Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Koppel Industrial Car and Equipment company (KICE), a Koppel Philippines is a mere branch, subsidiary or agency of
foreign company not doing business in the Philippines, the latter.A corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity
as a general rule, and until sufficient reason to the contrary
owned 995 shares out of the 1000 shares that comprise the
capital stock of KPI, a domestic corporation licensed as appears; but, when the notion oflegal entity is used to
commercial broker in the Philippines. defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or
defend crime, the lawwill regard the corporation as an
The remaining 5 shares were owned by each of the officers
association of persons.
of KPI. KICE is in the business of selling railway materials,
machineries and supplies. Buyers in the Philippines, when The corporate entity is disregarded where it is so organized
interested, asked for price quotations from KPI, and KPI and controlled, and its affairs are so conducted, as to make
then cabled for the quotation desired from KICE. it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of
another corporation.
However, KPI quoted to the purchaser a selling price above
the figures quoted by KICE. On the basis of these SC reasoned that, in so far as the sales involved herein are
quotations, orders were placed by the local buyers. concerned, KPI and KICE are to all intents and purposes one
Between KICE and KPI, the arrangement nonetheless was and the same. As regards those transactions, the former
corporation is a mere branch, subsidiary or agency of the
that KICE controls how much share of the profits goes to
KPI. For these transactions, the BIR treated KPI as a latter. This is conclusively borne out by the fact, among
subsidiary of KICE and collected from KPI the merchants’ others, that the amount of the so-called "share in the
sales tax, which was a revenue law in force at the time the profits" of KPI was ultimately left to the sole, unbridled
sales took place. control of KICE.
KPI paid the taxes under protest, demanded for refund and No group of businessmen could be expected to organize a
contended that KPI could not be liable for merchants’ sales mercantile corporation — the ultimate end of which could
only be profit — if the amount of that profit were to be
subjected to such a unilateral control of another RICARDO TANTONGCO, Petitioner, vs. KAISAHAN NG MGA
corporation, unless indeed the former has previously been MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPAN (KKM) AND THE HONORABLE
designed by the incorporators to serve as a mere subsidiary, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.
branch or agency of the latter. Evidently, Koppel Industrial
Car and Equipment Company made use of its ownership of In June 1951, members of the Kaisahan ng mga
the overwhelming majority — 99.5% — of the capital stock Manggagawa sa La Campana, a labor union to which were
of the local corporation to control the operations of the affiliated workers in the La Campana Starch Factory and La
latter to such an extent that it had the final say even as to Campana Coffee Factory (two separate entities but under
how much should be allotted to said local entity in the so- the one management) presented demands for higher
called sharing in the profits. wages, and more privileges and benefits in connection with
their work.
Further, in the practical working of corporate organizations
of the class to which these two entities belong, the holder The case was eventually brought to the Court of Industrial
or holders of the controlling part of the capital stock of the Relations. On the theory that the laborers presenting the
corporation dominate not only the selection of the Board of demands were only the ones working in the coffee factory,
Directors but, more often than not, also the action of that La Campana Starch Factory filed a motion to dismiss
Board. Philippine corporation could not possibly contravene claiming that inasmuch as there were only 14 laborers in
with the American corporation in this case. This fact the coffee factory, the CIR had no jurisdiction over the case.
necessarily leads to the inference that the corporation had The motion was denied.
at least a Vice-President, and presumably also a President, Upon appeal, the SC held that the two companies are
who were residing in America, where the parent operating under one single management, that is, one
corporation is domiciled. business though with two trade names. The
If KPI had been intended to operate as a regular domestic Upon the return of the case to the CIR, incidental cases
corporation in the Philippines, where it was formed, the involving the same parties came up. These five cases were
record and the evidence do not disclose any reason why all heard jointly.
its officers should not reside and perform their functions in In the meantime, Ramon Tantongco supposed to be the
the Philippines. owner and manager of the Starch Factory and the OIC of the
Coffee Factory died. Ricardo Tantongco, as administrator of
G.R. No. L-13119 September 22, 1959 Ramon’s estate, filed a motion to dismiss all the cases, on
the ground that said cases involved claims for sums of
money and consequently should be filed before the probate
court having jurisdiction over the estate. CIR denied such companies or entities, they were managed by the same person or
motion. persons and the workers in both were used interchangeably so that
CIR then issued an order for the reinstatement of the in order to determine whether or not the CIR had jurisdiction, the
dismissed laborers with back wages. The laborers involved number of workers in both entitles, not in only one, was to be
thereafter reported for work, but they were not admitted considered. However, we still believe that although the family of
by the management. Consequently, the union filed a Ramon Tantongco was practically the owner of both the coffee
petition to hold respondents in said cases for contempt. factory and the starch factory, nevertheless these entities are
Tantongco now seeks to prohibit the CIR from proceeding separate from the personality of Ramon.
with the trial for contempt and to enjoin respondent CIR
In conclusion, we find and hold that the La Campana Starch and
from enforcing its order of reinstatement.
Food Products Company which stands for the La Campana Starch
He contends that in the previous case, the SC already
and Coffee Factory are entities distinct from the personality of
"pierced the veil of corporate existence", and held that the
Ramon Tantongco; that after the death of Ramon these two
La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory and its owner,
entities continued to exist and to operate under the management
Ramon Tantongco, were one; so that with the death of
of petitioner and that consequently he is the proper person and
Ramon, the La Campana entities ceased to exist, resulting in
official to which the orders of the CIR are addressed and who is in
the loss of jurisdiction of the CIR to enforce its order against
duty bound to comply with the same. We further find that the CIR
said entities.
acted with in its jurisdiction in issuing its order of September 30,
ISSUE: WON CIR has jurisdiction over the present case. 1957 and in requiring petitioner to appear to give his evidence if
any in relation with the contempt proceedings instituted against
HELD: YES. him.
The death of Ramon Tantongco did not deprive the CIR of its NOTE: Petitioner is likewise estopped from claiming that the
jurisdiction. Moreover, the money claims of the laborers were two entities in question and Ramon are one, since there
merely incidental to their demands for reinstatement for having were certain instaces where he admitted the existence of
been unjustly dismissed, and for better working conditions. the two companies.
The reason SC applied the so-called "piercing the veil of corporate NOTE: Any violation of any order, award, or decision of the
existence" in G.R. No. L-5677 was to avoid the technicality therein Court of Industrial Relations shall, after such order, award
advanced in order to defeat the jurisdiction of the CIR. SC found or decision has become final, conclusive, and executory,
therein that although there were ostensibly two separate constitute contempt of court.
G.R. No. 110358 November 9, 1994 AMADO P. ELEDA — 25,250 shares
QUINTIN ROBLEDO, MARIO SINLAO, LEONARDO SAAVEDRA, VICTORIA B. AURIGUE — 25,250 shares
VICENTE SECAPURI, DANIEL AUSTRIA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BACANI SECURITY FELIPE BACANI — 20,000 shares
AND ALLIED SERVICES CO., INC., AND BACANI SECURITY AND The primary purpose of the corporation was to "engage in the
PROTECTIVE AGENCY AND/OR ALICIA BACANI, respondents. business of providing security" to persons and entities. This was the
same line of business that BSPA was engaged in. Most of the
Petitioners were former employees of BSPA. They were employed
as security guards at different times during the period 1969 to petitioners, after losing their jobs in BSPA, were employed in BASEC.
December 1989 when BSPA ceased to operate. On July 5, 1990, some of the petitioners filed a complaint with the
BSPA was a single proprietorship owned, managed and operated by DOLE for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of overtime pay,
the late Felipe Bacani. It was registered with the Bureau of Trade legal holiday pay, separation pay and/or retirement/resignation
and Industry as a business name in 1957. Upon its expiration, the benefits, and for the return of their cash bond which they posted
registration was renewed on July 1, 1987 for a term of five (5) years with BSPA. Made respondents were BSPA and BASEC.
ending 1992. On March 1, 1992, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision upholding
On December 31, 1989, Felipe Bacani retired the business name and the right of the petitioners, and further holding both BSPA and
BASEC solidarily liable, except BSPA which has already been retired
BSPA ceased to operate effective on that day. At that time,
respondent Alicia Bacani, daughter of Felipe Bacani, was BSPA's from business.
Executive Directress. On appeal the NLRC reversed, declaring the LA without jurisdiction
On January 15, 1990 Felipe Bacani died. An intestate proceeding and instead suggested that petitioners file their claims with the RTC,
where an intestate proceeding for the settlement of Bacani's estate
was instituted for the settlement of his estate.
was pending.
Earlier, on October 26, 1989, BASEC had been organized and
registered as a corporation with the SEC. The following were the Petitioners now contend that the NLRC erred, on the ground that
incorporators with their respective shareholdings: BASEC is the same entity as BSPA the latter being owned and
controlled by one and the same family, namely the Bacani family.
ALICIA BACANI — 25,250 shares For this reason they urge that the corporate fiction should be