my original proposed amendment to now read as follows: including government-owned or controlled corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS. The purpose of this amendment is to indicate that government corporations such as the GSIS and SSS, which have original charters, fall within the ambit of the civil service. However, corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies such as the Philippine Airlines, Manila Hotel and Hyatt are excluded from the coverage of the civil service. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). What does the Committee say? MR. FOZ. Just one question, Mr. Presiding Officer. By the term original charters, what exactly do we mean? MR. ROMULO. We mean that they were created by law, by an act of Congress, or by special law. MR. FOZ. And not under the general corporation law. That is correct. Mr. Presiding Officer. MR. NATIVIDAD. Mr. Presiding Officer, so those created by the general corporation law are out. MR. ROMULO. That is correct. (Emphasis supplied)
[16]
Again, in Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission, the Court reiterated the meaning of the phrase government -owned and controlled corporations with original charters in this wise: By government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, We mean government owned or controlled corporation created by a special law and not under the Corporation Code of the Philippines . Thus, in the case of Lumanta v. NLRC (G.R. No. 82819, February 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 79, 82), We held: The Court, in National Service Corporation (NASECO) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 69870, promulgated on 29 November 1988, quoting extensively from the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in respect of the intent and meaning of the new phrase with original charter, in effect held that government-owned and controlled corporations with original charter refer to corporations chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized under our general incorporation statute the Corporation Code. In NASECO, the company involved had been organized under the general incorporation statute and was a subsidiary of the National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC) which in turn was a subsidiary of the Philippine National Bank, a bank chartered by a special statute. Thus, government-owned or controlled corporations like NASECO are effectively, excluded from the scope of the Civil Service. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners contention that the Sangguniang Bayan resolution creates the LWDs assumes that the Sangguniang Bayan has the power to create corporations. This is a patently baseless assumption. The Local Government [17] Code does not vest in the Sangguniang Bayan the power to create [18] corporations. What the Local Government Code empowers the Sangguniang Bayan to do is to provide for the establishment of a waterworks system subject to existing laws. Thus, Section 447(5)(vii) of the Local Government Code provides:
MR. ROMULO.
MR. FOZ. With that understanding and clarification, the Committee accepts the amendment.
51

SECTION 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall: xxx (vii) Subject to existing laws, provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance, and repair of an efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants; regulate the construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protect the purity and quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extend the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water service; and regulate the consumption, use or wastage of water; x x x. (Emphasis supplied) The Sangguniang Bayan may establish a waterworks system only in accordance with the provisions of PD 198. The Sangguniang Bayan has no power to create a corporate entity that will operate its waterworks system. However, the Sangguniang Bayan may avail of existing enabling laws, like PD 198, to form and incorporate a water district. Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Sangguniang Bayan has the power to create corporations, the LWDs would remain government-owned or controlled corporations subject to COAs audit jurisdiction. The resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan would constitute an LWDs special charter, making the LWD a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter. In any event, the Court has already ruled in Baguio Water [19] District v. Trajano that the Sangguniang Bayan resolution is not the special charter of LWDs, thus: While it is true that a resolution of a local sanggunian is still necessary for the final creation of a district, this Court is of the opinion that said resolution cannot be considered as its charter, the same being intended only to implement the provisions of said decree. Petitioner further contends that a law must create directly and explicitly a GOCC in order that it may have an original charter. In short, petitioner argues that one special law cannot serve as enabling law for several GOCCs but only for one GOCC. Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution mandates that Congress shall not, [20] except by general law, provide for the creation of private corporations. Thus, the Constitution prohibits one special law to create one private corporation, requiring instead a general law to create private corporations. In contrast, the same Section 16 states that Government -owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters. Thus, the Constitution permits Congress to create a GOCC with a special charter. There is, however, no prohibition on Congress to create several GOCCs of the same class under one special enabling charter. The rationale behind the prohibition on private corporations having special charters does not apply to GOCCs. There is no danger of creating special privileges to certain individuals, families or groups if there is one special law creating each GOCC. Certainly, such danger will not exist whether one special law creates one GOCC, or one special enabling law creates several GOCCs. Thus, Congress may create GOCCs either by special charters specific to each GOCC, or by one special enabling charter applicable to a class of GOCCs, like PD 198 which applies only to LWDs. Petitioner also contends that LWDs are private corporations because Section 6 [21] of PD 198 declares that LWDs shall be considered quasi-public in nature. Petitioners rationale is that only private corporations may be d eemed quasi-public and not public corporations. Put differently, petitioner rationalizes that a public corporation cannot be deemed quasi-public because such corporation is already public. Petitioner concludes that the term quasi-public can only apply to private corporations. Petitioners argument is inconsequential. Petitioner forgets that the constitutional criterion on the exercise of COAs audit jurisdiction depends on the governments ownership or control of a corporation. The nature of the corporation, whether it is private, quasi-public, or public is immaterial.
52

The Constitution vests in the COA audit jurisdiction over government -owned and controlled corporations with original charters, as well as government -owned or controlled corporations without original charters. GOCCs with original charters are subject to COA pre-audit, while GOCCs without original charters are subject to COA post-audit. GOCCs without original charters refer to corporations created under the Corporation Code but are owned or controlled by the government. The nature or purpose of the corporation is not material in determining COAs audit jurisdiction. Neither is the manner of creation of a corporation, whether under a general or special law. The determining factor of COAs audit jurisdiction is government ownership or control of the corporation. In Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union-NUBE v. [22] Philippine Veterans Bank, the Court even ruled that the criterion of ownership and control is more important than the issue of original charter, thus: This point is important because the Constitution provides in its Article IX-B, Section 2(1) that the Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. As the Bank is not owned or controlled by the Government although it does have an original charter in the form of R.A. No. [23] 3518, it clearly does not fall under the Civil Service and should be regarded as an ordinary commercial corporation. Section 28 of the said law so provides. The consequence is that the relations of the Bank with its employees should be governed by the labor laws, under which in fact they have already been paid some of their claims. (Emphasis supplied) Certainly, the government owns and controls LWDs. The government organizes LWDs in accordance with a specific law, PD 198. There is no private party involved as co-owner in the creation of an LWD. Just prior to the creation of LWDs, the national or local government owns and controls all their assets. The government controls LWDs because under PD 198 the municipal or city mayor, or the provincial governor, appoints all the board directors of an LWD for a fixed term [24] of six years. The board directors of LWDs are not co-owners of the LWDs. LWDs have no private stockholders or members. The board directors and other personnel [25] of LWDs are government employees subject to civil service laws and anti-graft [26] laws. While Section 8 of PD 198 states that *N+o public official shall serve as director of an LWD, it only means that the appointees to the board of directors of LWDs shall come from the private sector. Once such private sector representatives assume office as directors, they become public officials governed by the civil service law and anti-graft laws. Otherwise, Section 8 of PD 198 would contravene Section 2(1), Article IX-B of the Constitution declaring that the civil service includes government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. If LWDs are neither GOCCs with original charters nor GOCCs without original charters, then they would fall under the term agencies or instrumentalities of the government and thus still subject to COAs audit jurisdiction. However, the stark [27] and undeniable fact is that the government owns LWDs. Section 45 of PD 198 recognizes government ownership of LWDs when Section 45 states that the board of directors may dissolve an LWD only on the condition that another public entity has acquired the assets of the district and has assumed all obligations and liabilities attached thereto. The implication is clear that an LWD is a public and not a private entity. Petitioner does not allege that some entity other than the government owns or controls LWDs. Instead, petitioner advances the theory that the Water Districts [28] owner is the District itself. Assuming for the sake of argument that an LWD is [29] self-owned, as petitioner describes an LWD, the government in any event controls all LWDs. First, government officials appoint all LWD directors to a fixed term of office. Second, any per diem of LWD directors in excess of P50 is subject to the approval of the Local Water Utilities Administration, and directors can receive [30] no other compensation for their services to the LWD. Third, the Local Water Utilities Administration can require LWDs to merge or consolidate their facilities or [31] operations. This element of government control subjects LWDs to COAs audit jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that upon the enactment of PD 198, LWDs became private entities through the transfer of ownership of water facilities from local government units to their respective water districts as mandated by PD 198. Petitioner is grasping at straws. Privatization involves the transfer of government assets to a private entity. Petitioner concedes that the owner of the assets transferred under [32] Section 6 (c) of PD 198 is no other than the LWD itself. The transfer of assets mandated by PD 198 is a transfer of the water systems facilities managed, operated by or under the control of such city, municipality or province to such [33] (water) district. In short, the transfer is from one government entity to another
53

government entity. PD 198 is bereft of any indication that the transfer is to privatize the operation and control of water systems. Finally, petitioner claims that even on the assumption that the government owns and controls LWDs, Section 20 of PD 198 prevents COA from auditing [34] LWDs. Section 20 of PD 198 provides: Sec. 20. System of Business Administration. The Board shall, as soon as practicable, prescribe and define by resolution a system of business administration and accounting for the district, which shall be patterned upon and conform to the standards established by the Administration. Auditing shall be performed by a certified public accountant not in the government service . The Administration may, however, conduct annual audits of the fiscal operations of the district to be performed by an auditor retained by the Administration. Expenses incurred in connection therewith shall be borne equally by the water district concerned and [35] the Administration. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner argues that PD 198 expressly prohibits COA auditors, or any government auditor for that matter, from auditing LWDs. Petitioner asserts that this is the import of the second sentence of Section 20 of PD 198 when it states that *A+uditing shall be performed by a certified public accountant not in the [36] government service. PD 198 cannot prevail over the Constitution. No amount of clever legislation can exclude GOCCs like LWDs from COAs audit jurisdiction. Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution outlaws any scheme or devise to escape COAs audit jurisdiction, thus: Sec. 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. (Emphasis supplied) The framers of the Constitution added Section 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution precisely to annul provisions of Presidential Decrees, like that of Section 20 of PD 198, that exempt GOCCs from COA audit. The following exchange in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission elucidates this intent of the framers: MR. OPLE: I propose to add a new section on line 9, page 2 of the amended committee report which reads: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED EXEMPTING ANY ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY GUISE WHATEVER, OR ANY INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. May I explain my reasons on record. We know that a number of entities of the government took advantage of the absence of a legislature in the past to obtain presidential decrees exempting themselves from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit , one notable example of which is the Philippine National Oil Company which is really an empty shell. It is a holding corporation by itself, and strictly on its own account. Its funds were not very impressive in quantity but underneath that shell there were billions of pesos in a multiplicity of companies. The PNOC the empty shell under a presidential decree was covered by the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit, but the billions of pesos invested in different corporations underneath it were exempted from the coverage of the Commission on Audit. Another example is the United Coconut Planters Bank. The Commission on Audit has determined that the coconut levy is a form of taxation; and that, therefore, these funds attributed to the shares of 1,400,000 coconut farmers are, in effect, public funds. And that was, I think, the basis of the PCGG in undertaking that last major sequestration of up to 94 percent of all the shares in the United Coconut Planters Bank. The charter of the UCPB, through a presidential decree, exempted it from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit, it being a private organization. So these are the fetuses of future abuse that we are slaying right here with this additional section. May I repeat the amendment, Madam President: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED EXEMPTING ANY ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY GUISE WHATEVER, OR ANY INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. THE PRESIDENT: May we know the position of the Committee on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople?
54

MR. JAMIR: If the honorable Commissioner will change the number of the section to 4, we will accept the amendment. MR. OPLE: Gladly, Madam President. Thank you. MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of inquiry on the new amendment. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized. MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. May I just ask a few questions of Commissioner Ople. Is that not included in Section 2 (1) where it states: (c) government -owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries? So that if these government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries are subjected to the audit of the COA, any law exempting certain government corporations or subsidiaries will be already unconstitutional. So I believe, Madam President, that the proposed amendment is unnecessary. MR. MONSOD: Madam President, since this has been accepted, we would like to reply to the point raised by Commissioner de Castro. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod will please proceed. MR. MONSOD: I think the Commissioner is trying to avoid the situation that happened in the past, because the same provision was in the 1973 Constitution and yet somehow a law or a decree was passed where certain institutions were exempted from audit. We are just reaffirming, emphasizing, the role of the [37] Commission on Audit so that this problem will never arise in the future. There is an irreconcilable conflict between the second sentence of Section 20 of PD 198 prohibiting COA auditors from auditing LWDs and Sections 2(1) and 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution vesting in COA the power to audit all GOCCs. We rule that the second sentence of Section 20 of PD 198 is unconstitutional since it violates Sections 2(1) and 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution. On the Legality of COAs Practice of Charging Auditing Fees Petitioner claims that the auditing fees COA charges LWDs for audit services [38] violate the prohibition in Section 18 of RA 6758, which states: Sec. 18. Additional Compensation of Commission on Audit Personnel and of other Agencies. In order to preserve the independence and integrity of the Commission on Audit (COA), its officials and employees are prohibited from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, government-owned or controlled corporations, and government financial institutions, except those compensation paid directly by COA out of its appropriations and contributions. Government entities, including government-owned or controlled corporations including financial institutions and local government units are hereby prohibited from assessing or billing other government entities, including government-owned or controlled corporations including financial institutions or local government units for services rendered by its officials and employees as part of their regular functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to said officials and employees. (Emphasis supplied) Claiming that Section 18 is absolute and leaves no doubt, petitioner asks COA to discontinue its practice of charging auditing fees to LWDs since such practice allegedly violates the law. Petitioners claim has no basis. Section 18 of RA 6758 prohibits COA personnel from receiving any kind of compensation from any government entity except compensation paid directly by COA out of its appropriations and contributions. Thus, RA 6758 itself recognizes an exception to the statutory ban on COA personnel receiving compensation from [40] GOCCs. In Tejada v. Domingo, the Court declared: There can be no question that Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 is designed to strengthen further the policy x x x to preserve the independence and integrity of the COA, by explicitly PROHIBITING: (1) COA officials and employees from receiving
[39]
55

salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, GOCCs and government financial institutions, except such compensation paid directly by the COA out of its appropriations and contributions, and (2) government entities, including GOCCs, government financial institutions and local government units from assessing or billing other government entities, GOCCs, government financial institutions or local government units for services rendered by the latters officials and employees as part of their regular functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to said officials and employees. xxx The first aspect of the strategy is directed to the COA itself, while the second aspect is addressed directly against the GOCCs and government financial institutions. Under the first, COA personnel assigned to auditing units of GOCCs or government financial institutions can receive only such salaries, allowances or fringe benefits paid directly by the COA out of its appropriations and contributions. The contributions referred to are the cost of audit services earlier mentioned which cannot include the extra emoluments or benefits now claimed by petitioners. The COA is further barred from assessing or billing GOCCs and government financial institutions for services rendered by its personnel as part of their regular audit functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to such personnel. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) In Tejada, the Court explained the meaning of the word contributions in Section 18 of RA 6758, which allows COA to charge GOCCs the cost of its audit services: x x x the contributions from the GOCCs are limited to the cost of audit services which are based on the actual cost of the audit function in the corporation concerned plus a reasonable rate to cover overhead expenses. The actual audit cost shall include personnel services, maintenance and other operating expenses, depreciation on capital and equipment and out-of-pocket expenses. In respect to the allowances and fringe benefits granted by the GOCCs to the COA personnel assigned to the formers auditing units, the same shall be directly defrayed by COA [41] from its own appropriations x x x. COA may charge GOCCs actual audit cost but GOCCs must pay the same directly to COA and not to COA auditors. Petitioner has not alleged that COA charges LWDs auditing fees in excess of COAs actual audit cost. Neither has petitioner alleged that the auditing fees are paid by LWDs directly to individual COA auditors. Thus, petitioners contention must fail. WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Commission on Audit dated 3 January 2000 and the Decision dated 30 January 2001 denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration are AFFIRMED. The second sentence of Section 20 of Presidential Decree No. 198 is declared VOID for being inconsistent with Sections 2 (1) and 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ.,concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 58168 December 19, 1989 CONCEPCION MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR, SOLEDAD MAGSAYSAY-CABRERA, LUISA MAGSAYSAY-CORPUZ, assisted be her husband, Dr. Jose Corpuz, FELICIDAD P. MAGSAYSAY, and MERCEDES MAGSAYSAY-DIAZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ADELAIDA RODRIGUEZ-MAGSAYSAY, Special Administratrix of the Estate of the late Genaro F. Magsaysay respondents.
FERNAN, C.J.:
56

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek to reverse and set aside [1] 1 the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July l3, 1981, affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City which denied petitioners' motion to intervene in an annulment suit filed by herein private respondent, and [2] its resolution dated September 7, 1981, denying their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners are raising a purely legal question; whether or not respondent Court of Appeals correctly denied their motion for intervention. The facts are not controverted. On February 9, 1979, Adelaida Rodriguez-Magsaysay, widow and special administratix of the estate of the late Senator Genaro Magsaysay, brought before the then Court of First Instance of Olongapo an action against Artemio Panganiban, Subic Land Corporation (SUBIC), Filipinas Manufacturer's Bank (FILMANBANK) and the Register of Deeds of Zambales. In her complaint, she alleged that in 1958, she and her husband acquired, thru conjugal funds, a parcel of land with improvements, known as "Pequena Island", covered by TCT No. 3258; that after the death of her husband, she discovered [a] an annotation at the back of TCT No. 3258 that "the land was acquired by her husband from his separate capital;" [b] the registration of a Deed of Assignment dated June 25, 1976 purportedly executed by the late Senator in favor of SUBIC, as a result of which TCT No. 3258 was cancelled and TCT No. 22431 issued in the name of SUBIC; and [c] the registration of Deed of Mortgage dated April 28, 1977 in the amount of P 2,700,000.00 executed by SUBIC in favor of FILMANBANK; that the foregoing acts were void and done in an attempt to defraud the conjugal partnership considering that the land is conjugal, her marital consent to the annotation on TCT No. 3258 was not obtained, the change made by the Register of Deeds of the titleholders was effected without the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration and that the late Senator did not execute the purported Deed of Assignment or his consent thereto, if obtained, was secured by mistake, violence and intimidation. She further alleged that the assignment in favor of SUBIC was without consideration and consequently null and void. She prayed that the Deed of Assignment and the Deed of Mortgage be annulled and that the Register of Deeds be ordered to cancel TCT No. 22431 and to issue a new title in her favor. On March 7, 1979, herein petitioners, sisters of the late senator, filed a motion for intervention on the ground that on June 20, 1978, their brother conveyed to them one-half (1/2 ) of his shareholdings in SUBIC or a total of 416,566.6 shares and as assignees of around 41 % of the total outstanding shares of such stocks of SUBIC, they have a substantial and legal interest in the subject matter of litigation and that they have a legal interest in the success of the suit with respect to SUBIC. On July 26, 1979, the court denied the motion for intervention, and ruled that petitioners have no legal interest whatsoever in the matter in litigation and their being alleged assignees or transferees of certain shares in SUBIC cannot legally entitle them to intervene because SUBIC has a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders. On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals found no factual or legal justification to disturb the findings of the lower court. The appellate court further stated that whatever claims the petitioners have against the late Senator or against SUBIC for that matter can be ventilated in a separate proceeding, such that with the denial of the motion for intervention, they are not left without any remedy or judicial relief under existing law. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant recourse. Petitioners anchor their right to intervene on the purported assignment made by the late Senator of a certain portion of his shareholdings to them as evidenced by a 2 Deed of Sale dated June 20, 1978. Such transfer, petitioners posit, clothes them with an interest, protected by law, in the matter of litigation. Invoking the principle enunciated in the case of PNB v. Phil. Veg. Oil Co., 49 Phil. 3 857,862 & 853 (1927), petitioners strongly argue that their ownership of 41.66% of the entire outstanding capital stock of SUBIC entitles them to a significant vote in the corporate affairs; that they are affected by the action of the widow of their late brother for it concerns the only tangible asset of the corporation and that it appears that they are more vitally interested in the outcome of the case than SUBIC. Viewed in the light of Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court affirms the respondent court's holding that petitioners herein have no legal interest in the subject matter in litigation so as to entitle them to intervene in the
57

proceedings below. In the case of Batama Farmers' Cooperative Marketing 4 Association, Inc. v. Rosal, we held: "As clearly stated in Section 2 of Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, to be permitted to intervene in a pending action, the party must have a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, or he must be so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of the property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof ." To allow intervention, [a] it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or otherwise qualified; and [b] consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both requirements must concur as the first is not more 5 important than the second. The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if persons not parties of the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and 6 interminable. And this is not the policy of the law. The words "an interest in the subject" mean a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, and which would put the intervenor in a legal position to litigate a fact alleged in the complaint, without the establishment of which plaintiff could not 7 recover. Here, the interest, if it exists at all, of petitioners-movants is indirect, contingent, remote, conjectural, consequential and collateral. At the very least, their interest is purely inchoate, or in sheer expectancy of a right in the management of the corporation and to share in the profits thereof and in the properties and assets thereof on dissolution, after payment of the corporate debts and obligations. While a share of stock represents a proportionate or aliquot interest in the property of the corporation, it does not vest the owner thereof with any legal right or title to any of the property, his interest in the corporate property being equitable or beneficial in nature. Shareholders are in no legal sense the owners of corporate 8 property, which is owned by the corporation as a distinct legal person. Petitioners further contend that the availability of other remedies, as declared by the Court of appeals, is totally immaterial to the availability of the remedy of intervention. We cannot give credit to such averment. As earlier stated, that the movant's interest may be protected in a separate proceeding is a factor to be considered in allowing or disallowing a motion for intervention. It is significant to note at this juncture that as per records, there are four pending cases involving the parties herein, enumerated as follows: [1] Special Proceedings No. 122122 before the CFI of Manila, Branch XXII, entitled "Concepcion Magsaysay-Labrador, et al. v. Subic Land Corp., et al.", involving the validity of the transfer by the late Genaro Magsaysay of one-half of his shareholdings in Subic Land Corporation; [2] Civil Case No. 2577-0 before the CFI of Zambales, Branch III, "Adelaida Rodriguez-Magsaysay v. Panganiban, etc.; Concepcion Labrador, et al. Intervenors", seeking to annul the purported Deed of Assignment in favor of SUBIC and its annotation at the back of TCT No. 3258 in the name of respondent's deceased husband; [3] SEC Case No. 001770, filed by respondent praying, among other things that she be declared in her capacity as the surviving spouse and administratrix of the estate of Genaro Magsaysay as the sole subscriber and stockholder of SUBIC. There, petitioners, by motion, sought to intervene. Their motion to reconsider the denial of their motion to intervene was granted; [4] SP No. Q-26739 before the CFI of Rizal, Branch IV, petitioners herein filing a contingent claim pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86, Revised 9 Rules of Court. Petitioners' interests are no doubt amply protected in these cases. Neither do we lend credence to petitioners' argument that they are more interested in the outcome of the case than the corporation-assignee, owing to the fact that the latter is willing to compromise with widow-respondent and since a compromise involves the giving of reciprocal concessions, the only conceivable concession the corporation may give is a total or partial relinquishment of the 10 corporate assets. Such claim all the more bolsters the contingent nature of petitioners' interest in the subject of litigation.
58

The factual findings of the trial court are clear on this point. The petitioners cannot claim the right to intervene on the strength of the transfer of shares allegedly executed by the late Senator. The corporation did not keep books and 11 records. Perforce, no transfer was ever recorded, much less effected as to prejudice third parties. The transfer must be registered in the books of the corporation to affect third persons. The law on corporations is explicit. Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides, thus: "No transfer, however, shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is recorded in the books of the corporation showing the names of the parties to the transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the certificate or certificates and the number of shares transferred." And even assuming arguendo that there was a valid transfer, petitioners are nonetheless barred from intervening inasmuch as their rights can be ventilated and amply protected in another proceeding. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Corte's, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., is on leave. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-31061 August 17, 1976 SULO NG BAYAN INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., PARADISE FARMS, INC., NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, HACIENDA CARETAS, INC, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, defendants-appellees. Hill & Associates Law Offices for appellant. Araneta, Mendoza & Papa for appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. Carlos, Madarang, Carballo & Valdez for Paradise Farms, Inc. Leopoldo M. Abellera, Arsenio J. Magpale & Raul G. Bernardo, Office of the Government Corporate Counsel for appellee National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority. Candido G. del Rosario for appellee Hacienda Caretas, Inc.
ANTONIO, J.: The issue posed in this appeal is whether or not plaintiff corporation (non- stock may institute an action in behalf of its individual members for the recovery of certain parcels of land allegedly owned by said members; for the nullification of the transfer certificates of title issued in favor of defendants appellees covering the aforesaid parcels of land; for a declaration of "plaintiff's members as absolute owners of the property" and the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title; and for damages. On April 26, 1966, plaintiff-appellant Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. filed an accion de revindicacion with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Valenzuela, Bulacan, against defendants-appellees to recover the ownership and possession of a large tract of land in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, containing an area of 27,982,250 square meters, more or less, registered under the Torrens 1 System in the name of defendants-appellees' predecessors-in-interest. The complaint, as amended on June 13, 1966, specifically alleged that plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with its principal office and place of business at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan; that its membership is composed of natural persons residing at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan; that the members of the plaintiff corporation, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, had pioneered in the clearing of the fore-mentioned tract of land, cultivated the same since the Spanish regime and continuously
59

possessed the said property openly and public under concept of ownership adverse against the whole world; that defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc., sometime in the year 1958, through force and intimidation, ejected the members of the plaintiff corporation fro their possession of the aforementioned vast tract of land; that upon investigation conducted by the members and officers of plaintiff corporation, they found out for the first time in the year 1961 that the land in question "had been either fraudelently or erroneously included, by direct or constructive fraud, in Original Certificate of Title No. 466 of the Land of Records of the province of Bulacan", issued on May 11, 1916, which title is fictitious, nonexistent and devoid of legal efficacy due to the fact that "no original survey nor plan whatsoever" appears to have been submitted as a basis thereof and that the Court of First Instance of Bulacan which issued the decree of registration did not acquire jurisdiction over the land registration case because no notice of such proceeding was given to the members of the plaintiff corporation who were then in actual possession of said properties; that as a consequence of the nullity of the original title, all subsequent titles derived therefrom, such as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4903 issued in favor of Gregorio Araneta and Carmen Zaragoza, which was subsequently cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7573 in the name of Gregorio Araneta, Inc., Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4988 issued in the name of, the National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority (NWSA), Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4986 issued in the name of Hacienda Caretas, Inc., and another transfer certificate of title in the name of Paradise Farms, Inc., are therefore void. Plaintiffappellant consequently prayed (1) that Original Certificate of Title No. 466, as well as all transfer certificates of title issued and derived therefrom, be nullified; (2) that "plaintiff's members" be declared as absolute owners in common of said property and that the corresponding certificate of title be issued to plaintiff; and (3) that defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. be ordered to pay to plaintiff the damages therein specified. On September 2, 1966, defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that (1) the complaint states no cause of action; and (2) the cause of action, if any, is barred by prescription and laches. Paradise Farms, Inc. and Hacienda Caretas, Inc. filed motions to dismiss based on the same grounds. Appellee National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority did not file any motion to dismiss. However, it pleaded in its answer as special and affirmative defenses lack of cause of action by the plaintiff-appellant and the barring of such action by prescription and laches. During the pendency of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion, dated October 7, 1966, praying that the case be transferred to another branch of the Court of First Instance sitting at Malolos, Bulacan, According to defendantsappellees, they were not furnished a copy of said motion, hence, on October 14, 1966, the lower court issued an Order requiring plaintiff-appellant to furnish the appellees copy of said motion, hence, on October 14, 1966, defendant-appellant's motion dated October 7, 1966 and, consequently, prayed that the said motion be denied for lack of notice and for failure of the plaintiff-appellant to comply with the Order of October 14, 1966. Similarly, defendant-appellee paradise Farms, Inc. filed, on December 2, 1966, a manifestation information the court that it also did not receive a copy of the afore-mentioned of appellant. On January 24, 1967, the trial court issued an Order dismissing the amended complaint. On February 14, 1967, appellant filed a motion to reconsider the Order of dismissal on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to issue the Order of dismissal, because its request for the transfer of the case from the Valenzuela Branch of the Court of First Instance to the Malolos Branch of the said court has been approved by the Department of Justice; that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action because the subject matter of the controversy in one of common interest to the members of the corporation who are so numerous that the present complaint should be treated as a class suit; and that the action is not barred by the statute of limitations because (a) an action for the reconveyance of property registered through fraud does not prescribe, and (b) an action to impugn a void judgment may be brought any time. This motion was denied by the trial court in its Order dated February 22, 1967. From the afore-mentioned Order of dismissal and the Order denying its motion for reconsideration, plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On September 3, 1969, the Court of Appeals, upon finding that no question of fact was involved in the appeal but only questions of law and jurisdiction, certified this case to this Court for resolution of the legal issues involved in the controversy. I Appellant contends, as a first assignment of error, that the trial court acted without authority and jurisdiction in dismissing the amended complaint when the Secretary
60

of Justice had already approved the transfer of the case to any one of the two branches of the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan. Appellant confuses the jurisdiction of a court and the venue of cases with the assignment of cases in the different branches of the same Court of First Instance. Jurisdiction implies the power of the court to decide a case, while venue the place of action. There is no question that respondent court has jurisdiction over the case. The venue of actions in the Court of First Instance is prescribed in Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. The laying of venue is not left to the caprice of 2 plaintiff, but must be in accordance with the aforesaid provision of the rules. The mere fact that a request for the transfer of a case to another branch of the same court has been approved by the Secretary of Justice does not divest the court originally taking cognizance thereof of its jurisdiction, much less does it change the venue of the action. As correctly observed by the trial court, the indorsement of the Undersecretary of Justice did not order the transfer of the case to the Malolos Branch of the Bulacan Court of First Instance, but only "authorized" it for the reason given by plaintiff's counsel that the transfer would be convenient for the parties. The trial court is not without power to either grant or deny the motion, especially in the light of a strong opposition thereto filed by the defendant. We hold that the court a quo acted within its authority in denying the motion for the transfer the case to Malolos notwithstanding the authorization" of the same by the Secretary of Justice. II Let us now consider the substantive aspect of the Order of dismissal. In dismissing the amended complaint, the court a quo said: The issue of lack of cause of action raised in the motions to dismiss refer to the lack of personality of plaintiff to file the instant action. Essentially, the term 'cause of action' is composed of two elements: (1) the right of the plaintiff and (2) the violation of such right by the defendant. (Moran, Vol. 1, p. 111). For these reasons, the rules require that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest and that all persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs (Sec. 2, Rule 3). In the amended complaint, the people whose rights were alleged to have been violated by being deprived and dispossessed of their land are the members of the corporation and not the corporation itself. The corporation has a separate. and distinct personality from its members, and this is not a mere technicality but a matter of substantive law. There is no allegation that the members have assigned their rights to the corporation or any showing that the corporation has in any way or manner succeeded to such rights. The corporation evidently did not have any rights violated by the defendants for which it could seek redress. Even if the Court should find against the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff corporation would not be entitled to the reliefs prayed for, which are recoveries of ownership and possession of the land, issuance of the corresponding title in its name, and payment of damages. Neither can such reliefs be awarded to the members allegedly deprived of their land, since they are not parties to the suit. It appearing clearly that the action has not been filed in the names of the real parties in interest, the complaint must be dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of 3 action. Viewed in the light of existing law and jurisprudence, We find that the trial court correctly dismissed the amended complaint. It is a doctrine well-established and obtains both at law and in equity that a corporation is a distinct legal entity to be considered as separate and apart from the individual stockholders or members who compose it, and is not affected by the 4 personal rights, obligations and transactions of its stockholders or members. The property of the corporation is its property and not that of the stockholders, as owners, although they have equities in it. Properties registered in the name of the corporation are owned by it as an entity separate and distinct from its 5 members. Conversely, a corporation ordinarily has no interest in the individual property of its stockholders unless transferred to the corporation, "even in the case 6 of a one-man corporation. The mere fact that one is president of a corporation does not render the property which he owns or possesses the property of the corporation, since the president, as individual, and the corporation are separate 7 similarities. Similarly, stockholders in a corporation engaged in buying and dealing
61

in real estate whose certificates of stock entitled the holder thereof to an allotment in the distribution of the land of the corporation upon surrender of their stock certificates were considered not to have such legal or equitable title or interest in the land, as would support a suit for title, especially against parties other than the 8 corporation. It must be noted, however, that the juridical personality of the corporation, as separate and distinct from the persons composing it, is but a legal fiction introduced for the purpose of convenience and to subserve the ends of 9 justice. This separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded, or the veil of corporate fiction pierced, in cases where it is used as a cloak or cover for 10 fraud or illegality, or to work -an injustice, or where necessary to achieve equity. Thus, when "the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, ... the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in the case of two corporations, merge them into one, the 11 one being merely regarded as part or instrumentality of the other. The same is true where a corporation is a dummy and serves no business purpose and is intended only as a blind, or an alter ego or business conduit for the sole benefit of 12 the stockholders. This doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality of the corporation has been applied by the courts in those cases when the corporate 13 entity is used for the evasion of taxes or when the veil of corporate fiction is used 14 to confuse legitimate issue of employer-employee relationship, or when necessary for the protection of creditors, in which case the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced and the funds of the corporation may be garnished to satisfy the 15 debts of a principal stockholder. The aforecited principle is resorted to by the courts as a measure protection for third parties to prevent fraud, illegality or 16 injustice. It has not been claimed that the members have assigned or transferred whatever rights they may have on the land in question to the plaintiff corporation. Absent any showing of interest, therefore, a corporation, like plaintiff-appellant herein, has no personality to bring an action for and in behalf of its stockholders or members for the purpose of recovering property which belongs to said stockholders or members in their personal capacities. It is fundamental that there cannot be a cause of action 'without an antecedent 17 primary legal right conferred' by law upon a person. Evidently, there can be no wrong without a corresponding right, and no breach of duty by one person without 18 a corresponding right belonging to some other person. Thus, the essential elements of a cause of action are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the aforesaid 19 legal right. Clearly, no right of action exists in favor of plaintiff corporation, for as shown heretofore it does not have any interest in the subject matter of the case which is material and, direct so as to entitle it to file the suit as a real party in interest. III Appellant maintains, however, that the amended complaint may be treated as a class suit, pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. In order that a class suit may prosper, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; and (2) that the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to 20 bring them all before the court. Under the first requisite, the person who sues must have an interest in the controversy, common with those for whom he sues, and there must be that unity of interest between him and all such other persons which would entitle them to 21 maintain the action if suit was brought by them jointly. As to what constitutes common interest in the subject matter of the controversy, it 22 has been explained in Scott v. Donald thus: The interest that will allow parties to join in a bill of complaint, or that will enable the court to dispense with the presence of all the parties, when numerous, except a determinate number, is not only an interest in the question, but one in common in the subject Matter of the suit; ... a community of interest growing out of the nature and condition of the right in dispute; for, although there may not be any privity between the numerous parties, there is a common title out of which the question arises, and which lies at
62

the foundation of the proceedings ... [here] the only matter in common among the plaintiffs, or between them and the defendants, is an interest in the Question involved which alone cannot lay a foundation for the joinder of parties. There is scarcely a suit at law, or in equity which settles a Principle or applies a principle to a given state of facts, or in which a general statute is interpreted, that does not involved a Question in which other parties are interested. ... (Emphasis supplied ) Here, there is only one party plaintiff, and the plaintiff corporation does not even have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and cannot, therefore, represent its members or stockholders who claim to own in their individual capacities ownership of the said property. Moreover, as correctly stated by the appellees, a class suit does not lie in actions for the recovery of property where several persons claim Partnership of their respective portions of the property, as each one could alleged and prove his respective right in a different way for each portion of the land, so that they cannot all be held to have Identical title through 23 acquisition prescription. Having shown that no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff exists and that the action in the lower court cannot be considered as a class suit, it would be unnecessary and an Idle exercise for this Court to resolve the remaining issue of whether or not the plaintiffs action for reconveyance of real property based upon constructive or implied trust had already prescribed. ACCORDINGLY, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED with costs against the plaintiff-appellant. Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur. SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 124715. January 24, 2000] RUFINA LUY LIM petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AUTO TRUCK TBA CORPORATION, SPEED DISTRIBUTING, INC., ACTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, ALLIANCE MARKETING CORPORATION, ACTION COMPANY, INC. respondents. DECISION BUENA, J.: May a corporation, in its universality, be the proper subject of and be included in the inventory of the estate of a deceased person? Petitioner disputes before us through the instant petition for review on certiorari, [1] the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 18 April 1996, in CA-GR SP [2] No. 38617, which nullified and set aside the orders dated 04 July 1995 , 12 [3] [4] September 1995 and 15 September 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, sitting as a probate court. Petitioner Rufina Luy Lim is the surviving spouse of the late Pastor Y. Lim whose estate is the subject of probate proceedings in Special Proceedings Q-95-23334, entitled, "In Re: Intestate Estate of Pastor Y. Lim Rufina Luy Lim, represented by George Luy, Petitioner". Private respondents Auto Truck Corporation, Alliance Marketing Corporation, Speed Distributing, Inc., Active Distributing, Inc. and Action Company are corporations formed, organized and existing under Philippine laws and which owned real properties covered under the Torrens system. On 11 June 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Herein petitioner, as surviving spouse and duly represented by her nephew George Luy, filed on 17 March 1995, a joint [5] petition for the administration of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Private respondent corporations, whose properties were included in the inventory [6] of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim, then filed a motion for the lifting of lis pendens and [7] motion for exclusion of certain properties from the estate of the decedent. In an order dated 08 June 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, sitting as a probate court, granted the private respondents twin motions, in this wise:
[8]
63

"Wherefore, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby ordered to lift, expunge or delete the annotation of lis pendens on Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 116716, 116717, 116718, 116719 and 5182 and it is hereby further ordered that the properties covered by the same titles as well as those properties by (sic) Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 613494, 363123, 236236 and 263236 are excluded from these proceedings. SO ORDERED." Subsequently, Rufina Luy Lim filed a verified amended petition which contained the following averments: "3. The late Pastor Y. Lim personally owned during his lifetime the following business entities, to wit: Business Entity X X X X Block 3, Lot 6, Address:
[9]
X 2251 Roosevelt
Auto Truck TBA Corp. Avenue, Quezon City. X X X X
Active Distributors, Inc. Dacca BF Homes, Paraaque, Metro Manila. X X X X
Block 3, Lot 6,
Action Company Murphy, Quezon City or 92-D Mc-Arthur Highway Valenzuela Bulacan.
100 20th Avenue
Alliance Marketing ,Inc. Dacca BF Homes, Paraaque, Metro Manila. X X X X
Speed Distributing Inc. Aguinaldo Highway, Bacoor, Cavite.
910 Barrio Niog,
"3.1 Although the above business entities dealt and engaged in business with the public as corporations, all their capital, assets and equity were however, personally owned by the late Pastor Y Lim. Hence the alleged stockholders and officers appearing in the respective articles of incorporation of the above business entities were mere dummies of Pastor Y. Lim, and they were listed therein only for purposes of registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
64

"4. Pastor Lim, likewise, had Time, Savings and Current Deposits with the following banks: (a) Metrobank, Grace Park, Caloocan City and Quezon Avenue, Quezon City Branches and (b) First Intestate Bank (formerly Producers Bank), Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation and in other banks whose identities are yet to be determined. "5. That the following real properties, although registered in the name of the above entities, were actually acquired by Pastor Y. Lim during his marriage with petitioner, to wit: Corporation cation X X X X TCT No. 617726 Sto. Title Lo "Wherefore, the order dated 08 June 1995 is hereby set aside and the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby directed to reinstate the annotation of lis pendens in case said annotation had already been deleted and/or cancelled said TCT Nos. 116716, 116717, 116718, 116719 and 51282. Further more (sic), said properties covered by TCT Nos. 613494, 365123, 236256 and 236237 by virtue of the petitioner are included in the instant petition. SO ORDERED." q. Alliance Marketing 27896 Metro Manila Copies of the above-mentioned Transfer Certificate of Title and/or Tax Declarations are hereto attached as Annexes "C" to "W". X X X X "The issue precisely raised by the petitioner in her petition is whether the corporations are the mere alter egos or instrumentalities of Pastor Lim, Otherwise (sic) stated, the issue involves the piercing of the corporate veil, a matter that is clearly within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and not the TCT No. Prance, On 04 September 1995, the probate court appointed Rufina Lim as special [11] administrator and Miguel Lim and Lawyer Donald Lee, as co-special administrators of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim, after which letters of administration were accordingly issued. In an order dated 12 September 1995, the probate court denied anew private respondents motion for exclusion, in this wise:
[12]
acquired by him during the existence of his marriage with petitioner. "8. There are other real and personal properties owned by Pastor Y. Lim which petitioner could not as yet identify. Petitioner, however will submit to this Honorable Court the identities thereof and the necessary documents covering the same as soon as possible." On 04 July 1995, the Regional Trial Court acting on petitioners motion issued an [10] order , thus:
k. Auto Truck Domingo TBA Corporation Cainta, Rizal
"7. The aforementioned properties and/or real interests left by the late Pastor Y. Lim, are all conjugal in nature, having been
65

Securities and Exchange Commission. Thus, in the case of Cease vs. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 483, the crucial issue decided by the regular court was whether the corporation involved therein was the mere extension of the decedent. After finding in the affirmative, the Court ruled that the assets of the corporation are also assets of the estate. A reading of P.D. 902, the law relied upon by oppositors, shows that the SECs exclusive (sic) applies only to intra-corporate controversy. It is simply a suit to settle the intestate estate of a deceased person who, during his lifetime, acquired several properties and put up corporations as his instrumentalities. SO ORDERED." On 15 September 1995, the probate court acting on an ex parte motion filed by [13] petitioner, issued an order the dispositive portion of which reads: "Wherefore, the parties and the following banks concerned herein under enumerated are hereby ordered to comply strictly with this order and to produce and submit to the special administrators , through this Honorable Court within (5) five days from receipt of this order their respective records of the savings/current accounts/time deposits and other deposits in the names of Pastor Lim and/or corporations above-mentioned, showing all the transactions made or done concerning savings /current accounts from January 1994 up to their receipt of this court order. XXX XXX XXX In the instant petition for review, petitioner prays that we affirm the orders issued by the probate court which were subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeals.
[14]
On 18 April 1996, the Court of Appeals, finding in favor of herein private [15] respondents, rendered the assailed decision , the decretal portion of which declares: "Wherefore, premises considered, the instant special civil action for certiorari is hereby granted, The impugned orders issued by respondent court on July 4,1995 and September 12, 1995 are hereby nullified and set aside. The impugned order issued by respondent on September 15, 1995 is nullified insofar as petitioner corporations" bank accounts and records are concerned. SO ORDERED." Through the expediency of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, herein petitioner Rufina [16] Luy Lim now comes before us with a lone assignment of error : "The respondent Court of Appeals erred in reversing the orders of the lower court which merely allowed the preliminary or provisional inclusion of the private respondents as part of the estate of the late deceased (sic) Pastor Y. Lim with the respondent Court of Appeals arrogating unto itself the power to repeal, to disobey or to ignore the clear and explicit provisions of Rules 81,83,84 and 87 of the Rules of Court and thereby preventing the petitioner, from performing her duty as special administrator of the estate as expressly provided in the said Rules." Petitioners contentions tread on perilous grounds.
SO ORDERED." Private respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari , with an urgent prayer for a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, before the Court of Appeals questioning the orders of the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a probate court.
Yet, before we delve into the merits of the case, a review of the rules on jurisdiction over probate proceedings is indeed in order. The provisions of Republic Act 7691 Pambansa Blg. 129, are pertinent:
[17]
, which introduced amendments to Batas
66

"Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction: xxx xxx xxx of which must be specifically alleged, Provided, that interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys, litigation expenses and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees, Provided further, that where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; xxx xxx xxx"
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000); xxx xxx xxx
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.-Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos(P100,000) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs, the amount
Simply put, the determination of which court exercises jurisdiction over matters of probate depends upon the gross value of the estate of the decedent. As to the power and authority of the probate court, petitioner relies heavily on the principle that a probate court may pass upon title to certain properties, albeit provisionally, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory. In a litany of cases, We defined the parameters by which the court may extend its probing arms in the determination of the question of title in probate proceedings. This Court, in PASTOR, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
[18]
held:
"X X X As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title." We reiterated the rule in PEREIRA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
[19]
67

"X X X The function of resolving whether or not a certain property should be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator is one clearly within the competence of the probate court. However, the courts determination is only provisional in character, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action which may be instituted by the parties." Further, in MORALES vs. CFI OF CAVITE citing CUIZON vs. RAMOLETE made an exposition on the probate courts limited jurisdiction:
[20] [21]
court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court (e.g. probate, land registration, etc.), is in reality not a jurisdictional but in essence of procedural one, involving a mode of practice which may be waived. x x x x x x. These considerations assume greater cogency where, as here, the Torrens title is not in the decedents name but in others, a situation on which this Court has already had occasion to rule x x x."(emphasis Ours) Petitioner, in the present case, argues that the parcels of land covered under the Torrens system and registered in the name of private respondent corporations should be included in the inventory of the estate of the decedent Pastor Y. Lim, alleging that after all the determination by the probate court of whether these properties should be included or not is merely provisional in nature, thus, not conclusive and subject to a final determination in a separate action brought for the purpose of adjudging once and for all the issue of title. Yet, under the peculiar circumstances, where the parcels of land are registered in the name of private respondent corporations, the jurisprudence pronounced [24] in BOLISAY vs., ALCID is of great essence and finds applicability, thus: "It does not matter that respondent-administratrix has evidence purporting to support her claim of ownership, for, on the other hand, petitioners have a Torrens title in their favor, which under the law is endowed with incontestability until after it has been set aside in the manner indicated in the law itself, which, of course, does not include, bringing up the matter as a mere incident in special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons. x x x" "x x x. In regard to such incident of inclusion or exclusion, We hold that if a property covered by Torrens title is involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered as the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified or modified in
, We
"It is a well-settled rule that a probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, well and good; but if there is, then the parties, the administrator and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so." Again, in VALERA vs. INSERTO [23] Andres Narvasa :
[22]
, We had occasion to elucidate, through Mr. Justice
"Settled is the rule that a Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), acting as a probate court, exercises but limited jurisdiction, and thus has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the probate court for adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced, the reason for the exception being that the question of whether or not a particular matter should be resolved by the
68

an appropriate ordinary action, particularly, when as in the case at bar, possession of the property itself is in the persons named in the title. x x x" A perusal of the records would reveal that no strong compelling evidence was ever presented by petitioner to bolster her bare assertions as to the title of the deceased Pastor Y. Lim over the properties. Even so, P.D. 1529, otherwise known as, " The Property Registration Decree", proscribes collateral attack on Torrens Title, hence: "xxx xxx xxx Accordingly, the probate court was remiss in denying private respondents motion for exclusion. While it may be true that the Regional Trial Court, acting in a restricted capacity and exercising limited jurisdiction as a probate court, is competent to issue orders involving inclusion or exclusion of certain properties in the inventory of the estate of the decedent, and to adjudge, albeit, provisionally the question of title over properties, it is no less true that such authority conferred upon by law and reinforced by jurisprudence, should be exercised judiciously, with due regard and caution to the peculiar circumstances of each individual case. Notwithstanding that the real properties were duly registered under the Torrens system in the name of private respondents, and as such were to be afforded the presumptive conclusiveness of title, the probate court obviously opted to shut its eyes to this gleamy fact and still proceeded to issue the impugned orders. By its denial of the motion for exclusion, the probate court in effect acted in utter disregard of the presumption of conclusiveness of title in favor of private respondents. Certainly, the probate court through such brazen act transgressed the clear provisions of law and infringed settled jurisprudence on this matter. Moreover, petitioner urges that not only the properties of private respondent corporations are properly part of the decedents estate but also the private respondent corporations themselves. To rivet such flimsy contention, petitioner cited that the late Pastor Y. Lim during his lifetime, organized and wholly-owned the five corporations, which are the private respondents in the instant [25] [26] [27] case. Petitioner thus attached as Annexes "F" and "G" of the petition for review affidavits executed by Teresa Lim and Lani Wenceslao which among others, contained averments that the incorporators of Uniwide Distributing, Inc. included on the list had no actual participation in the organization and incorporation of the said corporation. The affiants added that the persons whose names appeared on the articles of incorporation of Uniwide Distributing, Inc., as incorporators thereof, are mere dummies since they have not actually contributed any amount to the capital stock of the corporation and have been merely asked by the late Pastor Y. Lim to affix their respective signatures thereon. It is settled that a corporation is clothed with personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it. It may not generally be held liable for that of the
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law." In CUIZON vs. RAMOLETE, where similarly as in the case at bar, the property subject of the controversy was duly registered under the Torrens system, We categorically stated: "x x x Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was in the possession of third parties and more important, covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in the name of such third parties, the respondent court should have denied the motion of the respondent administrator and excluded the property in question from the inventory of the property of the estate. It had no authority to deprive such third persons of their possession and ownership of the property. x x x" Inasmuch as the real properties included in the inventory of the estate of the late Pastor Y. Lim are in the possession of and are registered in the name of private respondent corporations, which under the law possess a personality separate and distinct from their stockholders, and in the absence of any cogency to shred the veil of corporate fiction, the presumption of conclusiveness of said titles in favor of private respondents should stand undisturbed.
69

persons composing it. It may not be held liable for the personal indebtedness of its [28] stockholders or those of the entities connected with it. Rudimentary is the rule that a corporation is invested by law with a personality distinct and separate from its stockholders or members. In the same vein, a corporation by legal fiction and convenience is an entity shielded by a protective mantle and imbued by law with a character alien to the persons comprising it. Nonetheless, the shield is not at all times invincible. Thus, in FIRST PHILIPPINE [29] INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS , We enunciated: "x x x When the fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals. x x x" Piercing the veil of corporate entity requires the court to see through the protective shroud which exempts its stockholders from liabilities that ordinarily, they could be subject to, or distinguishes one corporation from a seemingly separate one, were it [30] not for the existing corporate fiction. The corporate mask may be lifted and the corporate veil may be pierced when a corporation is just but the alter ego of a person or of another corporation. Where badges of fraud exist, where public convenience is defeated; where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby, the corporate fiction or the notion of legal entity [31] should come to naught. Further, the test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows: 1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal right; and (3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of. The [32] absence of any of these elements prevent "piercing the corporate veil". Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for [33] disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities. Moreover, to disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrong-doing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be [34] presumed. Granting arguendo that the Regional Trial Court in this case was not merely acting in a limited capacity as a probate court, petitioner nonetheless failed to adduce competent evidence that would have justified the court to impale the veil of corporate fiction. Truly, the reliance reposed by petitioner on the affidavits executed by Teresa Lim and Lani Wenceslao is unavailing considering that the aforementioned documents possess no weighty probative value pursuant to the hearsay rule. Besides it is imperative for us to stress that such affidavits are inadmissible in evidence inasmuch as the affiants were not at all presented during the course of the proceedings in the lower court. To put it differently, for this Court to uphold the admissibility of said documents would be to relegate from Our duty to apply such basic rule of evidence in a manner consistent with the law and jurisprudence. Our pronouncement in PEOPLE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. LEONIDAS pertinence:
[35]
finds
"Affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon."
70

As to the order of the lower court, dated 15 September 1995, the Court of Appeals correctly observed that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93 acted without jurisdiction in issuing said order; The probate court had no authority to demand the production of bank accounts in the name of the private respondent corporations. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of Appeals which nullified and set aside the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, acting as a probate court, dated 04 July 1995 and 12 September 1995 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION Adm. Matter No. R-181-P July 31, 1987
[36]
NCR Case No. 8-12389-91 sought to be enforced but rather the company known as "Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.," a duly registered corporation; and, 2. Respondent likewise caused the service of the alias writ of execution upon complainant who is a resident of Pasay City, despite knowledge that his territorial jurisdiction covers Manila only and does not extend to Pasay City. In his Comments, respondent Dalisay explained that when he garnished complainant's cash deposit at the Philtrust bank, he was merely performing a ministerial duty. While it is true that said writ was addressed to Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., yet it is also a fact that complainant had executed an affidavit before the Pasay City assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/president of said corporation and, because of that declaration, the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor case advised him to serve notice of garnishment on the Philtrust bank. On November 12, 1984, this case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation. Prior to the termination of the proceedings, however, complainant executed an affidavit of desistance stating that he is no longer interested in prosecuting the case against respondent Dalisay and that it was just a "misunderstanding" between them. Upon respondent's motion, the Executive Judge issued an order dated May 29, 1986 recommending the dismissal of the case. It has been held that the desistance of complainant does not preclude the taking of disciplinary action against respondent. Neither does it dissuade the Court from imposing the appropriate corrective sanction. One who holds a public position, especially an office directly connected with the administration of justice and the execution of judgments, must at all times be free from the appearance of 1 impropriety. We hold that respondent's actuation in enforcing a judgment against complainant who is not the judgment debtor in the case calls for disciplinary action. Considering the ministerial nature of his duty in enforcing writs of execution, what is incumbent upon him is to ensure that only that portion of a decision ordained or decreed in 2 the dispositive part should be the subject of execution. No more, no less. That the title of the case specifically names complainant as one of the respondents is of no
ADELIO C. CRUZ, complainant, vs. QUITERIO L. DALISAY, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Manila, respondents. RESOLUTION
FERNAN, J.: In a sworn complaint dated July 23, 1984, Adelio C. Cruz charged Quiterio L. Dalisay, Senior Deputy Sheriff of Manila, with "malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and serious irregularities" allegedly committed as follows: 1. Respondent sheriff attached and/or levied the money belonging to complainant Cruz when he was not himself the judgment debtor in the final judgment of NLRC
71

moment as execution must conform to that directed in the dispositive portion and not in the title of the case. The tenor of the NLRC judgment and the implementing writ is clear enough. It directed Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc. to reinstate the discharged employees and pay them full backwages. Respondent, however, chose to "pierce the veil of corporate entity" usurping a power belonging to the court and assumed improvidently that since the complainant is the owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., they are one and the same. It is a well-settled doctrine both in law and in equity that as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. The mere fact that one is president of a corporation does not render the property he owns or possesses the property of the corporation, since the president, as individual, and the corporation 3 are separate entities. Anent the charge that respondent exceeded his territorial jurisdiction, suffice it to say that the writ of execution sought to be implemented was dated July 9, 1984, or prior to the issuance of Administrative Circular No. 12 which restrains a sheriff from enforcing a court writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying in writing and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of the place where execution shall take place. ACCORDINGLY, we find Respondent Deputy Sheriff Quiterio L. Dalisay NEGLIGENT in the enforcement of the writ of execution in NLRC Case-No. 8-12389-91, and a fine equivalent to three [3] months salary is hereby imposed with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future will merit a heavier penalty. Let a copy of this Resolution be filed in the personal record of the respondent. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-31061 August 17, 1976 SULO NG BAYAN INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., PARADISE FARMS, INC., NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, HACIENDA CARETAS, INC, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, defendants-appellees. Hill & Associates Law Offices for appellant. Araneta, Mendoza & Papa for appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. Carlos, Madarang, Carballo & Valdez for Paradise Farms, Inc. Leopoldo M. Abellera, Arsenio J. Magpale & Raul G. Bernardo, Office of the Government Corporate Counsel for appellee National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority. Candido G. del Rosario for appellee Hacienda Caretas, Inc.
ANTONIO, J.: The issue posed in this appeal is whether or not plaintiff corporation (non- stock may institute an action in behalf of its individual members for the recovery of certain parcels of land allegedly owned by said members; for the nullification of the transfer certificates of title issued in favor of defendants appellees covering the aforesaid parcels of land; for a declaration of "plaintiff's members as absolute owners of the property" and the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title; and for damages. On April 26, 1966, plaintiff-appellant Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. filed an accion de revindicacion with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District,
72

Valenzuela, Bulacan, against defendants-appellees to recover the ownership and possession of a large tract of land in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, containing an area of 27,982,250 square meters, more or less, registered under the Torrens 1 System in the name of defendants-appellees' predecessors-in-interest. The complaint, as amended on June 13, 1966, specifically alleged that plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with its principal office and place of business at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan; that its membership is composed of natural persons residing at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan; that the members of the plaintiff corporation, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, had pioneered in the clearing of the fore-mentioned tract of land, cultivated the same since the Spanish regime and continuously possessed the said property openly and public under concept of ownership adverse against the whole world; that defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc., sometime in the year 1958, through force and intimidation, ejected the members of the plaintiff corporation fro their possession of the aforementioned vast tract of land; that upon investigation conducted by the members and officers of plaintiff corporation, they found out for the first time in the year 1961 that the land in question "had been either fraudelently or erroneously included, by direct or constructive fraud, in Original Certificate of Title No. 466 of the Land of Records of the province of Bulacan", issued on May 11, 1916, which title is fictitious, nonexistent and devoid of legal efficacy due to the fact that "no original survey nor plan whatsoever" appears to have been submitted as a basis thereof and that the Court of First Instance of Bulacan which issued the decree of registration did not acquire jurisdiction over the land registration case because no notice of such proceeding was given to the members of the plaintiff corporation who were then in actual possession of said properties; that as a consequence of the nullity of the original title, all subsequent titles derived therefrom, such as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4903 issued in favor of Gregorio Araneta and Carmen Zaragoza, which was subsequently cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7573 in the name of Gregorio Araneta, Inc., Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4988 issued in the name of, the National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority (NWSA), Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4986 issued in the name of Hacienda Caretas, Inc., and another transfer certificate of title in the name of Paradise Farms, Inc., are therefore void. Plaintiffappellant consequently prayed (1) that Original Certificate of Title No. 466, as well as all transfer certificates of title issued and derived therefrom, be nullified; (2) that "plaintiff's members" be declared as absolute owners in common of said property and that the corresponding certificate of title be issued to plaintiff; and (3) that defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. be ordered to pay to plaintiff the damages therein specified. On September 2, 1966, defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that (1) the complaint states no cause of action; and (2) the cause of action, if any, is barred by prescription and laches. Paradise Farms, Inc. and Hacienda Caretas, Inc. filed motions to dismiss based on the same grounds. Appellee National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority did not file any motion to dismiss. However, it pleaded in its answer as special and affirmative defenses lack of cause of action by the plaintiff-appellant and the barring of such action by prescription and laches. During the pendency of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion, dated October 7, 1966, praying that the case be transferred to another branch of the Court of First Instance sitting at Malolos, Bulacan, According to defendantsappellees, they were not furnished a copy of said motion, hence, on October 14, 1966, the lower court issued an Order requiring plaintiff-appellant to furnish the appellees copy of said motion, hence, on October 14, 1966, defendant-appellant's motion dated October 7, 1966 and, consequently, prayed that the said motion be denied for lack of notice and for failure of the plaintiff-appellant to comply with the Order of October 14, 1966. Similarly, defendant-appellee paradise Farms, Inc. filed, on December 2, 1966, a manifestation information the court that it also did not receive a copy of the afore-mentioned of appellant. On January 24, 1967, the trial court issued an Order dismissing the amended complaint. On February 14, 1967, appellant filed a motion to reconsider the Order of dismissal on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to issue the Order of dismissal, because its request for the transfer of the case from the Valenzuela Branch of the Court of First Instance to the Malolos Branch of the said court has been approved by the Department of Justice; that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action because the subject matter of the controversy in one of common interest to the members of the corporation who are so numerous that the present complaint should be treated as a class suit; and that the action is not barred by the statute of limitations because (a) an action for the reconveyance of property registered through fraud does not prescribe, and (b) an action to impugn a void judgment may be brought any time. This motion was denied by the trial court in its Order dated February 22, 1967. From the afore-mentioned Order of dismissal and the Order
73

denying its motion for reconsideration, plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On September 3, 1969, the Court of Appeals, upon finding that no question of fact was involved in the appeal but only questions of law and jurisdiction, certified this case to this Court for resolution of the legal issues involved in the controversy. I Appellant contends, as a first assignment of error, that the trial court acted without authority and jurisdiction in dismissing the amended complaint when the Secretary of Justice had already approved the transfer of the case to any one of the two branches of the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan. Appellant confuses the jurisdiction of a court and the venue of cases with the assignment of cases in the different branches of the same Court of First Instance. Jurisdiction implies the power of the court to decide a case, while venue the place of action. There is no question that respondent court has jurisdiction over the case. The venue of actions in the Court of First Instance is prescribed in Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. The laying of venue is not left to the caprice of 2 plaintiff, but must be in accordance with the aforesaid provision of the rules. The mere fact that a request for the transfer of a case to another branch of the same court has been approved by the Secretary of Justice does not divest the court originally taking cognizance thereof of its jurisdiction, much less does it change the venue of the action. As correctly observed by the trial court, the indorsement of the Undersecretary of Justice did not order the transfer of the case to the Malolos Branch of the Bulacan Court of First Instance, but only "authorized" it for the reason given by plaintiff's counsel that the transfer would be convenient for the parties. The trial court is not without power to either grant or deny the motion, especially in the light of a strong opposition thereto filed by the defendant. We hold that the court a quo acted within its authority in denying the motion for the transfer the case to Malolos notwithstanding the authorization" of the same by the Secretary of Justice. II Let us now consider the substantive aspect of the Order of dismissal. In dismissing the amended complaint, the court a quo said: The issue of lack of cause of action raised in the motions to dismiss refer to the lack of personality of plaintiff to file the instant action. Essentially, the term 'cause of action' is composed of two elements: (1) the right of the plaintiff and (2) the violation of such right by the defendant. (Moran, Vol. 1, p. 111). For these reasons, the rules require that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest and that all persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs (Sec. 2, Rule 3). In the amended complaint, the people whose rights were alleged to have been violated by being deprived and dispossessed of their land are the members of the corporation and not the corporation itself. The corporation has a separate. and distinct personality from its members, and this is not a mere technicality but a matter of substantive law. There is no allegation that the members have assigned their rights to the corporation or any showing that the corporation has in any way or manner succeeded to such rights. The corporation evidently did not have any rights violated by the defendants for which it could seek redress. Even if the Court should find against the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff corporation would not be entitled to the reliefs prayed for, which are recoveries of ownership and possession of the land, issuance of the corresponding title in its name, and payment of damages. Neither can such reliefs be awarded to the members allegedly deprived of their land, since they are not parties to the suit. It appearing clearly that the action has not been filed in the names of the real parties in interest, the complaint must be dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of 3 action. Viewed in the light of existing law and jurisprudence, We find that the trial court correctly dismissed the amended complaint. It is a doctrine well-established and obtains both at law and in equity that a corporation is a distinct legal entity to be considered as separate and apart from the
74

individual stockholders or members who compose it, and is not affected by the 4 personal rights, obligations and transactions of its stockholders or members. The property of the corporation is its property and not that of the stockholders, as owners, although they have equities in it. Properties registered in the name of the corporation are owned by it as an entity separate and distinct from its 5 members. Conversely, a corporation ordinarily has no interest in the individual property of its stockholders unless transferred to the corporation, "even in the case 6 of a one-man corporation. The mere fact that one is president of a corporation does not render the property which he owns or possesses the property of the corporation, since the president, as individual, and the corporation are separate 7 similarities. Similarly, stockholders in a corporation engaged in buying and dealing in real estate whose certificates of stock entitled the holder thereof to an allotment in the distribution of the land of the corporation upon surrender of their stock certificates were considered not to have such legal or equitable title or interest in the land, as would support a suit for title, especially against parties other than the 8 corporation. It must be noted, however, that the juridical personality of the corporation, as separate and distinct from the persons composing it, is but a legal fiction introduced for the purpose of convenience and to subserve the ends of 9 justice. This separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded, or the veil of corporate fiction pierced, in cases where it is used as a cloak or cover for 10 fraud or illegality, or to work -an injustice, or where necessary to achieve equity. Thus, when "the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, ... the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in the case of two corporations, merge them into one, the 11 one being merely regarded as part or instrumentality of the other. The same is true where a corporation is a dummy and serves no business purpose and is intended only as a blind, or an alter ego or business conduit for the sole benefit of 12 the stockholders. This doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality of the corporation has been applied by the courts in those cases when the corporate 13 entity is used for the evasion of taxes or when the veil of corporate fiction is used 14 to confuse legitimate issue of employer-employee relationship, or when necessary for the protection of creditors, in which case the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced and the funds of the corporation may be garnished to satisfy the 15 debts of a principal stockholder. The aforecited principle is resorted to by the courts as a measure protection for third parties to prevent fraud, illegality or 16 injustice. It has not been claimed that the members have assigned or transferred whatever rights they may have on the land in question to the plaintiff corporation. Absent any showing of interest, therefore, a corporation, like plaintiff-appellant herein, has no personality to bring an action for and in behalf of its stockholders or members for the purpose of recovering property which belongs to said stockholders or members in their personal capacities. It is fundamental that there cannot be a cause of action 'without an antecedent 17 primary legal right conferred' by law upon a person. Evidently, there can be no wrong without a corresponding right, and no breach of duty by one person without 18 a corresponding right belonging to some other person. Thus, the essential elements of a cause of action are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the aforesaid 19 legal right. Clearly, no right of action exists in favor of plaintiff corporation, for as shown heretofore it does not have any interest in the subject matter of the case which is material and, direct so as to entitle it to file the suit as a real party in interest. III Appellant maintains, however, that the amended complaint may be treated as a class suit, pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. In order that a class suit may prosper, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; and (2) that the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to 20 bring them all before the court. Under the first requisite, the person who sues must have an interest in the controversy, common with those for whom he sues, and there must be that unity of interest between him and all such other persons which would entitle them to 21 maintain the action if suit was brought by them jointly.
75

As to what constitutes common interest in the subject matter of the controversy, it 22 has been explained in Scott v. Donald thus: The interest that will allow parties to join in a bill of complaint, or that will enable the court to dispense with the presence of all the parties, when numerous, except a determinate number, is not only an interest in the question, but one in common in the subject Matter of the suit; ... a community of interest growing out of the nature and condition of the right in dispute; for, although there may not be any privity between the numerous parties, there is a common title out of which the question arises, and which lies at the foundation of the proceedings ... [here] the only matter in common among the plaintiffs, or between them and the defendants, is an interest in the Question involved which alone cannot lay a foundation for the joinder of parties. There is scarcely a suit at law, or in equity which settles a Principle or applies a principle to a given state of facts, or in which a general statute is interpreted, that does not involved a Question in which other parties are interested. ... (Emphasis supplied ) Here, there is only one party plaintiff, and the plaintiff corporation does not even have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and cannot, therefore, represent its members or stockholders who claim to own in their individual capacities ownership of the said property. Moreover, as correctly stated by the appellees, a class suit does not lie in actions for the recovery of property where several persons claim Partnership of their respective portions of the property, as each one could alleged and prove his respective right in a different way for each portion of the land, so that they cannot all be held to have Identical title through 23 acquisition prescription. Having shown that no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff exists and that the action in the lower court cannot be considered as a class suit, it would be unnecessary and an Idle exercise for this Court to resolve the remaining issue of whether or not the plaintiffs action for reconveyance of real property based upon constructive or implied trust had already prescribed. ACCORDINGLY, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED with costs against the plaintiff-appellant. Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 125986. January 28, 1999]
LUXURIA HOMES, INC., and/or AIDA M. POSADAS, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JAMES BUILDER CONSTRUCTION and/or JAIME T. BRAVO, respondents. DECISION MARTINEZ, J.: This petition for review assails the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals [1] dated March 15, 1996, which affirmed with modification the judgment of default rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa, Branch 276, in Civil Case No. 92-2592 granting all the reliefs prayed for in the complaint of private respondent James Builder Construction and/or Jaime T. Bravo. As culled from the record, the facts are as follows: Petitioner Aida M. Posadas and her two (2) minor children co-owned a 1.6 hectare property in Sucat, Muntinlupa, which was occupied by squatters. Petitioner Posadas entered into negotiations with private respondent Jaime T. Bravo regarding the development of the said property into a residential subdivision. On May 3, 1989, she authorized private respondent to negotiate with the squatters to leave the said property. With a written authorization, respondent Bravo buckled down to work and started negotiations with the squatters.
76

Meanwhile, some seven (7) months later, on December 11, 1989, petitioner Posadas and her two (2) children, through a Deed of Assignment, assigned the said property to petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., purportedly for organizational and tax avoidance purposes. Respondent Bravo signed as one of the witnesses to the execution of the Deed of Assignment and the Articles of Incorporation of petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc. Then sometime in 1992, the harmonious and congenial relationship of petitioner Posadas and respondent Bravo turned sour when the former supposedly could not accept the management contracts to develop the 1.6 hectare property into a residential subdivision, the latter was proposing. In retaliation, respondent Bravo demanded payment for services rendered in connection with the development of the land. In his statement of account dated 21 August [2] 1991 respondent demanded the payment of P1,708,489.00 for various services rendered, i.e., relocation of squatters, preparation of the architectural design and site development plan, survey and fencing. Petitioner Posadas refused to pay the amount demanded. Thus, in September 1992, private respondents James Builder Construction and Jaime T. Bravo instituted a complaint for specific performance before the trial court against petitioners Posadas and Luxuria Homes, Inc. Private respondents alleged therein that petitioner Posadas asked them to clear the subject parcel of land of squatters for a fee of P1,100,000.00 for which they were partially paid the amount of P461,511.50, leaving a balance of P638,488.50. They were also supposedly asked to prepare a site development plan and an architectural design for a contract price of P450,000.00 for which they were partially paid the amount of P25,000.00, leaving a balance of P425,000.00. And in anticipation of the signing of the land development contract, they had to construct a bunkhouse and warehouse on the property which amounted to P300,000.00, and a hollow blocks factory for P60,000.00. Private respondents also claimed that petitioner Posadas agreed that private respondents will develop the land into a first class subdivision thru a management contract and that petitioner Posadas is unjustly refusing to comply with her obligation to finalize the said management contract. The prayer in the complaint of the private respondents before the trial court reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after hearing/trial judgment be rendered ordering defendant to: a) Comply with its obligation to deliver/finalize Management Contract of its land in Sucat, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila and to pay plaintiff its balance in the amount of P1,708,489.00; b) Pay plaintiff moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00; c) Pay plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P500,000.00 (Bunkhouse/warehouse P300,000.00, Hollow-block factory P60,000.00, lumber, cement, etc., P120,000.00, guard P20,000.00); d) Pay plaintiff attorneys fee of P50,000 plus P700 per appearance in court and 5% of that which may be awarded by the court to plaintiff re its monetary claims; e) Pay cost of this suit.
[3]
On September 27, 1993, the trial court declared petitioner Posadas in default and allowed the private respondents to present their evidence ex-parte. On March 8, 1994, it ordered petitioner Posadas, jointly and in solidum with petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., to pay private respondents as follows: 1. x x x the balance of the payment for the various services performed by Plaintiff with respect to the land covered by TCT NO. 167895 previously No. 158290 in the total amount of P1,708,489.00. 2. x x x actual damages incurred for the construction of the warehouses/bunks, and for the materials used in the total sum of P1,500,000.00. 3. Moral and exemplary damages of P500,000.00. 4. Attorneys fee of P50,000.00. 5. And cost of this proceedings. Defendant Aida Posadas as the Representative of the Corporation Luxuria Homes, Incorporated, is further directed to execute the management contract she
77

committed to do, also in consideration of the various undertakings that Plaintiff [4] rendered for her. Aggrieved by the aforecited decision, petitioners appealed to respondent Court of Appeals, which, as aforestated, affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. The appellate court deleted the award of moral damages on the ground that respondent James Builder Construction is a corporation and hence could not experience physical suffering and mental anguish. It also reduced the award of exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the award of moral damages is ordered deleted and the award of exemplary damages to the plaintiffs-appellee should only be in the amount of FIFTY [5] THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of this petition for review before this Court. On January 15, 1997, the Third Division of this Court denied due course to this petition for failing to show convincingly any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. This Court however deleted the grant of exemplary damages and attorneys fees. The Court also reduced the trial courts award of actual damages from P1,500,000.00 to P500,000.00 reasoning that the grant should not exceed the amount prayed for in the complaint. In the prayer in the complaint respondents asked for actual damages in the amount of P500,000.00 only. Still feeling aggrieved with the resolution of this Court, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. On March 17, 1997, this Court found merit in the petitioners motion for reconsideration and reinstated this petition for review. From their petition for review and motion for reconsideration before this Court, we now synthesize the issues as follows: 1. Were private respondents able to present ex-parte sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations in their complaint and entitle them to their prayers? 2. Can petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., be held liable to private respondents for the transactions supposedly entered into between petitioner Posadas and private respondents? 3. Can petitioners be compelled to enter into a management contract with private respondents? Petitioners who were declared in default assert that the private respondents who presented their evidence ex-parte nonetheless utterly failed to substantiate the allegations in their complaint and as such cannot be entitled to the reliefs prayed for. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner Posadas contracted respondents Bravo to render various services for the initial development of the property as shown by vouchers evidencing payments made by petitioner Posadas to respondents Bravo for squatter relocation, architectural design, survey and fencing. Respondents prepared the architectural design, site development plan and survey in connection with petitioner Posadas application with the Housing and Land Regulatory Board (HLRUB) for the issuance of the Development Permit, [6] Preliminary Approval and Locational Clearance. Petitioner benefited from said services as the Development Permit and the Locational Clearance were eventually issued by the HLURB in her favor. Petitioner Posadas is therefore liable to pay for these services rendered by respondents. The contract price for the survey of the land is P140,000.00. Petitioner made partial payments totaling P130,000.00 leaving a payable balance of P10,000.00. In his testimony, he alleged that the agreed price for the preparation of the site development plan is P500,000.00 and that the preparation of the architectural designs is for P450,000, or a total of P950,000.00 for the two contracts. In his complaint however, respondent Bravo alleged that he was asked to prepare the site development plan and the architectural designs x x x for a contract price [8] of P450,000.00 x x x. The discrepancy or inconsistency was never reconciled and clarified. We reiterate that we cannot award an amount higher than what was claimed in the complaint. Consequently for the preparation of both the architectural design and site development plan, respondent is entitled to the amount of P450,000.00 less partial payments made in the amount of P25,000.00. In Policarpio v. RTC of [9] Quezon City, it was held that a court is bereft of jurisdiction to award, in a judgment by default, a relief other than that specifically prayed for in the complaint.
[7]
78

As regards the contracts for the ejectment of squatters and fencing, we believe however that respondents failed to show proof that they actually fulfilled their commitments therein. Aside from the bare testimony of respondent Bravo, no other evidence was presented to show that all the squatter were ejected from the property. Respondent Bravo failed to show how many shanties or structures were actually occupying the property before he entered the same, to serve as basis for concluding whether the task was finished or not. His testimony alone that he successfully negotiated for the ejectment of all the squatters from the property will not suffice. Likewise, in the case of fencing, there is no proof that it was accomplished as alleged. Respondent Bravo claims that he finished sixty percent (60%) of the fencing project but he failed to present evidence showing the area sought to be fenced and the actual area fenced by him. We therefore have no basis to determining the veracity respondents allegations. We cannot assume that the said services rendered for it will be unfair to require petitioner to pay the full amount claimed in case the respondents obligations were not completely fulfilled. For respondents failure to show proof of accomplishment of the aforesaid services, their claims cannot be granted. In P.T. Cerna Corp. v. Court of [10] Appeals, we ruled that in civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts the affirmative of an issue. In this case the burden lies on the complainant, who is duty bound to prove the allegations in the complaint. As this Court has held, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and A MERE ALLEGATION IS NOT EVIDENCE. And the rules do not change even if the defendant is declared in default. In [11] the leading case of Lopez v. Mendezona, this Court ruled that after entry of judgment in default against a defendant who has neither appeared nor answered, and before final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the latter must establish by competent evidence all the material allegations of his complaint upon which he [12] bases his prayer for relief. In De los Santos v. De la Cruz this Court declared that a judgment by default against a defendant does not imply a waiver of rights except that of being heard and of presenting evidence in his favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff, because the codal section requires the latter to adduce his evidence in support of his allegations as an indispensable condition before final judgment could be given in his favor. Nor could it be interpreted as an admission by the defendant that the plaintiffs causes of action finds support in the law or that the latter is entitled to the relief prayed for. We explained the rule in judgments by default in Pascua v. Florendo, where we said that nowhere is it stated that the complainants are automatically entitled to the relief prayed for, once the defendants are declared in default. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court has ascertained that the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party warrant the grant of the same. Otherwise it would be meaningless to require presentation of evidence if everytime the other party is declared in default, a decision would automatically be rendered in favor of the non-defaulting party and exactly according to the tenor of [14] his prayer. In Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete we elaborated and said that a defaulted defendant is not actually thrown out of court. The rules see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with law. The evidence to support the plaintiffs cause is, of course, presented in his absence, but the court is not supposed to admit that which is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the evidence presented should not be sufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if an unfavorable judgment should be justifiable, it cannot exceed the amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint. The prayer for actual damages in the amount of P500,000.00, supposedly for the bunkhouse/warehouse, hollow-block factory, lumber, cement, guard, etc., which the trial court granted and even increased toP1,500,000.00, and which this Court would have rightly reduced to the amount prayed for in the complaint, was not established, as shown upon further review of the record. No receipts or vouchers were presented by private respondents to show that they actually spent [15] the amount. In Salas v. Court of Appeals, we said that the burden of proof of the damages suffered is on the party claiming the same. It his duty to present evidence to support his claim for actual damages. If he failed to do so, he has only himself to blame if no award for actual damages is handed down. In fine, as we declared in PNOC Shipping & Transport Corp. v. Court of [16] Appeals, basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.
[13]
79

We go to the second issue of whether Luxuria Homes, Inc., was a party to the transactions entered into by petitioner Posadas and private respondents and thus could be held jointly and severally with petitioner Posadas. Private respondents contend that petitioner Posadas surreptitiously formed Luxuria Homes, Inc., and transferred the subject parcel of land to it to evade payment and defraud creditors, including private respondents. This allegation does not find support in the evidence on record. On the contrary we hold that respondents Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it upheld the factual finding of the trial court that petitioners liability was aggravated by the fact that Luxuria Homes, Inc., was formed by petitioner Posadas after demand for payment had been made, evidently for her to evade payment of her obligation, thereby showing that the transfer of her property to Luxuria Homes, Inc., was in fraud of creditors. We easily glean from the record that private respondents sent demand letters on 21 August 1991 and 14 September 1991, or more than a year and a half after the execution of the Deed of Assignment on 11 December 1989, and the issuance of the Articles of Incorporation of petitioner Luxuria Homes on 26 January 1990. And, the transfer was made at the time the relationship between petitioner Posadas and private respondents was supposedly very pleasant. In fact the Deed of Assignment dated 11 December 1989 and the Articles of Incorporation of Luxuria Homes, Inc., issued 26 January 1990 were both signed by respondent Bravo himself as witness. It cannot be said then that the incorporation of petitioner Luxuria Homes and the eventual transfer of the subject property to it were in fraud of private respondent as such were done with the full knowledge of respondent Bravo himself. Besides petitioner Posadas is not the majority stockholder of petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., as erroneously stated by the lower court. The Articles of Incorporation of petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., clearly show that petitioner Posadas owns approximately 33% only of the capital stock. Hence petitioner Posadas cannot be considered as an alter ego of petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc. To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be [17] presumed. This is elementary. Thus in Bayer-Roxas v. Court of Appeals, we said that the separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded only when the corporation is used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, or to work injustice, or where necessary for the protection of the creditors. Accordingly in Del Rosario v. NLRC, where the Philsa International Placement and Services Corp. was organized and registered with the POEA in 1981, several years before the complainant was filed a case in 1985, we held that this cannot imply fraud. Obviously in the instant case, private respondents failed to show proof that petitioner Posadas acted in bad faith. Consequently since private respondents failed to show that petitioner Luxuria Homes, Inc., was a party to any of the supposed transactions, not even to the agreement to negotiate with and relocate the squatters, it cannot be held liable, nay jointly and in solidum, to pay private respondents. In this case since it was petitioner Aida M. Posadas who contracted respondent Bravo to render the subject services, only she is liable to pay the amounts adjudged herein. We now resolved the third and final issue. Private respondents urge the court to compel petitioners to execute a management contract with them on the basis of the authorization letter dated May 3, 1989. The full text of Exh D reads: I hereby certify that we have duly authorized the bearer, Engineer Bravo to negotiate, in our behalf, the ejectment of squatters from our property of 1.6 hectares, more or less, in Sucat, Muntinlupa. This authority is extended to him as the representatives of the Managers, under our agreement for them to undertake the development of said area and the construction of housing units intended to convert the land into a first class subdivision. The aforecited document is nothing more than a to -whom-it-may-concern authorization letter to negotiate with the squatters. Although it appears that there was an agreement for the development of the area, there is no showing that same was never perfected and finalized. Private respondents presented in evidence only drafts of a proposed management contract with petitioners handwritten marginal notes but the management contract was not put in its final form. The reason why there was no final uncorrected draft was because the parties could not agree on the stipulations of said contract, which even the private respondents admitted as found [19] by the trial court. As a consequence the management drafts submitted by the private respondents should at best be considered as mere unaccepted offers. We find no cogent reason, considering that the parties no longer are in a harmonious relationship, for the execution of a contract to develop a subdivision. It is fundamental that there can be no contract in the true sense in the absence of the element of agreement, or of mutual assent of the
[18]
80

parties. To compel petitioner Posadas, whether as representatives of petitioners Luxuria Homes or in her personal capacity, to execute a management contract under the terms and conditions of private respondents would be to violate the principle of consensuality of contracts. In Philippine National bank v. Court of [20] Appeals, we held that if the assent is wanting on the part of one who contracts, his act has no more efficacy than if it had been done under duress or by a person of unsound mind. In ordering petitioner Posadas to execute a management contract with private respondents, the trial court in effect is putting her under duress. The parties are bound to fulfill the stipulations in a contract only upon its perfection. At anytime prior to the perfection of a contract, unaccepted offers and proposals remain as such and cannot be considered as binding commitments; hence not demandable. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed decision dated March 15, 1996, of respondent Honorable Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated August 12, 1996, are MODIFIED ordering PETITIONER AIDA M. POSADAS to pay PRIVATE RESPONDENTS the amount of P435,000.00 as balance for the preparation of the architectural design, site development plan and survey. All other claims of respondents are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED Melo, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), no part former counsel of a party. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION Marabe; Rodolfo Raquel, Cristobal Riego, Manuel Gillego, Palcronio Giducos, Pedro Aboigar, Norberto Comendador, Rogelio Salut, Emilio Garcia, Jr., Mariano Rio, Paulina Basea, Alfredo Albera, Paquito Salut, Domingo Guarino, Romeo Galve, Dominador Sabina, Felipe Radiana, Gavino Sualibio, Moreno Escares, Ferdinand Torres, Felipe Basilan, and Ruben Robalos, respondents.
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:p The corporate mask may be lifted and the corporate veil may be pierced when a corporation is just but the alter ego of a person or of another corporation. Where badges of fraud exist; where public convenience is defeated; where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby, the corporate fiction or the notion of legal entity should come to naught. The law in these instances will regard the corporation as a mere association of persons and, in case of two corporations, merge them into one. Thus, where a sister corporation is used as a shield to evade a corporation's subsidiary liability for damages, the corporation may not be heard to say that it has a personality separate and distinct from the other corporation. The piercing of the corporate veil comes into play. This special civil action ostensibly raises the question of whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued a "breakopen order" to the sheriff to be enforced against personal property found in the premises of petitioner's sister company. Petitioner Concept Builders, Inc., a domestic corporation, with principal office at 355 Maysan Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, is engaged in the construction business. Private respondents were employed by said company as laborers, carpenters and riggers. On November, 1981, private respondents were served individual written notices of termination of employment by petitioner, effective on November 30, 1981. It was stated in the individual notices that their contracts of employment had expired and the project in which they were hired had been completed.
G.R. No. 108734 May 29, 1996 CONCEPT BUILDERS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (First Division); and Norberto
81

Public respondent found it to be, the fact, however, that at the time of the termination of private respondent's employment, the project in which they were hired had not yet been finished and completed. Petitioner had to engage the services of sub-contractors whose workers performed the functions of private respondents. Aggrieved, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and non-payment of their legal holiday pay, overtime pay and thirteenthmonth pay against petitioner. On December 19, 1984, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment ordering petitioner to reinstate private respondents and to pay them back wages equivalent to one year or three hundred working days. On November 27, 1985, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on the ground that the said 2 decision had already become final and executory. On October 16, 1986, the NLRC Research and Information Department made the 3 finding that private respondents' back wages amounted to P199,800.00. On October 29, 1986, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution directing the sheriff to execute the Decision, dated December 19, 1984. The writ was partially satisfied through garnishment of sums from petitioner's debtor, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, in the amount of P81,385.34. Said amount was turned over to the cashier of the NLRC. On February 1, 1989, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued by the Labor Arbiter directing the sheriff to collect from herein petitioner the sum of P117,414.76, representing the balance of the judgment award, and to reinstate private respondents to their former positions. On July 13, 1989, the sheriff issued a report stating that he tried to serve the alias writ of execution on petitioner through the security guard on duty but the service was refused on the ground that petitioner no longer occupied the premises.
1
On September 26, 1986, upon motion of private respondents, the Labor Arbiter issued a second alias writ of execution. The said writ had not been enforced by the special sheriff because, as stated in his progress report, dated November 2, 1989: 1. All the employees inside petitioner's premises at 355 Maysan Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, claimed that they were employees of Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc. (HPPI) and not by respondent; 2. Levy was made upon personal properties he found in the premises; 3. Security guards with high-powered guns prevented him from removing the 4 properties he had levied upon. The said special sheriff recommended that a "break-open order" be issued to enable him to enter petitioner's premises so that he could proceed with the public auction sale of the aforesaid personal properties on November 7, 1989. On November 6, 1989, a certain Dennis Cuyegkeng filed a third-party claim with the Labor Arbiter alleging that the properties sought to be levied upon by the sheriff were owned by Hydro (Phils.), Inc. (HPPI) of which he is the Vice-President. On November 23, 1989, private respondents filed a "Motion for Issuance of a BreakOpen Order," alleging that HPPI and petitioner corporation were owned by the same incorporator/stockholders. They also alleged that petitioner temporarily suspended its business operations in order to evade its legal obligations to them and that private respondents were willing to post an indemnity bond to answer for any damages which petitioner and HPPI may suffer because of the issuance of the break-open order. In support of their claim against HPPI, private respondents presented duly certified copies of the General Informations Sheet, dated May 15, 1987, submitted by petitioner to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the General Information Sheet, dated May 25, 1987, submitted by HPPI to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
82

The General Information Sheet submitted by the petitioner revealed the following: 1. Breakdown of Subscribed Capital Name of Stockholder Amount Subscribed HPPI P 6,999,500.00 Antonio W. Lim 2,900,000.00 Dennis S. Cuyegkeng 300.00 Elisa C. Lim 100,000.00 Teodulo R. Dino 100.00 Virgilio O. Casino 100.00 2. Board of Directors Antonio W. Lim Chairman Dennis S. Cuyegkeng Member Elisa C. Lim Member Teodulo R. Dino Member Virgilio O. Casino Member 3. Corporate Officers Antonio W. Lim President Dennis S. Cuyegkeng Assistant to the President 4. Principal Office 355 Maysan Road Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
5
Elisa O. Lim Treasurer Virgilio O. Casino Corporate Secretary
On the other hand, the General Information Sheet of HPPI revealed the following: 1. Breakdown of Subscribed Capital Name of Stockholder Amount Subscribed Antonio W. Lim P 400,000.00 Elisa C. Lim 57,700.00 AWL Trading 455,000.00 Dennis S. Cuyegkeng 40,100.00 Teodulo R. Dino 100.00 Virgilio O. Casino 100.00 2. Board of Directors Antonio W. Lim Chairman Elisa C. Lim Member Dennis S. Cuyegkeng Member
83

Virgilio O. Casino Member Teodulo R. Dino Member 3. Corporate Officers Antonio W. Lim President Dennis S. Cuyegkeng Assistant to the President Elisa C. Lim Treasurer Virgilio O. Casino Corporate Secretary 4. Principal Office 355 Maysan Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
6
Hence, the resort to the present petition. Petitioner alleges that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the execution of its decision despite a third-party claim on the levied property. Petitioner further contends, that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should not have been applied, in this case, in the absence of any showing that it created HPPI in order to evade its liability to private respondents. It also contends that HPPI is engaged in the manufacture and sale of steel, concrete and iron pipes, a business which is distinct and separate from petitioner's construction business. Hence, it is of no consequence that petitioner and HPPI shared the same premises, 7 the same President and the same set of officers and subscribers. We find petitioner's contention to be unmeritorious. It is a fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it 8 may be connected. But, this separate and distinct personality of a corporation is 9 merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. So, when the notion of separate juridical personality is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a device to defeat the 10 labor laws, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the 11 veil of corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is 12 merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation. The conditions under which the juridical entity may be disregarded vary according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be accurately laid down, but certainly, there are some probative factors of identity that will justify the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, to wit: 1. Stock ownership by one or common ownership of both corporations. 2. Identity of directors and officers. 3. The manner of keeping corporate books and records. 4. Methods of conducting the business.
13
On February 1, 1990, HPPI filed an Opposition to private respondents' motion for issuance of a break-open order, contending that HPPI is a corporation which is separate and distinct from petitioner. HPPI also alleged that the two corporations are engaged in two different kinds of businesses, i.e., HPPI is a manufacturing firm while petitioner was then engaged in construction. On March 2, 1990, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order which denied private respondents' motion for break-open order. Private respondents then appealed to the NLRC. On April 23, 1992, the NLRC set aside the order of the Labor Arbiter, issued a break-open order and directed private respondents to file a bond. Thereafter, it directed the sheriff to proceed with the auction sale of the properties already levied upon. It dismissed the third-party claim for lack of merit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution, dated December 3, 1992.
84

The SEC en banc explained the "instrumentality rule" which the courts have applied in disregarding the separate juridical personality of corporations as follows: Where one corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are conducted so that it is, in fact, a mere instrumentality or adjunct of the other, the fiction of the corporate entity of the "instrumentality" may be disregarded. The control necessary to invoke the rule is not majority or even complete stock control but such domination of instances, policies and practices that the controlled corporation has, so to speak, no separate mind, will or existence of its own, and is but a conduit for its principal. It must be kept in mind that the control must be shown to have been exercised at the time the acts complained of took place. Moreover, the control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss for which the complaint is made. The test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows: 1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; 2. Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiff's legal rights; and 3. The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of. 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 14 relationship to that operation. Thus the question of whether a corporation is a mere alter ego, a mere sheet or 15 paper corporation, a sham or a subterfuge is purely one of fact. In this case, the NLRC noted that, while petitioner claimed that it ceased its business operations on April 29, 1986, it filed an Information Sheet with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 1987, stating that its office address is at 355 Maysan Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. On the other hand, HPPI, the third-party claimant, submitted on the same day, a similar information sheet stating that its office address is at 355 Maysan Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Furthermore, the NLRC stated that: Both information sheets were filed by the same Virgilio O. Casio as the corporate secretary of both corporations. It would also not be amiss to note that both corporations had the same president, thesame board of directors, the same corporate officers, and substantially the same subscribers. From the foregoing, it appears that, among other things, the respondent (herein petitioner) and the third-party claimant shared the same address and/or premises. Under this circumstances, (sic) it cannot be said that the property levied 16 upon by the sheriff were not of respondents. Clearly, petitioner ceased its business operations in order to evade the payment to private respondents of back wages and to bar their reinstatement to their former positions. HPPI is obviously a business conduit of petitioner corporation and its emergence was skillfully orchestrated to avoid the financial liability that already attached to petitioner corporation. The facts in this case are analogous to Claparols v. Court of Industrial 1 Relations, 7 where we had the occasion to rule:
85

Respondent court's findings that indeed the Claparols Steel and Nail Plant, which ceased operation of June 30, 1957, was SUCCEEDED by the Claparols Steel Corporation effective the next day, July 1, 1957, up to December 7, 1962, when the latter finally ceased to operate, were not disputed by petitioner. It is very clear that the latter corporation was a continuation and successor of the first entity . . . . Both predecessors and successor were owned and controlled by petitioner Eduardo Claparols and there was no break in the succession and continuity of the same business. This "avoiding-the-liability" scheme is very patent, considering that 90% of the subscribed shares of stock of the Claparols Steel Corporation (the second corporation) was owned by respondent . . . Claparols himself, and all the assets of the dissolved Claparols Steel and Nail plant were turned over to the emerging Claparols Steel Corporation. It is very obvious that the second corporation seeks the protective shield of a corporate fiction whose veil in the present case could, and should, be pierced as it was deliberately and maliciously designed to evade its financial obligation to its employees. In view of the failure of the sheriff, in the case at bar, to effect a levy upon the property subject of the execution, private respondents had no other recourse but to apply for a break-open order after the third-party claim of HPPI was dismissed for lack of merit by the NLRC. This is in consonance with Section 3, Rule VII of the NLRC Manual of Execution of Judgment which provides that: Should the losing party, his agent or representative, refuse or prohibit the Sheriff or his representative entry to the place where the property subject of execution is located or kept, the judgment creditor may apply to the Commission or Labor Arbiter concerned for a break-open order. Furthermore, our perusal of the records shows that the twin requirements of due notice and hearing were complied with. Petitioner and the third-party claimant were given the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claim. Hence, the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the break-open order issued by the Labor Arbiter. Finally, we do not find any reason to disturb the rule that factual findings of quasijudicial agencies supported by substantial evidence are binding on this Court and are entitled to great respect, in the absence of showing of grave abuse of a 18 discretion. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed resolutions of the NLRC, dated April 23, 1992 and December 3, 1992, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968
VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,defendants. EUSEBIO E. FERRER and PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., defendantsappellants. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., third-party plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE M. VILLARAMA, third-party defendant-appellee. Chuidian Law Office for plaintiff-appellant. Bengzon, Zarraga & Villegas for defendant-appellant / third-party plaintiff-
86

appellant. Laurea & Pison for third-party defendant-appellee. ANGELES, J.: This is a tri-party appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Civil Case No. 41845, declaring null and void the sheriff's sale of two certificates of public convenience in favor of defendant Eusebio E. Ferrer and the subsequent sale thereof by the latter to defendant Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc.; declaring the plaintiff Villa Rey Transit, Inc., to be the lawful owner of the said certificates of public convenience; and ordering the private defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to the plaintiff, the sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney's fees. The case against the PSC was dismissed. The rather ramified circumstances of the instant case can best be understood by a chronological narration of the essential facts, to wit: Prior to 1959, Jose M. Villarama was an operator of a bus transportation, under the business name of Villa Rey Transit, pursuant to certificates of public convenience granted him by the Public Service Commission (PSC, for short) in Cases Nos. 44213 and 104651, which authorized him to operate a total of thirty-two (32) units on various routes or lines from Pangasinan to Manila, and vice-versa. On January 8, 1959, he sold the aforementioned two certificates of public convenience to the Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc. (otherwise known as Pantranco), for P350,000.00 with the condition, among others, that the seller (Villarama) "shall not for a period of 10 years from the date of this sale, apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the buyer." Barely three months thereafter, or on March 6, 1959: a corporation called Villa Rey Transit, Inc. (which shall be referred to hereafter as the Corporation) was organized with a capital stock of P500,000.00 divided into 5,000 shares of the par value of P100.00 each; P200,000.00 was the subscribed stock; Natividad R. Villarama (wife of Jose M. Villarama) was one of the incorporators, and she subscribed for P1,000.00; the balance of P199,000.00 was subscribed by the brother and sister-in-law of Jose M. Villarama; of the subscribed capital stock, P105,000.00 was paid to the treasurer of the corporation, who was Natividad R. Villarama. In less than a month after its registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (March 10, 1959), the Corporation, on April 7, 1959, bought five certificates of public convenience, forty-nine buses, tools and equipment from one Valentin Fernando, for the sum of P249,000.00, of which P100,000.00 was paid upon the signing of the contract; P50,000.00 was payable upon the final approval of the sale by the PSC; P49,500.00 one year after the final approval of the sale; and the balance of P50,000.00 "shall be paid by the BUYER to the different suppliers of the SELLER." The very same day that the aforementioned contract of sale was executed, the parties thereto immediately applied with the PSC for its approval, with a prayer for the issuance of a provisional authority in favor of the vendee Corporation to 1 operate the service therein involved. On May 19, 1959, the PSC granted the provisional permit prayed for, upon the condition that "it may be modified or revoked by the Commission at any time, shall be subject to whatever action that may be taken on the basic application and shall be valid only during the pendency of said application." Before the PSC could take final action on said application for approval of sale, however, the Sheriff of Manila, on July 7, 1959, levied on two of the five certificates of public convenience involved therein, namely, those issued under PSC cases Nos. 59494 and 63780, pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 13798, in favor of Eusebio Ferrer, plaintiff, judgment creditor, against Valentin Fernando, defendant, judgment debtor. The Sheriff made and entered the levy in the records of the PSC. On July 16, 1959, a public sale was conducted by the Sheriff of the said two certificates of public convenience. Ferrer was the highest bidder, and a certificate of sale was issued in his name. Thereafter, Ferrer sold the two certificates of public convenience to Pantranco, and jointly submitted for approval their corresponding contract of sale to the 2 PSC. Pantranco therein prayed that it be authorized provisionally to operate the service involved in the said two certificates. The applications for approval of sale, filed before the PSC, by Fernando and the Corporation, Case No. 124057, and that of Ferrer and Pantranco, Case No. 126278, were scheduled for a joint hearing. In the meantime, to wit, on July 22, 1959, the PSC issued an order disposing that during the pendency of the cases and before a final resolution on the aforesaid applications, the Pantranco shall be the one to
87

operate provisionally the service under the two certificates embraced in the contract between Ferrer and Pantranco. The Corporation took issue with this 3 particular ruling of the PSC and elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which decreed, after deliberation, that until the issue on the ownership of the disputed certificates shall have been finally settled by the proper court, the Corporation should be the one to operate the lines provisionally. On November 4, 1959, the Corporation filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, a complaint for the annulment of the sheriff's sale of the aforesaid two certificates of public convenience (PSC Cases Nos. 59494 and 63780) in favor of the defendant Ferrer, and the subsequent sale thereof by the latter to Pantranco, against Ferrer, Pantranco and the PSC. The plaintiff Corporation prayed therein that all the orders of the PSC relative to the parties' dispute over the said certificates be annulled. In separate answers, the defendants Ferrer and Pantranco averred that the plaintiff Corporation had no valid title to the certificates in question because the contract pursuant to which it acquired them from Fernando was subject to a suspensive condition the approval of the PSC which has not yet been fulfilled, and, therefore, the Sheriff's levy and the consequent sale at public auction of the certificates referred to, as well as the sale of the same by Ferrer to Pantranco, were valid and regular, and vested unto Pantranco, a superior right thereto. Pantranco, on its part, filed a third-party complaint against Jose M. Villarama, alleging that Villarama and the Corporation, are one and the same; that Villarama and/or the Corporation was disqualified from operating the two certificates in question by virtue of the aforementioned agreement between said Villarama and Pantranco, which stipulated that Villarama "shall not for a period of 10 years from the date of this sale, apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the buyer." Upon the joinder of the issues in both the complaint and third-party complaint, the case was tried, and thereafter decision was rendered in the terms, as above stated. As stated at the beginning, all the parties involved have appealed from the decision. They submitted a joint record on appeal. Pantranco disputes the correctness of the decision insofar as it holds that Villa Rey Transit, Inc. (Corporation) is a distinct and separate entity from Jose M. Villarama; that the restriction clause in the contract of January 8, 1959 between Pantranco and Villarama is null and void; that the Sheriff's sale of July 16, 1959, is likewise null and void; and the failure to award damages in its favor and against Villarama. Ferrer, for his part, challenges the decision insofar as it holds that the sheriff's sale is null and void; and the sale of the two certificates in question by Valentin Fernando to the Corporation, is valid. He also assails the award of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees in favor of the Corporation, and the failure to award moral damages to him as prayed for in his counterclaim. The Corporation, on the other hand, prays for a review of that portion of the decision awarding only P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, and insisting that it is entitled to an award of P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages. After a careful study of the facts obtaining in the case, the vital issues to be resolved are: (1) Does the stipulation between Villarama and Pantranco, as contained in the deed of sale, that the former "SHALL NOT FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SALE, APPLY FOR ANY TPU SERVICE IDENTICAL OR COMPETING WITH THE BUYER," apply to new lines only or does it include existing lines?; (2) Assuming that said stipulation covers all kinds of lines, is such stipulation valid and enforceable?; (3) In the affirmative, that said stipulation is valid, did it bind the Corporation? For convenience, We propose to discuss the foregoing issues by starting with the last proposition. The evidence has disclosed that Villarama, albeit was not an incorporator or stockholder of the Corporation, alleging that he did not become such, because he did not have sufficient funds to invest, his wife, however, was an incorporator with the least subscribed number of shares, and was elected treasurer of the Corporation. The finances of the Corporation which, under all concepts in the law, are supposed to be under the control and administration of the treasurer keeping them as trust fund for the Corporation, were, nonetheless, manipulated and disbursed as if they were the private funds of Villarama, in such a way and extent that Villarama appeared to be the actual owner-treasurer of the business without
88

regard to the rights of the stockholders. The following testimony of 4 Villarama, together with the other evidence on record, attests to that effect: Q. Doctor, I want to go back again to the incorporation of the Villa Rey Transit, Inc. You heard the testimony presented here by the bank regarding the initial opening deposit of ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS, of which amount Eighty-Five Thousand Pesos was a check drawn by yourself personally. In the direct examination you told the Court that the reason you drew a check for Eighty-Five Thousand Pesos was because you and your wife, or your wife, had spent the money of the stockholders given to her for incorporation. Will you please tell the Honorable Court if you knew at the time your wife was spending the money to pay debts, you personally knew she was spending the money of the incorporators? A. You know my money and my wife's money are one. We never talk about those things. Q. Doctor, your answer then is that since your money and your wife's money are one money and you did not know when your wife was paying debts with the incorporator's money? A. Because sometimes she uses my money, and sometimes the money given to her she gives to me and I deposit the money. Q. Actually, aside from your wife, you were also the custodian of some of the incorporators here, in the beginning? A. Not necessarily, they give to my wife and when my wife hands to me I did not know it belonged to the incorporators. Q. It supposes then your wife gives you some of the money received by her in her capacity as treasurer of the corporation? A. Q. Maybe. What did you do with the money, deposit in a regular account? A. Q. A. Deposit in my account. Of all the money given to your wife, she did not receive any check? I do not remember.
Q. Is it usual for you, Doctor, to be given Fifty Thousand Pesos without even asking what is this? xxx JUDGE: Reform the question. Q. The subscription of your brother-in-law, Mr. Reyes, is Fifty-Two Thousand Pesos, did your wife give you Fifty-two Thousand Pesos? A. I have testified before that sometimes my wife gives me money and I do not know exactly for what. The evidence further shows that the initial cash capitalization of the corporation of P105,000.00 was mostly financed by Villarama. Of the P105,000.00 deposited in the First National City Bank of New York, representing the initial paid-up capital of the Corporation, P85,000.00 was covered by Villarama's personal check. The deposit slip for the said amount of P105,000.00 was admitted in evidence as Exh. 23, which shows on its face that P20,000.00 was paid in cash and P85,000.00 thereof was covered by Check No. F-50271 of the First National City Bank of New York. The 5 6 testimonies of Alfonso Sancho and Joaquin Amansec, both employees of said bank, have proved that the drawer of the check was Jose Villarama himself. Another witness, Celso Rivera, accountant of the Corporation, testified that while in the books of the corporation there appears an entry that the treasurer received P95,000.00 as second installment of the paid-in subscriptions, and, subsequently, also P100,000.00 as the first installment of the offer for second subscriptions worth P200,000.00 from the original subscribers, yet Villarama directed him (Rivera) to 7 make vouchers liquidating the sums. Thus, it was made to appear that the P95,000.00 was delivered to Villarama in payment for equipment purchased from him, and the P100,000.00 was loaned as advances to the stockholders. The said xxx xxx
89

accountant, however, testified that he was not aware of any amount of money that 8 had actually passed hands among the parties involved, and actually the only money of the corporation was the P105,000.00 covered by the deposit slip Exh. 23, of which as mentioned above, P85,000.00 was paid by Villarama's personal check. Further, the evidence shows that when the Corporation was in its initial months of operation, Villarama purchased and paid with his personal checks Ford trucks for the Corporation. Exhibits 20 and 21 disclose that the said purchases were paid by Philippine Bank of Commerce Checks Nos. 992618-B and 993621-B, respectively. These checks have been sufficiently established by Fausto Abad, Assistant Accountant of Manila Trading & Supply Co., from which the trucks were 9 purchased and Aristedes Solano, an employee of the Philippine Bank of 10 Commerce, as having been drawn by Villarama. Exhibits 6 to 19 and Exh. 22, which are photostatic copies of ledger entries and vouchers showing that Villarama had co-mingled his personal funds and transactions with those made in the name of the Corporation, are very illuminating evidence. Villarama has assailed the admissibility of these exhibits, contending that no evidentiary value whatsoever should be given to them since "they were merely photostatic copies of the originals, the best evidence being the originals themselves." According to him, at the time Pantranco offered the said exhibits, it was the most likely possessor of the originals thereof because they were stolen from the files of the Corporation and only Pantranco was able to produce the alleged photostat copies thereof. Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the adverse party, thus: (1) opponent's possession of the original; (2) reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original; (3) satisfactory proof of its existence; and (4) 11 failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. Villarama has 12 practically admitted the second and fourth requisites. As to the third, he admitted their previous existence in the files of the Corporation and also that he had seen 13 some of them. Regarding the first element, Villarama's theory is that since even at the time of the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum, the originals were already missing, therefore, the Corporation was no longer in possession of the same. However, it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. Neither is it required that the party entitled to the custody of the instrument should, on being notified to produce it, admit having it in his 14 possession. Hence, secondary evidence is admissible where he denies having it in his possession. The party calling for such evidence may introduce a copy thereof as in the case of loss. For, among the exceptions to the best evidence rule is "when the 15 original has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court." The originals of the vouchers in question must be deemed to have been lost, as even the Corporation admits such loss. Viewed upon this light, there can be no doubt as to the admissibility in evidence of Exhibits 6 to 19 and 22. Taking account of the foregoing evidence, together with Celso Rivera's 16 testimony, it would appear that: Villarama supplied the organization expenses and 17 the assets of the Corporation, such as trucks and equipment; there was no actual payment by the original subscribers of the amounts of P95,000.00 and P100,000.00 18 as appearing in the books; Villarama made use of the money of the Corporation 19 and deposited them to his private accounts; and the Corporation paid his personal 20 accounts. Villarama himself admitted that he mingled the corporate funds with his own 21 money. He also admitted that gasoline purchases of the Corporation were made 22 in his name because "he had existing account with Stanvac which was properly secured and he wanted the Corporation to benefit from the rebates that he 23 received." The foregoing circumstances are strong persuasive evidence showing that Villarama has been too much involved in the affairs of the Corporation to altogether negative the claim that he was only a part-time general manager. They show beyond doubt that the Corporation is his alter ego. It is significant that not a single one of the acts enumerated above as proof of Villarama's oneness with the Corporation has been denied by him. On the contrary, he has admitted them with offered excuses. Villarama has admitted, for instance, having paid P85,000.00 of the initial capital of the Corporation with the lame excuse that "his wife had requested him to reimburse the amount entrusted to her by the incorporators and which she had
90

used to pay the obligations of Dr. Villarama (her husband) incurred while he was still the owner of Villa Rey Transit, a single proprietorship." But with his admission that he had received P350,000.00 from Pantranco for the sale of 24 the two certificates and one unit, it becomes difficult to accept Villarama's 25 explanation that he and his wife, after consultation, spent the money of their relatives (the stockholders) when they were supposed to have their own money. Even if Pantranco paid the P350,000.00 in check to him, as claimed, it could have been easy for Villarama to have deposited said check in his account and issued his own check to pay his obligations. And there is no evidence adduced that the said amount of P350,000.00 was all spent or was insufficient to settle his prior obligations in his business, and in the light of the stipulation in the deed of sale between Villarama and Pantranco that P50,000.00 of the selling price was earmarked for the payments of accounts due to his creditors, the excuse appears unbelievable. On his having paid for purchases by the Corporation of trucks from the Manila Trading & Supply Co. with his personal checks, his reason was that he was only sharing with the Corporation his credit with some companies. And his main reason for mingling his funds with that of the Corporation and for the latter's paying his private bills is that it would be more convenient that he kept the money to be used in paying the registration fees on time, and since he had loaned money to the Corporation, this would be set off by the latter's paying his bills. Villarama admitted, however, that the corporate funds in his possession were not only for registration 26 fees but for other important obligations which were not specified. Indeed, while Villarama was not the Treasurer of the Corporation but was, 27 allegedly, only a part-time manager, he admitted not only having held the corporate money but that he advanced and lent funds for the Corporation, and yet 28 there was no Board Resolution allowing it. Villarama's explanation on the matter of his involvement with the corporate affairs of the Corporation only renders more credible Pantranco's claim that his control over the corporation, especially in the management and disposition of its funds, was so extensive and intimate that it is impossible to segregate and identify which money belonged to whom. The interference of Villarama in the complex affairs of the corporation, and particularly its finances, are much too inconsistent with the ends and purposes of the Corporation law, which, precisely, seeks to separate personal responsibilities from corporate undertakings. It is the very essence of incorporation that the acts and conduct of the corporation be carried out in its own corporate name because it has its own personality. The doctrine that a corporation is a legal entity distinct and separate from the members and stockholders who compose it is recognized and respected in all cases 29 which are within reason and the law. When the fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a 30 monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals. Upon the foregoing considerations, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the preponderance of evidence have shown that the Villa Rey Transit, Inc. is an alter ego of Jose M. Villarama, and that the restrictive clause in the contract entered into by the latter and Pantranco is also enforceable and binding against the said Corporation. For the rule is that a seller or promisor may not make use of a 31 corporate entity as a means of evading the obligation of his covenant. Where the Corporation is substantially the alter ego of the covenantor to the restrictive 32 agreement, it can be enjoined from competing with the covenantee. The Corporation contends that even on the supposition that Villa Rey Transit, Inc. and Villarama are one and the same, the restrictive clause in the contract between Villarama and Pantranco does not include the purchase of existing lines but it only applies to application for the new lines. The clause in dispute reads thus: (4) The SELLER shall not, for a period of ten (10) years from the date of this sale apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the BUYER. (Emphasis supplied) As We read the disputed clause, it is evident from the context thereof that the intention of the parties was to eliminate the seller as a competitor of the buyer for ten years along the lines of operation covered by the certificates of public convenience subject of their transaction. The word "apply" as broadly used has for frame of reference, a service by the seller on lines or routes that would compete
91

with the buyer along the routes acquired by the latter. In this jurisdiction, prior 33 authorization is needed before anyone can operate a TPU service, whether the service consists in a new line or an old one acquired from a previous operator. The clear intention of the parties was to prevent the seller from conducting any competitive line for 10 years since, anyway, he has bound himself not to apply for 34 authorization to operate along such lines for the duration of such period. If the prohibition is to be applied only to the acquisition of new certificates of public convenience thru an application with the Public Service Commission, this would, in effect, allow the seller just the same to compete with the buyer as long as his authority to operate is only acquired thru transfer or sale from a previous operator, thus defeating the intention of the parties. For what would prevent the seller, under the circumstances, from having a representative or dummy apply in the latter's name and then later on transferring the same by sale to the seller? Since stipulations in a contract is the law between the contracting parties, Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. (Art. 19, New Civil Code.) We are not impressed of Villarama's contention that the re-wording of the two previous drafts of the contract of sale between Villarama and Pantranco is significant in that as it now appears, the parties intended to effect the least restriction. We are persuaded, after an examination of the supposed drafts, that the scope of the final stipulation, while not as long and prolix as those in the drafts, is just as broad and comprehensive. At most, it can be said that the re-wording was done merely for brevity and simplicity. The evident intention behind the restriction was to eliminate the sellers as a 35 competitor, and this must be, considering such factors as the good will that the seller had already gained from the riding public and his adeptness and proficiency in 36 the trade. On this matter, Corbin, an authority on Contracts has this to say. When one buys the business of another as a going concern, he usually wishes to keep it going; he wishes to get the location, the building, the stock in trade, and the customers. He wishes to step into the seller's shoes and to enjoy the same business relations with other men. He is willing to pay much more if he can get the "good will" of the business, meaning by this the good will of the customers, that they may continue to tread the old footpath to his door and maintain with him the business relations enjoyed by the seller. ... In order to be well assured of this, he obtains and pays for the seller's promise not to reopen business in competition with the business sold. As to whether or not such a stipulation in restraint of trade is valid, our 37 jurisprudence on the matter says: The law concerning contracts which tend to restrain business or trade has gone through a long series of changes from time to time with the changing condition of trade and commerce. With trifling exceptions, said changes have been a continuous development of a general rule. The early cases show plainly a disposition to avoid and annul all contract which prohibited or restrained any one from using a lawful trade "at any time or at any place," as being against the benefit of the state. Later, however, the rule became well established that if the restraint was limited to "a certain time" and within "a certain place," such contracts were valid and not "against the benefit of the state." Later cases, and we think the rule is now well established, have held that a contract in restraint of trade is valid providing there is a limitation upon either time or place. A contract, however, which restrains a man from entering into business or trade without either a limitation as to time or place, will be held invalid. The public welfare of course must always be considered and if it be not involved and the restraint upon one party is not greater than protection to the other requires, contracts like the one we are discussing will be sustained. The general tendency, we believe, of modern authority, is to make the test whether the restraint is reasonably necessary for the protection of the contracting parties. If the contract is reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the parties, it will be upheld. (Emphasis supplied.) Analyzing the characteristics of the questioned stipulation, We find that although it is in the nature of an agreement suppressing competition, it is, however, merely
92

ancillary or incidental to the main agreement which is that of sale. The suppression or restraint is only partial or limited: first, in scope, it refers only to application for TPU by the seller in competition with the lines sold to the buyer; second, in duration, it is only for ten (10) years; and third, with respect to situs or territory, the restraint is only along the lines covered by the certificates sold. In view of these limitations, coupled with the consideration of P350,000.00 for just two certificates of public convenience, and considering, furthermore, that the disputed stipulation is only incidental to a main agreement, the same is reasonable and it is not harmful 38 nor obnoxious to public service. It does not appear that the ultimate result of the clause or stipulation would be to leave solely to Pantranco the right to operate along the lines in question, thereby establishing monopoly or predominance approximating thereto. We believe the main purpose of the restraint was to protect for a limited time the business of the buyer. Indeed, the evils of monopoly are farfetched here. There can be no danger of price controls or deterioration of the service because of the close supervision of the 39 40 Public Service Commission. This Court had stated long ago, that "when one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he virtually grants to the public an interest in that use and submits it to such public use under reasonable rules and regulations to be fixed by the Public Utility Commission." Regarding that aspect of the clause that it is merely ancillary or incidental to a lawful agreement, the underlying reason sustaining its validity is well explained in 36 Am. Jur. 537-539, to wit: ... Numerous authorities hold that a covenant which is incidental to the sale and transfer of a trade or business, and which purports to bind the seller not to engage in the same business in competition with the purchaser, is lawful and enforceable. While such covenants are designed to prevent competition on the part of the seller, it is ordinarily neither their purpose nor effect to stifle competition generally in the locality, nor to prevent it at all in a way or to an extent injurious to the public. The business in the hands of the purchaser is carried on just as it was in the hands of the seller; the former merely takes the place of the latter; the commodities of the trade are as open to the public as they were before; the same competition exists as existed before; there is the same employment furnished to others after as before; the profits of the business go as they did before to swell the sum of public wealth; the public has the same opportunities of purchasing, if it is a mercantile business; and production is not lessened if it is a manufacturing plant. The reliance by the lower court on tile case of Red Line Transportation Co. v. 41 Bachrach and finding that the stipulation is illegal and void seems misplaced. In the said Red Line case, the agreement therein sought to be enforced was virtually a division of territory between two operators, each company imposing upon itself an obligation not to operate in any territory covered by the routes of the other. Restraints of this type, among common carriers have always been covered by the 42 general rule invalidating agreements in restraint of trade. Neither are the other cases relied upon by the plaintiff-appellee applicable to the 43 instant case. In Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Enriquez, the undertaking of the applicant therein not to apply for the lifting of restrictions imposed on his certificates of public convenience was not an ancillary or incidental agreement. The restraint was the principal objective. On the other hand, in Red Line Transportation 44 Co., Inc. v. Gonzaga, the restraint there in question not to ask for extension of the line, or trips, or increase of equipment was not an agreement between the parties but a condition imposed in the certificate of public convenience itself. Upon the foregoing considerations, Our conclusion is that the stipulation prohibiting Villarama for a period of 10 years to "apply" for TPU service along the lines covered by the certificates of public convenience sold by him to Pantranco is valid and reasonable. Having arrived at this conclusion, and considering that the preponderance of the evidence have shown that Villa Rey Transit, Inc. is itself the alter ego of Villarama, We hold, as prayed for in Pantranco's third party complaint, that the said Corporation should, until the expiration of the 1-year period abovementioned, be enjoined from operating the line subject of the prohibition. To avoid any misunderstanding, it is here to be emphasized that the 10-year prohibition upon Villarama is not against his application for, or purchase of, certificates of public convenience, but merely the operation of TPU along the lines covered by the certificates sold by him to Pantranco. Consequently, the sale between Fernando and the Corporation is valid, such that the rightful ownership of the disputed certificates still belongs to the plaintiff being the prior purchaser in
93

good faith and for value thereof. In view of the ancient rule of caveat emptor prevailing in this jurisdiction, what was acquired by Ferrer in the sheriff's sale was only the right which Fernando, judgment debtor, had in the certificates of 45 public convenience on the day of the sale. Accordingly, by the "Notice of Levy Upon Personalty" the Commissioner of Public Service was notified that "by virtue of an Order of Execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, the rights, interests, or participation which the defendant, VALENTIN A. FERNANDO in the above entitled case may have in the following realty/personalty is attached or levied upon, to wit: The rights, interests and participation on the Certificates of Public Convenience issued to Valentin A. Fernando, in Cases Nos. 59494, etc. ... Lines Manila to Lingayen, Dagupan, etc. vice versa." Such notice of levy only shows that Ferrer, the vendee at auction of said certificates, merely stepped into the shoes of the judgment debtor. Of the same principle is the provision of Article 1544 of the Civil Code, that "If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property." There is no merit in Pantranco and Ferrer's theory that the sale of the certificates of public convenience in question, between the Corporation and Fernando, was not consummated, it being only a conditional sale subject to the suspensive condition of its approval by the Public Service Commission. While section 20(g) of the Public Service Act provides that "subject to established limitation and exceptions and saving provisions to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for any public service or for the owner, lessee or operator thereof, without the approval and authorization of the Commission previously had ... to sell, alienate, mortgage, encumber or lease its property, franchise, certificates, privileges, or rights or any part thereof, ...," the same section also provides: ... Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the transaction from being negotiated or completed before its approval or to prevent the sale, alienation, or lease by any public service of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business. It is clear, therefore, that the requisite approval of the PSC is not a condition precedent for the validity and consummation of the sale. Anent the question of damages allegedly suffered by the parties, each of the appellants has its or his own version to allege. Villa Rey Transit, Inc. claims that by virtue of the "tortious acts" of defendants (Pantranco and Ferrer) in acquiring the certificates of public convenience in question, despite constructive and actual knowledge on their part of a prior sale executed by Fernando in favor of the said corporation, which necessitated the latter to file the action to annul the sheriff's sale to Ferrer and the subsequent transfer to Pantranco, it is entitled to collect actual and compensatory damages, and attorney's fees in the amount of P25,000.00. The evidence on record, however, does not clearly show that said defendants acted in bad faith in their acquisition of the certificates in question. They believed that because the bill of sale has yet to be approved by the Public Service Commission, the transaction was not a consummated sale, and, therefore, the title to or ownership of the certificates was still with the seller. The award by the lower court of attorney's fees of P5,000.00 in favor of Villa Rey Transit, Inc. is, therefore, without basis and should be set aside. Eusebio Ferrer's charge that by reason of the filing of the action to annul the sheriff's sale, he had suffered and should be awarded moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees, cannot be entertained, in view of the conclusion herein reached that the sale by Fernando to the Corporation was valid. Pantranco, on the other hand, justifies its claim for damages with the allegation that when it purchased ViIlarama's business for P350,000.00, it intended to build up the traffic along the lines covered by the certificates but it was rot afforded an opportunity to do so since barely three months had elapsed when the contract was violated by Villarama operating along the same lines in the name of Villa Rey Transit, Inc. It is further claimed by Pantranco that the underhanded manner in which Villarama violated the contract is pertinent in establishing punitive or moral damages. Its contention as to the proper measure of damages is that it should be the purchase price of P350,000.00 that it paid to Villarama. While We are fully in accord with Pantranco's claim of entitlement to damages it suffered as a result of Villarama's breach of his contract with it, the record does not sufficiently supply the necessary evidentiary materials upon which to base the award and there is need for further proceedings in the lower court to ascertain the proper amount. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified as follows:
94

1. The sale of the two certificates of public convenience in question by Valentin Fernando to Villa Rey Transit, Inc. is declared preferred over that made by the Sheriff at public auction of the aforesaid certificate of public convenience in favor of Eusebio Ferrer; 2. Reversed, insofar as it dismisses the third-party complaint filed by Pangasinan Transportation Co. against Jose M. Villarama, holding that Villa Rey Transit, Inc. is an entity distinct and separate from the personality of Jose M. Villarama, and insofar as it awards the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees in favor of Villa Rey Transit, Inc.; 3. The case is remanded to the trial court for the reception of evidence in consonance with the above findings as regards the amount of damages suffered by Pantranco; and 4. On equitable considerations, without costs. So ordered. Concepcion, C. J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro and Fernando, JJ., concur. Sanchez and Capistrano, JJ., took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeks to 1 annul the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 10014 affirming the decision rendered by Branch 135, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The procedural antecedents of this petition are as follows: On January 23, 1985, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondents to recover three thousand four hundred twelve and six centavos (P3,412.06), representing the balance of the jeep body purchased by the Manuels from petitioner; an additional sum of twenty thousand four hundred fifty-four and eighty centavos (P20,454.80) representing the unpaid balance on the cost of repair of the 3 vehicle; and six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) for cost of suit and attorney's fees. To 4 the original balance on the price of jeep body were added the costs of repair. In their answer, private respondents interposed a counterclaim for unpaid legal services by Gregorio Manuel in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) which was not paid by the incorporators, directors and officers of the petitioner. The trial court decided the case on June 26, 1985, in favor of petitioner in regard to the petitioner's claim for money, but also allowed the counter-claim of private respondents. Both parties appealed. On April 15, 1991, the Court of Appeals 5 sustained the trial court's decision. Hence, the present petition. For our review in particular is the propriety of the permissive counterclaim which private respondents filed together with their answer to petitioner's complaint for a sum of money. Private respondent Gregorio Manuel alleged as an affirmative defense that, while he was petitioner's Assistant Legal Officer, he represented members of the Francisco family in the intestate estate proceedings of the late Benita Trinidad. However, even after the termination of the proceedings, his services were not paid. Said family members, he said, were also incorporators, directors and officers of petitioner. Hence to petitioner's collection suit, he filed a 6 counter permissive counterclaim for the unpaid attorney's fees. For failure of petitioner to answer the counterclaim, the trial court declared petitioner in default on this score, and evidence ex-parte was presented on the counterclaim. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents and found that Gregorio Manuel indeed rendered legal services to the Francisco family in Special Proceedings Number 7803 "In the Matter of Intestate Estate of Benita Trinidad".
2
G.R. No. 100812 June 25, 1999 FRANCISCO MOTORS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES GREGORIO and LIBRADA MANUEL, respondents.
95

Said court also found that his legal services were not compensated despite repeated demands, and thus ordered petitioner to pay him the amount of fifty 7 thousand (P50,000.00) pesos. Dissatisfied with the trial court's order, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, posing the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LOWER COURT IS NULL AND VOID AS IT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT. II. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT NOT BEING A REAL PARTY IN THE ALLEGED PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE TO THE CLAIM OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEES. III. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT TO ANSWER THE ALLEGED PERMISSIVE 8 COUNTERCLAIM. Petitioner contended that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it because no summons was validly served on it together with the copy of the answer containing the permissive counterclaim. Further, petitioner questions the propriety of its being made party to the case because it was not the real party in interest but the individual members of the Francisco family concerned with the intestate case. In its assailed decision now before us for review, respondent Court of Appeals held that a counterclaim must be answered in ten (10) days, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 11, of the Rules of Court; and nowhere does it state in the Rules that a party still needed to be summoned anew if a counterclaim was set up against him. Failure to serve summons, said respondent court, did not effectively negate trial court's jurisdiction over petitioner in the matter of the counterclaim. It likewise pointed out that there was no reason for petitioner to be excused from answering the counterclaim. Court records showed that its former counsel, Nicanor G. Alvarez, received the copy of the answer with counterclaim two (2) days prior to his withdrawal as counsel for petitioner. Moreover when petitioner's new counsel, Jose N. Aquino, entered his appearance, three (3) days still remained within the period to file an answer to the counterclaim. Having failed to answer, petitioner was correctly considered in default by the trial 9 court. Even assuming that the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over petitioner, respondent court also said, but having filed a motion for reconsideration seeking relief from the said order of default, petitioner was estopped from further 10 questioning the trial court's jurisdiction. On the question of its liability for attorney's fees owing to private respondent Gregorio Manuel, petitioner argued that being a corporation, it should not be held liable therefor because these fees were owed by the incorporators, directors and officers of the corporation in their personal capacity as heirs of Benita Trinidad. Petitioner stressed that the personality of the corporation, vis-a-vis the individual persons who hired the services of private respondent, is separate and 11 distinct, hence, the liability of said individuals did not become an obligation chargeable against petitioner. Nevertheless, on the foregoing issue, the Court of Appeals ruled as follows: However, this distinct and separate personality is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. Accordingly, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded, or the veil of corporate fiction pierced, in cases where it is used as a cloak or cover for found (sic) illegality, or to work an injustice, or where necessary to achieve equity or when necessary for the protection of creditors. (Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. vs. Araneta, Inc., 72 SCRA 347) Corporations are composed of natural persons and the legal fiction of a separate corporate personality is not a shield for the commission of injustice and inequity. (Chemplex Philippines, Inc. vs. Pamatian, 57 SCRA 408). In the instant case, evidence shows that the plaintiff-appellant Francisco Motors Corporation is composed of the heirs of the late
96

Benita Trinidad as directors and incorporators for whom defendant Gregorio Manuel rendered legal services in the intestate estate case of their deceased mother. Considering the aforestated principles and circumstances established in this case, equity and justice demands plaintiff-appellant's veil of corporate identity should be pierced and the defendant be compensated for legal services rendered to the heirs, who are directors of the 12 plaintiff-appellant corporation. Now before us, petitioner assigns the following errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE ENTITY. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THAT THERE WAS JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE 13 COUNTERCLAIM. Petitioner submits that respondent court should not have resorted to piercing the veil of corporate fiction because the transaction concerned only respondent Gregorio Manuel and the heirs of the late Benita Trinidad. According to petitioner, there was no cause of action by said respondent against petitioner; personal concerns of the heirs should be distinguished from those involving corporate affairs. Petitioner further contends that the present case does not fall among the instances wherein the courts may look beyond the distinct personality of a corporation. According to petitioner, the services for which respondent Gregorio Manuel seeks to collect fees from petitioner are personal in nature. Hence, it avers the heirs should have been sued in their personal capacity, and not involve the 14 corporation. With regard to the permissive counterclaim, petitioner also insists that there was no proper service of the answer containing the permissive counterclaim. It claims that the counterclaim is a separate case which can only be properly served upon In their Comment, private respondents focus on the two questions raised by petitioner. They defend the propriety of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, but deny the necessity of serving separate summonses on petitioner in regard to their permissive counterclaim contained in the answer. Private respondents maintain both trial and appellate courts found that respondent Gregorio Manuel was employed as assistant legal officer of petitioner corporation, and that his services were solicited by the incorporators, directors and members to handle and represent them in Special Proceedings No. 7803, concerning the Intestate Estate of the late Benita Trinidad. They assert that the members of petitioner corporation took advantage of their positions by not compensating respondent Gregorio Manuel after the termination of the estate proceedings despite his repeated demands for payment of his services. They cite findings of the appellate court that support piercing the veil of corporate identity in this particular case. They assert that the corporate veil may be disregarded when it is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, and defend crime. It may also be pierced, according to them, where the corporate entity is being used as an alter ego, adjunct, or business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders or of another corporate entity. In these instances, they aver, the corporation should be 16 treated merely as an association of individual persons. Private respondents dispute petitioner's claim that its right to due process was violated when respondents' counterclaim was granted due course, although no summons was served upon it. They claim that no provision in the Rules of Court requires service of summons upon a defendant in a counterclaim. Private respondents argue that when the petitioner filed its complaint before the trial court it voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. As a consequence, the the opposing party through summons. Further petitioner states that by nature, a permissive counterclaim is one which does not arise out of nor is necessarily connected with the subject of the opposing party's claim. Petitioner avers that since there was no service of summons upon it with regard to the counterclaim, then the court did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioner. Since a counterclaim is considered an action independent from the answer, according to petitioner, then in effect there should be two simultaneous actions between the same parties: each party is 15 at the same time both plaintiff and defendant with respect to the other, requiring in each case separate summonses.
97

issuance of summons on it was no longer necessary. Private respondents say they served a copy of their answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaim on petitioner's former counsel, Nicanor G. Alvarez. While petitioner would have the Court believe that respondents served said copy upon Alvarez after he had withdrawn his appearance as counsel for the petitioner, private respondents assert that this contention is utterly baseless. Records disclose that the answer was received two (2) days before the former counsel for petitioner withdrew his appearance, according to private respondents. They maintain that the present petition is but a form of dilatory appeal, to set off petitioner's obligations to the respondents by running up more interest it could recover from them. Private 17 respondents therefore claim damages against petitioner. To resolve the issues in this case, we must first determine the propriety of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. Basic in corporation law is the principle that a corporation has a separate personality distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it 18 may be connected. However, under the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity, the corporation's separate juridical personality may be disregarded, for example, when the corporate identity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. Also, where the corporation 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, then its distinct personality may 19 be ignored. In these circumstances, the courts will treat the corporation as a mere aggrupation of persons and the liability will directly attach to them. The legal fiction of a separate corporate personality in those cited instances, for reasons of public policy and in the interest of justice, will be justifiably set aside. In our view, however, given the facts and circumstances of this case, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil has no relevant application here. Respondent court erred in permitting the trial court's resort to this doctrine. The rationale behind piercing a corporation's identity in a given case is to remove the barrier between the corporation from the persons comprising it to thwart the fraudulent and illegal schemes of those who use the corporate personality as a shield for undertaking certain proscribed activities. However, in the case at bar, instead of holding certain individuals or persons responsible for an alleged corporate act, the situation has been reversed. It is the petitioner as a corporation which is being ordered to answer for the personal liability of certain individual directors, officers and incorporators concerned. Hence, it appears to us that the doctrine has been turned upside down because of its erroneous invocation. Note that according to private respondent Gregorio Manuel his services were solicited as counsel for members of the Francisco family to represent them in the intestate proceedings over Benita Trinidad's estate. These estate proceedings did not involve any business of petitioner. Note also that he sought to collect legal fees not just from certain Francisco family members but also from petitioner corporation on the claims that its management had requested his services and he acceded thereto as an employee of petitioner from whom it could be deduced he was also receiving a salary. His move to recover unpaid legal fees through a counterclaim against Francisco Motors Corporation, to offset the unpaid balance of the purchase and repair of a jeep body could only result from an obvious misapprehension that petitioner's corporate assets could be used to answer for the liabilities of its individual directors, officers, and incorporators. Such result if permitted could easily prejudice the corporation, its own creditors, and even other stockholders; hence, clearly inequitous to petitioner. Furthermore, considering the nature of the legal services involved, whatever obligation said incorporators, directors and officers of the corporation had incurred, it was incurred in their personal capacity. When directors and officers of a corporation are unable to compensate a party for a personal obligation, it is farfetched to allege that the corporation is perpetuating fraud or promoting injustice, and be thereby held liable therefor by piercing its corporate veil. While there are no hard and fast rules on disregarding separate corporate identity, we must always be mindful of its function and purpose. A court should be careful in assessing the milieu where the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil may be applied. Otherwise an injustice, although unintended, may result from its erroneous application. The personality of the corporation and those of its incorporators, directors and officers in their personal capacities ought to be kept separate in this case. The claim for legal fees against the concerned individual incorporators, officers and directors could not be properly directed against the corporation without violating basic principles governing corporations. Moreover, every action including a counterclaim must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
98

interest. It is plainly an error to lay the claim for legal fees of private respondent Gregorio Manuel at the door of petitioner (FMC) rather than individual members of the Francisco family. However, with regard to the procedural issue raised by petitioner's allegation, that it needed to be summoned anew in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over it, we agree with respondent court's view to the contrary. Section 4, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court provides that a counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within ten (10) days from service. Nothing in the Rules of Court says that summons should first be served on the defendant before an answer to counterclaim must be made. The purpose of a summons is to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Although a counterclaim is treated as an entirely distinct and independent action, the defendant in the counterclaim, being the plaintiff in the original complaint, has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. 21 Following Rule 9, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, if a defendant (herein petitioner) fails to answer the counterclaim, then upon motion of plaintiff, the defendant may be declared in default. This is what happened to petitioner in this case, and this Court finds no procedural error in the disposition of the appellate court on this particular issue. Moreover, as noted by the respondent court, when petitioner filed its motion seeking to set aside the order of default, in effect it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. As well said by respondent court: Further on the lack of jurisdiction as raised by plaintiff-appellant[,] [t]he records show that upon its request, plaintiff-appellant was granted time to file a motion for reconsideration of the disputed decision. Plaintiff-appellant did file its motion for reconsideration to set aside the order of default and the judgment rendered on the counterclaim. Thus, even if the court acquired no jurisdiction over plaintiffappellant on the counterclaim, as it vigorously insists, plaintiffappellant is considered to have submitted to the court's jurisdiction when it filed the motion for reconsideration seeking relief from the court. (Soriano vs. Palacio, 12 SCRA 447). A party is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of a court after voluntarily submitting himself to its jurisdiction. (Tejones vs. Gironella, 159
20
SCRA 100). Estoppel is a bar against any claims of lack of 22 jurisdiction. (Balais vs. Balais, 159 SCRA 37). WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision is hereby REVERSED insofar only as it held Francisco Motors Corporation liable for the legal obligation owing to private respondent Gregorio Manuel; but this decision is without prejudice to his filing the proper suit against the concerned members of the Francisco family in their personal capacity. No pronouncement as to costs.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Baguio City THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 142936 April 17, 2002
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK & NATIONAL SUGAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. ANDRADA ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY, respondent. PANGANIBAN, J.: Basic is the rule that a corporation has a legal personality distinct and separate from the persons and entities owning it. The corporate veil may be lifted only if it has been used to shield fraud, defend crime, justify a wrong, defeat public convenience, insulate bad faith or perpetuate injustice. Thus, the mere fact that the Philippine National Bank (PNB) acquired ownership or management of some assets of the Pampanga Sugar Mill (PASUMIL), which had earlier been foreclosed and purchased at the resulting public auction by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), will not make PNB liable for the PASUMILs contractual debts to respondent.
99

Statement of the Case Before us is a Petition for Review assailing the April 17, 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 57610. The decretal portion of the challenged Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED." The Facts The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows: "In its complaint, the plaintiff [herein respondent] alleged that it is a partnership duly organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the Philippines, with office and principal place of business at Nos. 794-812 Del Monte [A]venue, Quezon City, while the defendant [herein petitioner] Philippine National Bank (herein referred to as PNB), is a semi-government corporation duly organized, existing and operating under the laws of the Philippines, with office and principal place of business at Escolta Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila; whereas, the other defendant, the National Sugar Development Corporation (NASUDECO in brief), is also a semi-government corporation and the sugar arm of the PNB, with office and principal place of business at the 2nd Floor, Sampaguita Building, Cubao, Quezon City; and the defendant Pampanga Sugar Mills (PASUMIL in short), is a corporation organized, existing and operating under the 1975 laws of the Philippines, and had its business office before 1975 at Del Carmen, Floridablanca, Pampanga; that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of general construction for the repairs and/or construction of different kinds of machineries and buildings; that on August 26, 1975, the defendant PNB acquired the assets of the defendant PASUMIL that were earlier foreclosed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) under LOI No. 311; that the defendant PNB organized the defendant NASUDECO in September, 1975, to take ownership and possession of the assets and ultimately to nationalize and consolidate its interest in other PNB controlled sugar mills; that prior to October 29, 1971, the defendant PASUMIL engaged the services of plaintiff for electrical rewinding and repair, most of which were
2 1
partially paid by the defendant PASUMIL, leaving several unpaid accounts with the plaintiff; that finally, on October 29, 1971, the plaintiff and the defendant PASUMIL entered into a contract for the plaintiff to perform the following, to wit (a) Construction of one (1) power house building; (b) Construction of three (3) reinforced concrete foundation for three (3) units 350 KW diesel engine generating set[s]; (c) Construction of three (3) reinforced concrete foundation for the 5,000 KW and 1,250 KW turbo generator sets; (d) Complete overhauling and reconditioning tests sum for three (3) 350 KW diesel engine generating set[s]; (e) Installation of turbine and diesel generating sets including transformer, switchboard, electrical wirings and pipe provided those stated units are completely supplied with their accessories; (f) Relocating of 2,400 V transmission line, demolition of all existing concrete foundation and drainage canals, excavation, and earth fillings all for the total amount of P543,500.00 as evidenced by a contract, [a] xerox copy of which is hereto attached as Annex A and made an integral part of this complaint; that aside from the work contract mentioned-above, the defendant PASUMIL required the plaintiff to perform extra work, and provide electrical equipment and spare parts, such as: (a) Supply of electrical devices; (b) Extra mechanical works; (c) Extra fabrication works;
100

(d) Supply of materials and consumable items; (e) Electrical shop repair; (f) Supply of parts and related works for turbine generator; (g) Supply of electrical equipment for machinery; (3) Ordering the defendants to pay the costs of the suit. (h) Supply of diesel engine parts and other related works including fabrication of parts. that out of the total obligation of P777,263.80, the defendant PASUMIL had paid only P250,000.00, leaving an unpaid balance, as of June 27, 1973, amounting to P527,263.80, as shown in the Certification of the chief accountant of the PNB, a machine copy of which is appended as Annex C of the complaint; that out of said unpaid balance of P527,263.80, the defendant PASUMIL made a partial payment to the plaintiff of P14,000.00, in broken amounts, covering the period from January 5, 1974 up to May 23, 1974, leaving an unpaid balance of P513,263.80; that the defendant PASUMIL and the defendant PNB, and now the defendant NASUDECO, failed and refused to pay the plaintiff their just, valid and demandable obligation; that the President of the NASUDECO is also the Vice-President of the PNB, and this official holds office at the 10th Floor of the PNB, Escolta, Manila, and plaintiff besought this official to pay the outstanding obligation of the defendant PASUMIL, inasmuch as the defendant PNB and NASUDECO now owned and possessed the assets of the defendant PASUMIL, and these defendants all benefited from the works, and the electrical, as well as the engineering and repairs, performed by the plaintiff; that because of the failure and refusal of the defendants to pay their just, valid, and demandable obligations, plaintiff suffered actual damages in the total amount of P513,263.80; and that in order to recover these sums, the plaintiff was compelled to engage the professional services of counsel, to whom the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum equivalent to 25% of the amount of the obligation due by way of attorneys fees. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendants PNB, NASUDECO, and PASUMIL, jointly and severally to wit: "The defendants PNB and NASUDECO filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint chiefly on the ground that the complaint failed to state sufficient allegations to establish a cause of action against both defendants, inasmuch as there is lack or want of privity of contract between the plaintiff and the two defendants, the PNB and NASUDECO, said defendants citing Article 1311 of the New Civil Code, and the case law ruling in Salonga v. Warner Barnes & Co., 88 Phil. 125; and Manila Port Service, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 20 SCRA 1214. "The motion to dismiss was by the court a quo denied in its Order of November 27, 1980; in the same order, that court directed the defendants to file their answer to the complaint within 15 days. "In their answer, the defendant NASUDECO reiterated the grounds of its motion to dismiss, to wit: That the complaint does not state a sufficient cause of action against the defendant NASUDECO because: (a) NASUDECO is not x x x privy to the various electrical construction jobs being sued upon by the plaintiff under the present complaint; (b) the taking over by NASUDECO of the assets of defendant PASUMIL was solely for the purpose of reconditioning the sugar central of defendant PASUMIL pursuant to martial law powers of the President under the Constitution; (c) nothing in the LOI No. 189-A (as well as in LOI No. 311) authorized or commanded the PNB or its subsidiary corporation, the NASUDECO, to assume the corporate obligations of PASUMIL as that being involved in the present case; and, (d) all that was mentioned by the said letter of (1) Sentencing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P513,263.80, with annual interest of 14% from the time the obligation falls due and demandable; (2) Condemning the defendants to pay attorneys fees amounting to 25% of the amount claim;
101

instruction insofar as the PASUMIL liabilities [were] concerned [was] for the PNB, or its subsidiary corporation the NASUDECO, to make a study of, and submit [a] recommendation on the problems concerning the same. "By way of counterclaim, the NASUDECO averred that by reason of the filing by the plaintiff of the present suit, which it [labeled] as unfounded or baseless, the defendant NASUDECO was constrained to litigate and incur litigation expenses in the amount of P50,000.00, which plaintiff should be sentenced to pay. Accordingly, NASUDECO prayed that the complaint be dismissed and on its counterclaim, that the plaintiff be condemned to pay P50,000.00 in concept of attorneys fees as well as exemplary damages. "In its answer, the defendant PNB likewise reiterated the grounds of its motion to dismiss, namely: (1) the complaint states no cause of action against the defendant PNB; (2) that PNB is not a party to the contract alleged in par. 6 of the complaint and that the alleged services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant PASUMIL upon which plaintiffs suit is erected, was rendered long before PNB took possession of the assets of the defendant PASUMIL under LOI No. 189-A; (3) that the PNB take-over of the assets of the defendant PASUMIL under LOI 189-A was solely for the purpose of reconditioning the sugar central so that PASUMIL may resume its operations in time for the 1974-75 milling season, and that nothing in the said LOI No. 189-A, as well as in LOI No. 311, authorized or directed PNB to assume the corporate obligation/s of PASUMIL, let alone that for which the present action is brought; (4) that PNBs management and operation under LOI No. 311 did not refer to any asset of PASUMIL which the PNB had to acquire and thereafter [manage], but only to those which were foreclosed by the DBP and were in turn redeemed by the PNB from the DBP; (5) that conformably to LOI No. 311, on August 15, 1975, the PNB and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) entered into a Redemption Agreement whereby DBP sold, transferred and conveyed in favor of the PNB, by way of redemption, all its (DBP) rights and interest in and over the foreclosed real and/or personal properties of PASUMIL, as shown in Annex C which is made an integral part of the answer; (6) that again, conformably with LOI No. 311, PNB pursuant to a Deed of Assignment dated October 21, 1975, conveyed, transferred, and assigned for valuable consideration, in favor of NASUDECO, a distinct and independent corporation, all its (PNB) rights and interest in and under the above Redemption Agreement. This is shown in Annex D which is also made an integral part of the answer; [7] that as a consequence of the said Deed of Assignment, PNB on October 21, 1975 ceased to managed and operate the above-mentioned assets of PASUMIL, which function was now actually transferred to NASUDECO. In other words, so asserted PNB, the complaint as to PNB, had become moot and academic because of the execution of the said Deed of Assignment; [8] that moreover, LOI No. 311 did not authorize or direct PNB to assume the corporate obligations of PASUMIL, including the alleged obligation upon which this present suit was brought; and [9] that, at most, what was granted to PNB in this respect was the authority to make a study of and submit recommendation on the problems concerning the claims of PASUMIL creditors, under sub-par. 5 LOI No. 311. "In its counterclaim, the PNB averred that it was unnecessarily constrained to litigate and to incur expenses in this case, hence it is entitled to claim attorneys fees in the amount of at least P50,000.00. Accordingly, PNB prayed that the complaint be dismissed; and that on its counterclaim, that the plaintiff be sentenced to pay defendant PNB the sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees, aside from exemplary damages in such amount that the court may seem just and equitable in the premises. "Summons by publication was made via the Philippines Daily Express, a newspaper with editorial office at 371 Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila, against the defendant PASUMIL, which was thereafter declared in default as shown in the August 7, 1981 Order issued by the Trial Court. "After due proceedings, the Trial Court rendered judgment, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant Corporation, Philippine National Bank (PNB) NATIONAL SUGAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (NASUDECO) and PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS (PASUMIL), ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the former the following:
102

1. The sum of P513,623.80 plus interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum as claimed from September 25, 1980 until fully paid; 2. The sum of P102,724.76 as attorneys fees; and, 3. Costs. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, September 4, 1986. '(SGD) ERNESTO S. TENGCO 3 Judge" Ruling of the Court of Appeals Affirming the trial court, the CA held that it was offensive to the basic tenets of justice and equity for a corporation to take over and operate the business of another corporation, while disavowing or repudiating any responsibility, obligation 4 or liability arising therefrom. Hence, this Petition.
5
operation of PASUMIL pursuant to the mandates of LOI No. 189-A, as amended by LOI No. 311. "II The Court of Appeals gravely erred in law in not applying [to] the case at bench the ruling enunciated in Edward J. Nell Co. v. Pacific Farms, 15 SCRA 6 415." Succinctly put, the aforesaid errors boil down to the principal issue of whether PNB is liable for the unpaid debts of PASUMIL to respondent. This Courts Ruling The Petition is meritorious. Main Issue: Liability for Corporate Debts As a general rule, questions of fact may not be raised in a petition for review under 7 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. To this rule, however, there are some exceptions 8 enumerated in Fuentes v. Court of Appeals. After a careful scrutiny of the records and the pleadings submitted by the parties, we find that the lower courts 9 misappreciated the evidence presented. Overlooked by the CA were certain relevant facts that would justify a conclusion different from that reached in the 10 assailed Decision. Petitioners posit that they should not be held liable for the corporate debts of PASUMIL, because their takeover of the latters foreclosed assets did not make them assignees. On the other hand, respondent asserts that petitioners and PASUMIL should be treated as one entity and, as such, jointly and severally held liable for PASUMILs unpaid obligation.1wphi1.nt As a rule, a corporation that purchases the assets of another will not be liable for the debts of the selling corporation, provided the former acted in good faith and
Issues In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following errors for the Courts consideration: "I The Court of Appeals gravely erred in law in holding the herein petitioners liable for the unpaid corporate debts of PASUMIL, a corporation whose corporate existence has not been legally extinguished or terminated, simply because of petitioners*+ take-over of the management and
103

paid adequate consideration for such assets, except when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) where the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the debts, (2) where the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the corporations, (3) where the purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the selling corporation, and (4) where the transaction is fraudulently entered into 11 in order to escape liability for those debts. Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Warranted A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law. It possesses the right of succession and such powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by 12 law or incident to its existence. It has a personality separate and distinct from the persons composing it, as well as from any other legal entity to which it may be 13 related. This is basic. 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 14 another corporation. For reasons of public policy and in the interest of justice, the 15 corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for fraud, 16 illegality or inequity committed against third persons. Hence, any application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be done 17 18 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 19 rights. The wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established; it cannot be 20 presumed. Otherwise, an injustice that was never unintended may result from an 21 erroneous application. This Court has pierced the corporate veil to ward off a judgment credit, to avoid 23 inclusion of corporate assets as part of the estate of the decedent, to escape 24 liability arising from a debt, or to perpetuate fraud and/or confuse legitimate 25 26 issues either to promote or to shield unfair objectives or to cover up an 27 otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping. Only in 28 these and similar instances may the veil be pierced and disregarded.
22
The question of whether a corporation is a mere alter ego is one of fact. Piercing the veil of corporate fiction may be allowed only if the following elements concur: (1) control -- not mere stock control, but complete domination -- not only of finances, but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked, must have been such that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) such control must have been used by the defendant to commit a fraud or a wrong to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or a dishonest and an unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal right; and (3) the said control and breach of duty 30 must have proximately caused the injury or unjust loss complained of. We believe that the absence of the foregoing elements in the present case precludes the piercing of the corporate veil. First, other than the fact that petitioners acquired the assets of PASUMIL, there is no showing that their control 31 over it warrants the disregard of corporate personalities. Second, there is no evidence that their juridical personality was used to commit a fraud or to do a wrong; or that the separate corporate entity was farcically used as a mere alter ego, 32 business conduit or instrumentality of another entity or person. Third, respondent 33 was not defrauded or injured when petitioners acquired the assets of PASUMIL. Being the party that asked for the piercing of the corporate veil, respondent had the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence to justify the setting aside of 34 the separate corporate personality rule. However, it utterly failed to discharge this 35 burden; it failed to establish by competent evidence that petitioners separate 36 corporate veil had been used to conceal fraud, illegality or inequity. While we agree with respondents claim that the assets of the National Sugar 37 Development Corporation (NASUDECO) can be easily traced to PASUMIL, we are not convinced that the transfer of the latters assets to petitioners was fraudulently 38 entered into in order to escape liability for its debt to respondent. A careful review of the records reveals that DBP foreclosed the mortgage executed by PASUMIL and acquired the assets as the highest bidder at the public auction 39 conducted. The bank was justified in foreclosing the mortgage, because the PASUMIL account had incurred arrearages of more than 20 percent of the total 40 outstanding obligation. Thus, DBP had not only a right, but also a duty under the 41 law to foreclose the subject properties.
29
104

Pursuant to LOI No. 189-A as amended by LOI No. 311, PNB acquired PASUMILs assets that DBP had foreclosed and purchased in the normal course. Petitioner bank was likewise tasked to manage temporarily the operation of such assets either by 44 itself or through a subsidiary corporation. PNB, as the second mortgagee, redeemed from DBP the foreclosed PASUMIL assets 45 pursuant to Section 6 of Act No. 3135. These assets were later conveyed to PNB for a consideration, the terms of which were embodied in the Redemption 46 Agreement. PNB, as successor-in-interest, stepped into the shoes of DBP as 47 48 PASUMILs creditor. By way of a Deed of Assignment, PNB then transferred to NASUDECO all its rights under the Redemption Agreement. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we had the occasion to resolve a similar issue. We ruled that PNB, DBP and their transferees were not liable for Marinduque Minings unpaid obligations to Remington Industrial Sales Corporation (Remington) after the two banks had foreclosed the assets of Marinduque Mining. We likewise held that Remington failed to discharge its burden of proving bad faith on the part of Marinduque Mining to justify the piercing of the corporate veil. In the instant case, the CA erred in affirming the trial courts lifting of the corporate 50 mask. The CA did not point to any fact evidencing bad faith on the part of PNB and 51 its transferee. The corporate fiction was not used to defeat public convenience, 52 justify a wrong, protect fraud or defend crime. None of the foregoing exceptions 53 was shown to exist in the present case. On the contrary, the lifting of the corporate veil would result in manifest injustice. This we cannot allow. No Merger or Consolidation Respondent further claims that petitioners should be held liable for the unpaid obligations of PASUMIL by virtue of LOI Nos. 189-A and 311, which expressly authorized PASUMIL and PNB to merge or consolidate. On the other hand, petitioners contend that their takeover of the operations of PASUMIL did not involve any corporate merger or consolidation, because the latter had never lost its separate identity as a corporation.
49 42 43
A consolidation is the union of two or more existing entities to form a new entity called the consolidated corporation. A merger, on the other hand, is a union whereby one or more existing corporations are absorbed by another corporation 54 that survives and continues the combined business. The merger, however, does not become effective upon the mere agreement of the 55 constituent corporations. Since a merger or consolidation involves fundamental changes in the corporation, as well as in the rights of stockholders and creditors, 56 there must be an express provision of law authorizing them. For a valid merger or consolidation, the approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the 57 articles of merger or consolidation is required. These articles must likewise be duly approved by a majority of the respective stockholders of the constituent 58 corporations. In the case at bar, we hold that there is no merger or consolidation with respect to PASUMIL and PNB. The procedure prescribed under Title IX of the Corporation 59 Code was not followed. In fact, PASUMILs corporate existence, as correctly found by the CA, had not been 60 legally extinguished or terminated. Further, prior to PNBs acquisition of the foreclosed assets, PASUMIL had previously made partial payments to respondent for the formers obligation in the amount of P777,263.80. As of June 27, 1973, PASUMIL had paid P250,000 to respondent and, from January 5, 1974 to May 23, 1974, another P14,000. Neither did petitioner expressly or impliedly agree to assume the debt of PASUMIL 61 to respondent. LOI No. 11 explicitly provides that PNB shall study and submit 62 recommendations on the claims of PASUMILs creditors. Clearly, the corporate separateness between PASUMIL and PNB remains, despite r espondents insistence 63 to the contrary. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Decision SET ASIDE. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
105

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 142435 April 30, 2003 Sometime in April 1979, Teresita, by virtue of the special power of attorney, was able to secure for and in behalf of her mother, Mrs. Lipat and BET, a loan from Pacific Bank amounting to P583,854.00 to buy fabrics to be manufactured by BET and exported to "Mystical Fashions" in the United States. As security therefor, the Lipat spouses, as represented by Teresita, executed a Real Estate Mortgage over their property located at No. 814 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. Said property was likewise made to secure "other additional or new loans, discounting lines, overdrafts and credit accommodations, of whatever amount, which the Mortgagor and/or Debtor may subsequently obtain from the Mortgagee as well as any renewal or extension by the Mortgagor and/or Debtor of the whole or part of said original, additional or new loans, discounting lines, overdrafts and other credit accommodations, including interest and expenses or other obligations of the Mortgagor and/or Debtor owing to the Mortgagee, whether directly, or indirectly, principal or secondary, as appears in the accounts, books and records of the 4 Mortgagee." On September 5, 1979, BET was incorporated into a family corporation named Bela's Export Corporation (BEC) in order to facilitate the management of the business. BEC was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exportation of all 5 kinds of garments of whatever kind and description and utilized the same machineries and equipment previously used by BET. Its incorporators and directors included the Lipat spouses who owned a combined 300 shares out of the 420 shares subscribed, Teresita Lipat who owned 20 shares, and other close relatives 6 and friends of the Lipats. Estelita Lipat was named president of BEC, while Teresita became the vice-president and general manager. Eventually, the loan was later restructured in the name of BEC and subsequent loans were obtained by BEC with the corresponding promissory notes duly executed by Teresita on behalf of the corporation. A letter of credit was also opened by Pacific Bank in favor of A. O. Knitting Manufacturing Co., Inc., upon the request of BEC after BEC executed the corresponding trust receipt therefor. Export bills were Pacific Banking Corporation (Pacific Bank). She likewise authorized Teresita to execute mortgage contracts on properties owned or co-owned by her as security for the obligations to be extended by Pacific Bank including any extension or renewal thereof.
ESTELITA BURGOS LIPAT and ALFREDO LIPAT, petitioners, vs. PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, REGISTER OF DEEDS, RTC EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY and the Heirs of EUGENIO D. TRINIDAD, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41536 which dismissed 2 herein petitioners' appeal from the Decision dated February 10, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84, in Civil Case No. Q-89-4152. The trial court had dismissed petitioners' complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage and the extra-judicial foreclosure thereof. Likewise brought for our 3 review is the Resolution dated February 23, 2000 of the Court of Appeals which denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The facts, as culled from records, are as follows: Petitioners, the spouses Alfredo Lipat and Estelita Burgos Lipat, owned "Bela's Export Trading" (BET), a single proprietorship with principal office at No. 814 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City. BET was engaged in the manufacture of garments for domestic and foreign consumption. The Lipats also owned the "Mystical Fashions" in the United States, which sells goods imported from the Philippines through BET. Mrs. Lipat designated her daughter, Teresita B. Lipat, to manage BET in the Philippines while she was managing "Mystical Fashions" in the United States. In order to facilitate the convenient operation of BET, Estelita Lipat executed on December 14, 1978, a special power of attorney appointing Teresita Lipat as her attorney-in-fact to obtain loans and other credit accommodations from respondent
1
106

also executed in favor of Pacific Bank for additional finances. These transactions were all secured by the real estate mortgage over the Lipats' property. The promissory notes, export bills, and trust receipt eventually became due and demandable. Unfortunately, BEC defaulted in its payments. After receipt of Pacific Bank's demand letters, Estelita Lipat went to the office of the bank's liquidator and asked for additional time to enable her to personally settle BEC's obligations. The bank acceded to her request but Estelita failed to fulfill her promise. Consequently, the real estate mortgage was foreclosed and after compliance with the requirements of the law the mortgaged property was sold at public auction. On January 31, 1989, a certificate of sale was issued to respondent Eugenio D. Trinidad as the highest bidder. On November 28, 1989, the spouses Lipat filed before the Quezon City RTC a complaint for annulment of the real estate mortgage, extrajudicial foreclosure and the certificate of sale issued over the property against Pacific Bank and Eugenio D. Trinidad. The complaint, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-4152, alleged, among others, that the promissory notes, trust receipt, and export bills were all ultra vires acts of Teresita as they were executed without the requisite board resolution of the Board of Directors of BEC. The Lipats also averred that assuming said acts were valid and binding on BEC, the same were the corporation's sole obligation, it having a personality distinct and separate from spouses Lipat. It was likewise pointed out that Teresita's authority to secure a loan from Pacific Bank was specifically limited to Mrs. Lipat's sole use and benefit and that the real estate mortgage was executed to secure the Lipats' and BET's P583,854.00 loan only. In their respective answers, Pacific Bank and Trinidad alleged in common that petitioners Lipat cannot evade payments of the value of the promissory notes, trust receipt, and export bills with their property because they and the BEC are one and the same, the latter being a family corporation. Respondent Trinidad further claimed that he was a buyer in good faith and for value and that petitioners are estopped from denying BEC's existence after holding themselves out as a corporation. After trial on the merits, the RTC dismissed the complaint, thus: WHEREFORE, this Court holds that in view of the facts contained in the record, the complaint filed in this case must be, as is hereby, dismissed. Plaintiffs however has five (5) months and seventeen (17) days reckoned from the finality of this decision within which to exercise their right of redemption. The writ of injunction issued is automatically dissolved if no redemption is effected within that period. The counterclaims and cross-claim are likewise dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis. No costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
The trial court ruled that there was convincing and conclusive evidence proving that BEC was a family corporation of the Lipats. As such, it was a mere extension of petitioners' personality and business and a mere alter ego or business conduit of the Lipats established for their own benefit. Hence, to allow petitioners to invoke the theory of separate corporate personality would sanction its use as a shield to 8 further an end subversive of justice. Thus, the trial court pierced the veil of corporate fiction and held that Bela's Export Corporation and petitioners (Lipats) are one and the same. Pacific Bank had transacted business with both BET and BEC on the supposition that both are one and the same. Hence, the Lipats were estopped from disclaiming any obligations on the theory of separate personality of corporations, which is contrary to principles of reason and good faith. The Lipats timely appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41536. Said appeal, however, was dismissed by the appellate court for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals found that there was ample evidence on record to support the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. In affirming the findings of the RTC, the appellate court noted that Mrs. Lipat had full control over the activities of the corporation and used the same to further her 9 business interests. In fact, she had benefited from the loans obtained by the corporation to finance her business. It also found unnecessary a board resolution authorizing Teresita Lipat to secure loans from Pacific Bank on behalf of BEC because the corporation's by-laws allowed such conduct even without a board resolution. Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that the mortgage property was not
107

only liable for the original loan of P583,854.00 but likewise for the value of the promissory notes, trust receipt, and export bills as the mortgage contract equally applies to additional or new loans, discounting lines, overdrafts, and credit accommodations which petitioners subsequently obtained from Pacific Bank. The Lipats then moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the appellate 10 court in its Resolution of February 23, 2000. Hence, this petition, with petitioners submitting that the court a quo erred 1) . . . IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION APPLIES IN THIS CASE. 2) . . . IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS' PROPERTY CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE NOT ONLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF P583,854.00 BUT ALSO FOR THE FULL VALUE OF PROMISSORY NOTES, TRUST RECEIPTS AND EXPORT BILLS OF BELA'S EXPORT CORPORATION. 3) . . . IN HOLDING THAT "THE IMPOSITION OF 15% ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS BEYOND THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION FOR IT IS BEING RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS APPEAL." 4) . . . IN HOLDING PETITIONER ALFREDO LIPAT LIABLE TO PAY THE DISPUTED PROMISSORY NOTES, THE DOLLAR ACCOMMODATIONS AND TRUST RECEIPTS DESPITE THE EVIDENT FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT SIGNED BY HIM AND THEREFORE ARE NOT VALID OR ARE NOT BINDING TO HIM. 5) . . . IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND IN HOLDING THAT SAID MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS "AN UNAUTHORIZED MOTION, A MERE SCRAP OF PAPER WHICH CAN NEITHER 11 BIND NOR BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO APPELLANTS." In sum, the following are the relevant issues for our resolution: 1. Whether or not the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is applicable in this case; 2. Whether or not petitioners' property under the real estate mortgage is liable not only for the amount of P583,854.00 but also for the value of the promissory notes, trust receipt, and export bills subsequently incurred by BEC; and 3. Whether or not petitioners are liable to pay the 15% attorney's fees stipulated in the deed of real estate mortgage. On the first issue, petitioners contend that both the appellate and trial courts erred in holding them liable for the obligations incurred by BEC through the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction absent any clear showing of fraud on their part. Respondents counter that there is clear and convincing evidence to show fraud on part of petitioners given the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that BEC was organized as a business conduit for the benefit of petitioners. 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 12 disregarded. 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, Where one corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are conducted so that it is, in fact, a mere instrumentality or adjunct of the other, the fiction of the corporate entity of the 'instrumentality' may be disregarded. The control necessary to invoke the rule is not majority or even complete stock control but such domination of finances, policies and practices that the controlled corporation has, so to speak, no separate mind, will or existence of its own, and is but a conduit for its principal. x x x 13 .
108

We find that the evidence on record demolishes, rather than buttresses, petitioners' contention that BET and BEC are separate business entities. Note that Estelita Lipat admitted that she and her husband, Alfredo, were the owners of 14 15 BET and were two of the incorporators and majority stockholders of BEC. It is also undisputed that Estelita Lipat executed a special power of attorney in favor of her daughter, Teresita, to obtain loans and credit lines from Pacific Bank on her 16 behalf. Incidentally, Teresita was designated as executive-vice president and 17 general manager of both BET and BEC, respectively. We note further that: (1) Estelita and Alfredo Lipat are the owners and majority shareholders of BET and BEC, 18 19 respectively; (2) both firms were managed by their daughter, Teresita; (3) both firms were engaged in the garment business, supplying products to "Mystical Fashion," a U.S. firm established by Estelita Lipat; (4) both firms held office in the 20 same building owned by the Lipats; (5) BEC is a family corporation with the Lipats as its majority stockholders; (6) the business operations of the BEC were so merged with those of Mrs. Lipat such that they were practically indistinguishable; (7) the corporate funds were held by Estelita Lipat and the corporation itself had no visible assets; (8) the board of directors of BEC was composed of the Burgos and Lipat 21 family members; (9) Estelita had full control over the activities of and decided 22 business matters of the corporation; and that (10) Estelita Lipat had benefited 23 from the loans secured from Pacific Bank to finance her business abroad and from 24 the export bills secured by BEC for the account of "Mystical Fashion." It could not have been coincidental that BET and BEC are so intertwined with each other in terms of ownership, business purpose, and management. Apparently, BET and BEC are one and the same and the latter is a conduit of and merely succeeded the former. Petitioners' attempt to isolate themselves from and hide behind the corporate personality of BEC so as to evade their liabilities to Pacific Bank is precisely what the classical doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity seeks to prevent and remedy. In our view, BEC is a mere continuation and successor of BET, and petitioners cannot evade their obligations in the mortgage contract secured under the name of BEC on the pretext that it was signed for the benefit and under the name of BET. We are thus constrained to rule that the Court of Appeals did not err when it applied the instrumentality doctrine in piercing the corporate veil of BEC. On the second issue, petitioners contend that their mortgaged property should not be made liable for the subsequent credit lines and loans incurred by BEC because, first, it was not covered by the mortgage contract of BET which only covered the loan of P583,854.00 and which allegedly had already been paid; and, second, it was secured by Teresita Lipat without any authorization or board resolution of BEC. We find petitioners' contention untenable. As found by the Court of Appeals, the mortgaged property is not limited to answer for the loan of P583,854.00. Thus: Finally, the extent to which the Lipats' property can be held liable under the real estate mortgage is not limited to P583,854.00. It can be held liable for the value of the promissory notes, trust receipt and export bills as well. For the mortgage was executed not only for the purpose of securing the Bela's Export Trading's original loan of P583,854.00, but also for "other additional or new loans, discounting lines, overdrafts and credit accommodations, of whatever amount, which the Mortgagor and/or Debtor may subsequently obtain from the mortgagee as well as any renewal or extension by the Mortgagor and/or Debtor of the whole or part of said original, additional or new loans, discounting lines, overdrafts and other credit accommodations, including interest and expenses or other obligations of the Mortgagor and/or Debtor owing to the Mortgagee, whether directly, or indirectly principal or secondary, as appears in the 25 accounts, books and records of the mortgagee. As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court, provided they are borne 26 out by the record or based on substantial evidence. As noted earlier, BEC merely succeeded BET as petitioners' alter ego; hence, petitioners' mortgaged property must be held liable for the subsequent loans and credit lines of BEC. Further, petitioners' contention that the original loan had already been paid, hence, the mortgaged property should not be made liable to the loans of BEC, is unsupported by any substantial evidence other than Estelita Lipat's self-serving testimony. Two disputable presumptions under the rules on evidence weigh against 27 petitioners, namely: (a) that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns; and (b) that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the 28 ordinary habits of life. Here, if the original loan had indeed been paid, then logically, petitioners would have asked from Pacific Bank for the required documents evidencing receipt and payment of the loans and, as owners of the mortgaged property, would have immediately asked for the cancellation of the
109

mortgage in the ordinary course of things. However, the records are bereft of any evidence contradicting or overcoming said disputable presumptions. Petitioners contend further that the mortgaged property should not bind the loans and credit lines obtained by BEC as they were secured without any proper authorization or board resolution. They also blame the bank for its laxity and complacency in not requiring a board resolution as a requisite for approving the loans. Such contentions deserve scant consideration. Firstly, it could not have been possible for BEC to release a board resolution since per admissions by both petitioner Estelita Lipat and Alice Burgos, petitioners' rebuttal witness, no business or stockholder's meetings were conducted nor were there election of officers held since its incorporation. In fact, not a single board 29 resolution was passed by the corporate board and it was Estelita Lipat and/or 30 Teresita Lipat who decided business matters. Secondly, the principle of estoppel precludes petitioners from denying the validity of the transactions entered into by Teresita Lipat with Pacific Bank, who in good faith, relied on the authority of the former as manager to act on behalf of petitioner Estelita Lipat and both BET and BEC. While the power and responsibility to decide whether the corporation should enter into a contract that will bind the corporation is lodged in its board of directors, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law, yet, just as a natural person may authorize another to do certain acts for and on his behalf, the board of directors may validly delegate some of its functions and powers to officers, committees, or agents. The authority of such individuals to bind the corporation is generally derived from law, corporate by-laws, or authorization from the board, either expressly or impliedly by habit, 31 custom, or acquiescence in the general course of business. Apparent authority, is derived not merely from practice. Its existence may be ascertained through (1) the general manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the power to act or, in other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it clothes him; or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or beyond the scope of his 32 ordinary powers. In this case, Teresita Lipat had dealt with Pacific Bank on the mortgage contract by virtue of a special power of attorney executed by Estelita Lipat. Recall that Teresita Lipat acted as the manager of both BEC and BET and had been deciding business matters in the absence of Estelita Lipat. Further, the export bills secured by BEC 33 were for the benefit of "Mystical Fashion" owned by Estelita Lipat. Hence, Pacific Bank cannot be faulted for relying on the same authority granted to Teresita Lipat by Estelita Lipat by virtue of a special power of attorney. It is a familiar doctrine that if a corporation knowingly permits one of its officers or any other agent to act within the scope of an apparent authority, it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to do those acts; thus, the corporation will, as against anyone who has in good faith dealt with it through such agent, be estopped from denying 34 the agent's authority. We find no necessity to extensively deal with the liability of Alfredo Lipat for the subsequent credit lines of BEC. Suffice it to state that Alfredo Lipat never disputed the validity of the real estate mortgage of the original loan; hence, he cannot now dispute the subsequent loans obtained using the same mortgage contract since it is, by its very terms, a continuing mortgage contract. On the third and final issue, petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals for not taking cognizance of the issue on attorney's fees on the ground that it was raised for the first time on appeal. We find the conclusion of the Court of Appeals to be in accord with settled jurisprudence. Basic is the rule that matters not raised in 35 the complaint cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. A close perusal of the complaint yields no allegations disputing the attorney's fees imposed under the real estate mortgage and petitioners cannot now allege that they have impliedly disputed the same when they sought the annulment of the contract. In sum, we find no reversible error of law committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the decision and resolution herein assailed by petitioners. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 21, 1999 and the Resolution dated February 23, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41536 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
110

Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed 2 decision, the same is hereby affirmed. The decretal portion of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling, which was affirmed by the CA, reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court rules: 1. That plaintiff is entitled to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by this Court on September 20, 1990; G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1999 LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent. 2. That defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for the following amounts, subject to the modifications as hereinafter made by reason of the special and unique facts and circumstances and the proceedings that transpired during the trial of this case; a. P532,045.00 representing [the] unpaid purchase price of the fishing nets covered by the Agreement plus P68,000.00 representing the unpaid price of the floats not covered by said Agreement; b. 12% interest per annum counted from date of plaintiff's invoices and computed on their respective amounts as follows: i. Accrued interest of P73,221.00 on Invoice No. 14407 for P385,377.80 dated February 9, 1990; ii. Accrued interest for P27,904.02 on Invoice No. 14413 for P146,868.00 dated February 13, 1990;
PANGANIBAN, J.: A partnership may be deemed to exist among parties who agree to borrow money to pursue a business and to divide the profits or losses that may arise therefrom, even if it is shown that they have not contributed any capital of their own to a "common fund." Their contribution may be in the form of credit or industry, not necessarily cash or fixed assets. Being partner, they are all liable for debts incurred by or on behalf of the partnership. The liability for a contract entered into on behalf of an unincorporated association or ostensible corporation may lie in a person who may not have directly transacted on its behalf, but reaped benefits from that contract. The Case In the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, Lim Tong Lim assails the November 26, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV 1 41477, which disposed as follows:
111

iii. Accrued interest of P12,920.00 on Invoice No. 14426 for P68,000.00 dated February 19, 1990; c. P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, plus P8,500.00 representing P500.00 per appearance in court; d. P65,000.00 representing P5,000.00 monthly rental for storage charges on the nets counted from September 20, 1990 (date of attachment) to September 12, 1991 (date of auction sale); e. Cost of suit. With respect to the joint liability of defendants for the principal obligation or for the unpaid price of nets and floats in the amount of P532,045.00 and P68,000.00, respectively, or for the total amount P600,045.00, this Court noted that these items were attached to guarantee any judgment that may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff but, upon agreement of the parties, and, to avoid further deterioration of the nets during the pendency of this case, it was ordered sold at public auction for not less than P900,000.00 for which the plaintiff was the sole and winning bidder. The proceeds of the sale paid for by plaintiff was deposited in court. In effect, the amount of P900,000.00 replaced the attached property as a guaranty for any judgment that plaintiff may be able to secure in this case with the ownership and possession of the nets and floats awarded and delivered by the sheriff to plaintiff as the highest bidder in the public auction sale. It has also been noted that ownership of the nets [was] retained by the plaintiff until full payment [was] made as stipulated in the invoices; hence, in effect, the plaintiff attached its own properties. It [was] for this reason also that this Court earlier ordered the attachment bond filed by plaintiff to guaranty damages to defendants to be cancelled and for the P900,000.00 cash bidded and paid for by plaintiff to serve as its bond in favor of defendants. From the foregoing, it would appear therefore that whatever judgment the plaintiff may be entitled to in this case will have to be satisfied from the amount of P900,000.00 as this amount replaced the attached nets and floats. Considering, however, that the total judgment obligation as computed above would amount to only P840,216.92, it would be inequitable, unfair and unjust to award the excess to the defendants who are not entitled to damages and who did not put up a single centavo to raise the amount of P900,000.00 aside from the fact that they are not the owners of the nets and floats. For this reason, the defendants are hereby relieved from any and all liabilities arising from the monetary judgment obligation enumerated above and for plaintiff to retain possession and ownership of the nets and floats and for the reimbursement of the P900,000.00 deposited by it with the Clerk of Court. SO ORDERED.
3
The Facts On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a Contract dated February 7, 1990, for the purchase of fishing nets of various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (herein respondent). They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the agreement. The total price of the nets amounted to P532,045. Four hundred pieces of floats worth P68,000 were also 4 sold to the Corporation.
112

The buyers, however, failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats; hence, private respondents filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Petitioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation" was a nonexistent corporation as shown by a Certification 5 from the Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 20, 1990, the lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes which was then docked at the Fisheries Port, Navotas, Metro Manila. Instead of answering the Complaint, Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. He also turned over to respondent some of the nets which were in his possession. Peter Yao filed an Answer, after which he was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence on his behalf, because of his failure to appear in subsequent hearings. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of 6 Attachment. The trial court maintained the Writ, and upon motion of private respondent, ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries won the bidding and deposited with the said court the sales 7 proceeds of P900,000. On November 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its Decision, ruling that Philippine Fishing Gear Industries was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao 8 and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay respondent. The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed based (1) on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and (2) on a Compromise Agreement 9 executed by the three in Civil Case No. 1492-MN which Chua and Yao had brought against Lim in the RTC of Malabon, Branch 72, for (a) a declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) a reformation of contracts; (c) a declaration of 10 ownership of fishing boats; (d) an injunction and (e) damages. The Compromise Agreement provided: a) That the parties plaintiffs & Lim Tong Lim agree to have the four (4) vessels sold in the amount of P5,750,000.00 including the fishing net. This P5,750,000.00 shall be applied as full payment for P3,250,000.00 in favor of JL Holdings Corporation and/or Lim Tong Lim; b) If the four (4) vessel[s] and the fishing net will be sold at a higher price than P5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided into 3: 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao; c) If the proceeds of the sale the vessels will be less than P5,750,000.00 whatever the deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holding Corporation by 1/3 Lim Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio 11 Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao. The trial court noted that the Compromise Agreement was silent as to the nature of their obligations, but that joint liability could be presumed from the equal 21 distribution of the profit and loss. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, as already stated, affirmed the RTC. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable as a such for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership. The appellate court ruled: The evidence establishes that all the defendants including herein appellant Lim Tong Lim undertook a partnership for a specific undertaking, that is for commercial fishing . . . . Oviously, the ultimate undertaking of the defendants was to divide the profits among themselves which is what a partnership essentially is . . . . By a contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a
113

common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among 13 themselves (Article 1767, New Civil Code). Hence, petitioner brought this recourse before this Court. The Issues In his Petition and Memorandum, Lim asks this Court to reverse the assailed Decision on the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, BASED ON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT CHUA, YAO AND PETITIONER LIM ENTERED INTO IN A SEPARATE CASE, THAT A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT EXISTED AMONG THEM. II SINCE IT WAS ONLY CHUA WHO REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS ACTING FOR OCEAN QUEST FISHING CORPORATION WHEN HE BOUGHT THE NETS FROM PHILIPPINE FISHING, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY TO PETITIONER LIM AS WELL. III THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED THE SEIZURE AND ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER LIM'S GOODS. In determining whether petitioner may be held liable for the fishing nets and floats from respondent, the Court must resolve this key issue: whether by their acts, Lim, Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership. This Court's Ruling The Petition is devoid of merit. First and Second Issues: Existence of a Partnership
14
and Petitioner's Liability In arguing that he should not be held liable for the equipment purchased from respondent, petitioner controverts the CA finding that a partnership existed between him, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua. He asserts that the CA based its finding on the Compromise Agreement alone. Furthermore, he disclaims any direct participation in the purchase of the nets, alleging that the negotiations were conducted by Chua and Yao only, and that he has not even met the representatives of the respondent company. Petitioner further argues that he was a lessor, not a partner, of Chua and Yao, for the "Contract of Lease " dated February 1, 1990, showed that he had merely leased to the two the main asset of the purported partnership the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The lease was for six months, with a monthly rental of P37,500 plus 25 percent of the gross catch of the boat. We are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner. The facts as found by the two lower courts clearly showed that there existed a partnership among Chua, Yao and him, pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1767 By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Specifically, both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the three existed 15 based on the following factual findings: (1) That Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who was engaged in commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yao's partner; (2) That after convening for a few times, Lim, Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to acquire two fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of P3.35 million; (3) That they borrowed P3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, to finance the venture.
114

(4) That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed a Deed of Sale over these two (2) boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim; (5) That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing, reequipping, repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by Chua and Yao; (6) That because of the "unavailability of funds," Jesus Lim again extended a loan to the partnership in the amount of P1 million secured by a check, because of which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of two other boats, Chua's FB Lady Anne Mel and Yao's FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim. (7) That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua bought nets from Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name. (8) That subsequently, Civil Case No. 1492-MN was filed in the Malabon RTC, Branch 72 by Antonio Chua and Peter Yao against Lim Tong Lim for (a) declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) reformation of contracts; (c) declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (4) injunction; and (e) damages. (9) That the case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreement executed between the parties-litigants the terms of which are already enumerated above. From the factual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by buying boats worth P3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioner's brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess or loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term "common fund" under Article 1767. The contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership. Moreover, it is clear that the partnership extended not only to the purchase of the boat, but also to that of the nets and the floats. The fishing nets and the floats, both essential to fishing, were obviously acquired in furtherance of their business. It would have been inconceivable for Lim to involve himself so much in buying the boat but not in the acquisition of the aforesaid equipment, without which the business could not have proceeded. Given the preceding facts, it is clear that there was, among petitioner, Chua and Yao, a partnership engaged in the fishing business. They purchased the boats, which constituted the main assets of the partnership, and they agreed that the proceeds from the sales and operations thereof would be divided among them. We stress that under Rule 45, a petition for review like the present case should involve only questions of law. Thus, the foregoing factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding on this Court, absent any cogent proof that the present action is 16 embraced by one of the exceptions to the rule. In assailing the factual findings of the two lower courts, petitioner effectively goes beyond the bounds of a petition for review under Rule 45. Compromise Agreement Not the Sole Basis of Partnership Petitioner argues that the appellate court's sole basis for assuming the existence of a partnership was the Compromise Agreement. He also claims that the settlement was entered into only to end the dispute among them, but not to adjudicate their preexisting rights and obligations. His arguments are baseless. The Agreement was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution. A proper adjudication of claimants' rights mandates that courts must review and thoroughly appraise all relevant facts. Both lower courts have done so and have
115

found, correctly, a preexisting partnership among the parties. In implying that the lower courts have decided on the basis of one piece of document alone, petitioner fails to appreciate that the CA and the RTC delved into the history of the document and explored all the possible consequential combinations in harmony with law, logic and fairness. Verily, the two lower courts' factual findings mentioned above nullified petitioner's argument that the existence of a partnership was based only on the Compromise Agreement. Petitioner Was a Partner, Not a Lessor We are not convinced by petitioner's argument that he was merely the lessor of the boats to Chua and Yao, not a partner in the fishing venture. His argument allegedly finds support in the Contract of Lease and the registration papers showing that he was the owner of the boats, including F/B Lourdes where the nets were found. His allegation defies logic. In effect, he would like this Court to believe that he consented to the sale of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao, with the excess of the proceeds to be divided among the three of them. No lessor would do what petitioner did. Indeed, his consent to the sale proved that there was a preexisting partnership among all three. Verily, as found by the lower courts, petitioner entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao, in which debts were undertaken in order to finance the acquisition and the upgrading of the vessels which would be used in their fishing business. The sale of the boats, as well as the division among the three of the balance remaining after the payment of their loans, proves beyond cavil that F/B Lourdes, though registered in his name, was not his own property but an asset of the partnership. It is not uncommon to register the properties acquired from a loan in the name of the person the lender trusts, who in this case is the petitioner himself. After all, he is the brother of the creditor, Jesus Lim. We stress that it is unreasonable indeed, it is absurd for petitioner to sell his property to pay a debt he did not incur, if the relationship among the three of them was merely that of lessor-lessee, instead of partners. Corporation by Estoppel Petitioner argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him. Again, we disagree. Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides: Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality. One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation. Thus, even if the ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. "The reason behind this doctrine is obvious an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other 17 acts performed as such agent. The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. In the first instance, an unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate
116

capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits. On the other hand, a third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made by the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of. There is no dispute that the respondent, Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, is entitled to be paid for the nets it sold. The only question here is whether petitioner 18 should be held jointly liable with Chua and Yao. Petitioner contests such liability, insisting that only those who dealt in the name of the ostensible corporation should be held liable. Since his name does not appear on any of the contracts and since he never directly transacted with the respondent corporation, ergo, he cannot be held liable. Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel. It is difficult to disagree with the RTC and the CA that Lim, Chua and Yao decided to form a corporation. Although it was never legally formed for unknown reasons, this fact alone does not preclude the liabilities of the three as contracting parties in representation of it. Clearly, under the law on estoppel, those acting on behalf of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence, are held liable as general partners. Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation 19 by estoppel. We reiterate the ruling of the Court in Alonso v. Villamor: A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. Third Issue: Validity of Attachment Finally, petitioner claims that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued against the nets. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this issue is now moot and academic. As previously discussed, F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that it was placed in the name of petitioner, only to assure payment of the debt he and his partners owed. The nets and the floats were specifically manufactured and tailor-made according to their own design, and were bought and used in the fishing venture they agreed upon. Hence, the issuance of the Writ to assure the payment of the price stipulated in the invoices is proper. Besides, by specific agreement, ownership of the nets remained with Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, until full payment thereof. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
117

Bus Org22cdc

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bus Org22cdc

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

III. Attorney's fee

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

[G.R. No. 103576. August 22, 1996]

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

[G.R. No. 141994. January 17, 2005]

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

[G.R. No. 119292. July 31, 1998]

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013

BUSINESS ORG II 2013