Archive for June, 2017


CASE 2017-0016: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY NC. VS. ADVANCED SYSTEM, INC. (G.R. NO. 202454, 25 APRIL 2017, SERENO, J.)  (PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION) (BRIEF TITLE: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING VS. ADVANCED SYSTEM)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 25 August 2011 and Resolution dated 21 June 2012 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94409 are AFFIRMED. The instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FILED COLLECTION CASE AGAINST CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING FOR BALANCE OF COST OF MACHINE IT DELIVERED. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING SAID SUCH BALANCE MUST BE OFFSET BY THE DEBT TO THEM OF PPPC WHICH IS ONE AND THE SAME WITH ADVANCED SYSTEM BECAUSE THE CELONES SPOUSES  WHO AGREED TO SUCH OFFSETTING ARE OFFICERS AND MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OF THE TWO CORPORATIONS: PPPC AND ADVANCED TECHNOLGY. IN OTHER WORDS THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION MUST BE PIERCED. IS CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORRECT?

 

WRONG.

 

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING HAS ONLY PROVEN THAT SPOUSES  CELONES ARE INCORPORATORS, DIRECTORS, AND MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF THE ADVANCED SYSTEM  AND PPPC. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT PPPC CONTROLLED THE FINANCIAL POLICIES AND BUSINESS PRACTICES OF ADVANCED SYSTEM.

 

“Without question, the Spouses Celones are incorporators, directors, and majority stockholders of the ATSI and PPPC. But that is all that CMCI has proven. There is no proof that PPPC controlled the financial policies and business practices of ATSI either in July 2001 when Felicisima proposed to set off the unpaid P3.2 million mobilization fund with CMCI’s rental of Prodopak machines; or in August 2001 when the lease agreement between CMCI and ATSI commenced. Assuming arguendo that Felicisima was sufficiently clothed with authority to propose the offsetting of obligations, her proposal cannot bind ATSI because at that time the latter had no transaction yet with CMCI. Besides, CMCI had leased only one Prodopak machine. Felicisima’s reference to the Prodopak machines in its letter in July 2001 could only mean that those were different from the Prodopak machine that CMCI had leased from A TSI.”

  

WHAT IS THE RULE IN PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL OF FICTION?

 

IT MUST BE DONE WITH CAUTION.

 

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 RIGHTS. MOREOVER, THE WRONGDOING MUST BE CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISHED.

 

WHEN WILL THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL APPLIES?

 

 ONLY IN THREE (3) BASIC AREAS, NAMELY:

 

1) DEFEAT OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AS WHEN THE CORPORATE FICTION IS USED AS A VEHICLE FOR THE EVASION OF AN EXISTING OBLIGATION;

 

2) FRAUD CASES OR WHEN THE CORPORATE ENTITY IS USED TO JUSTIFY A WRONG, PROTECT FRAUD, OR DEFEND A CRIME; OR

 

3) ALTER EGO CASES, WHERE A CORPORATION IS MERELY A FARCE SINCE IT IS A MERE ALTER EGO OR BUSINESS CONDUIT OF A PERSON, OR WHERE THE CORPORATION IS SO ORGANIZED AND CONTROLLED AND ITS AFFAIRS ARE SO CONDUCTED AS TO MAKE IT MERELY AN INSTRUMENTALITY, AGENCY, CONDUIT OR ADJUNCT OF ANOTHER CORPORATION.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0016-CALIFORNIA MANUF CASE

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

CASE 2017-0021: GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), (G.R. NO. 220598 18 APRIL 2017 BERSAMIN, J.); BENIGNO B. AGUAS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), (G.R. NO. 220953) (SUBJECT/S: IN PLUNDER CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY THE MAIN PLUNDERER AND THAT THE ACCUSED BENEFITED PERSONALLY FROM THE CRIME; CERTIORARI CAN BE A REMEDY EVEN IF DENIAL OF DEMURRER IS JUST INTERLOCUTORY)

                            

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

 

 SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

THE STATE ARGUES THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT THE REMEDY BECAUSE THE RULES OF COURT PROHIBITS THE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF DEMURRER PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT. SUCH DENIAL IS ONLY AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. IS THE STATE CORREC?

 

THE STATE IS WRONG.

 

THE SC CAN TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE SANDIGAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.

  

IT IS NOT AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THIS ACTION.

 

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERINTENDING CONTROL  OVER OTHER COURTS, SC IS  TO BE GUIDED BY ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE ‘AS THE ENDS OF JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.’ SO IT IS THAT THE WRIT WILL BE GRANTED WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT A SUBSTANTIAL WRONG OR TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

 

THE STATE ARGUES THAT THE DECISION IMPOSED ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS FOR PLUNDER: THAT THE MAIN PLUNDERER BE IDENTIFIED AND THAT THE ACCUSED BENEFITED FROM THE CRIME. IS THE STATE CORRECT?

 

THE STATE IS WRONG.

 

“The submissions of the State are unfounded.

 

The requirements for the identification of the main plunderer and for personal benefit in the predicate act of raids on the public treasury have been written in R.A. No. 7080 itself as well as embedded in pertinent jurisprudence.”

 

“As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the money went but, more importantly, that GMA and Aguas had personally benefited from the same. Hence, the Prosecution did not prove the predicate act of raids on the public treasury beyond reasonable doubt.”

  

THE STATE ARGUES THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED AT LEAST A CASE FOR MALVERSATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. IS THE STATE CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION ARE NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION.

 

“In thereby averring the predicate act of malversation, the State did not sufficiently allege the aforementioned essential elements of malversation in the information. The omission from the information of factual details descriptive of the aforementioned elements of malversation highlighted the insufficiency of the allegations. Consequently, the State’s position is entirely unfounded.”

 

CAN THE GRANTING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE STATE AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

 

YES BECAUSE  THE DECISION WAS A PRIOR JEOPARDY.

 

BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION: WHEN THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

 

“The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr., this Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, thus:

 

… The only instance when double ,jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.”

  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. GO TO YOUR DOWNLOADED FILES AND OPEN THE THE CASE FILE.

 

 SCD-2017-0021-GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYANBENIGNO B. AGUAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0015: RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, LUCINIA F. GUYAMIN, and EILEEN G. GATARIN,  VS. JACINTO G. FLORES and MAXIMO G. FLORES, represented by RAMON G. FLORES,   (G.R. No. 202189   25 APRIL 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (DEFENSE MUST BE BASED ON MERITS NOT TECHNICALITIES) (BRIEF TITLE: GUYAMIN ET AL VS GATARIN ET AL.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 23, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 92924 is AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONERS STAYED IN RESPONDENTS’ LAND OUT OF THE LATER’S TOLERANCE. RESPONDENTS FILED CASE TO OUST PETITIONERS AFTER MEDIATION FAILED. PETITIONERS WERE  DECLARED IN DEFAULT BUT THEY  FILED AN ANSWER THOUGH LATE AND RESPONDENTS FILED A REPLY. RESPONDENTS FAILED TO FILE A FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE BUT DESPITE THIS, THE LOWER COURT STILL ISSUED A DECISION WHICH WAS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.

 

PETITIONERS RAISED THE DEFENSE THAT THEY  SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN FAULT SINCE THEY  FILED AN ANSWER AND RESPONDENTS IN FACT FILED A REPLY  AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILE A FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE. IS PETITIONER CORRECT?

 

 NO. PETITIONERS’ DEFENSES ARE PURELY TECHNICAL AND NOT BASED ON MERITS.

 

PETITIONERS RAISED PURELY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS AND NOTHING MORE. IN OTHER WORDS, PETITIONERS AIM TO WIN THEIR CASE NOT ON THE MERIT, BUT ON PURE TECHNICALITY.

 

“To repeat, this Court will not waste its precious time and energy in a futile exercise where the result would be for naught; petitioners will not be indulged when it appears that they have no valid claim in the first place. Quite the contrary, the Court must give respondents the justice they deserve. As owners of the subject property who have been deprived of the use thereof for so many years owing to petitioners’ continued occupation, and after all these years of giving unconditionally to the petitioners who are their relatives, respondents must now enjoy the fruits of their ownership.”

 

“The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice, but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts, in rendering justice, have always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. As applied to the instant case, in the language of then Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, technicalities ‘should give way to the realities of the situation’ .22 (Emphasis supplied)”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0015-RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, ET AL. VS. JACINTO G. FLORES AND MAXIMO G. FLORES REPRESENTED BY RAMON G. FLORES

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.