Smith, Bell & Company (Ltd.), pet vs. Joaquin Natividad, Collector of Customs of the port of Cebu, resp.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioner to compel Natividad to issue a certificate of Philippine registry in favor of the former for its motor vessel Bato. Facts: Smith, Bell & Co., (Ltd.), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands. A majority of its stockholders are British subjects. It is the owner of a motor vessel known as the Bato built for it in the Philippine Islands in 1916, of more than fifteen tons gross The Bato was brought to Cebu in the present year for the purpose of transporting plaintiff's merchandise between ports in the Islands. Application was made at Cebu, the home port of the vessel, to the Collector of Customs for a certificate of Philippine registry. The Collector refused to issue the certificate, giving as his reason that all the stockholders of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., were not citizens either of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. The instant action is the result. Counsel argues that Act No. 2761 denies to Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., the equal protection of the laws because it, in effect, prohibits the corporation from owning vessels, and because classification of corporations based on the citizenship of one or more of their stockholders is capricious, and that Act No. 2761 deprives the corporation of its property without due process of law because by the passage of the law company was automatically deprived of every beneficial attribute of ownership in the Bato and left with the naked title to a boat it could not use . Issue: Whether the Government of the Philippine Islands, through its Legislature, can deny the registry of vessel in its coastwise trade to corporations having alien stockholders Ruling: Yes. Act No. 2761 provides: Investigation into character of vessel. — No application for a certificate of Philippine register shall be approved until the collector of customs is satisfied from an inspection of the vessel that it is engaged or destined to be engaged in legitimate trade and that it is of domestic ownership as such ownership is defined in section eleven hundred and seventy-two of this Code. Certificate of Philippine register. — Upon registration of a vessel of domestic ownership, and of more than fifteen tons gross, a certificate of Philippine register shall be issued for it. If the vessel is of domestic ownership and of fifteen tons gross or less, the taking of the certificate of Philippine register shall be optional with the owner. While Smith, Bell & Co. Ltd., a corporation having alien stockholders, is entitled to the protection afforded by the due-process of law and equal protection of the laws clause of the Philippine Bill of Rights, nevertheless, Act No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature, in denying to corporations such as Smith, Bell &. Co. Ltd., the right to register vessels in the Philippines coastwise trade, does not belong to that vicious species of class legislation which must always be condemned, but does fall within authorized exceptions, notably, within the purview of the police power, and so does not offend against the constitutional provision.

were cured by petitioners’ consent Issue: Whether the petitioners can assail the legality of the search warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof Ruling: No. that the defects. Respondents alleged that the said search warrants are valid and issued in accordance with law. to whom the seized effects belong. John Brooks and Karl Beck. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations. Consequently. the Government's action in gaining possession of papers belonging to the corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. their agents and/or representatives from using the effects seized by the police officers from the petitioners’ offices and residences by virtue of search warrants. Hon. Petitioners questioned the validity of the search warrants and alleged that they are null and void. warehouses and/or residences and to seize and take possession of records to all business transactions.Harry Stonehill. It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. respondents This is a petition for certiorari. because they do not describe with particularity the books and things to be seized. they were the rights of the corporation and not the rights of the other defendants. . mainly. mandamus and injunction to restrain the respondentProsecutors. Prosecutors and Judges. Facts: Upon application of the Respondent-Prosecutors and Respondent-Judges. directing any peace officer to search the petitioners and/or the premises of their offices. Jose Diokno as Sec of Justice. petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents.Robert Brooks. prohibition. petitioner vs. The petitioners herein and the corporations of which they are officers have personalities separate and distinct from each other. If these papers were unlawfully seized and thereby the constitutional rights of or any one were invaded. a total of 42 search warrants were issued on different dates against petitioners and/or the corporations of which they were officers. Moreover. papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above. and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. if any.

Camarines Norte. def-appellees This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI of Manila dismissing the complaint against both defendants and sentencing the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of P3. PNB sent a letter to the Provincial Sheriff of Cam-Norte requesting him to take possession of the chattels mortgaged to it by the plaintiff and sell them at public auction. however. or in Manila which is the place agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract.52 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from Dec. moral shock or social humiliation which are basis of moral damages A corporation may have a good reputation which. On the belief that the proceeds of the above-stated sale is insufficient to cover the Plaintiff’s debt. Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cam-Norte. 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.582. wounded feelings. serious anxiety. mental anguish. An artificial person like herein appellant corporation cannot experience physical sufferings. if besmirched. 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. 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” Herein appellant claims moral damages on account of the said violation. . as amended. Bank and Anacleto Heraldo.Mambulao Lumber Company. Philippine Natl. Issue: Whether Mambulao can validly claim for moral damages Ruling: No. the plaintiff contended that its total indebtedness to the PNB has been paid by the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of its real property and the additional amount remitted by it to the Bank.1961 until fully paid and the costs of the suit. Plaintiff alleged that the auction sale of the chattels mortgaged is void for being violative of the agreement provided in the mortgage contract: “in cases of both judicial and extra-judicial foreclosure under Act 1508. plaintiff-appellant vs. The same cannot be considered under the facts of this case. fright. 22. may also be a ground for the award of moral damages. Facts: In seeking the reversal of the decision.

in 1980 as Manager of Energy Equipment Sales.. a Corp controlled by Commart. Jesus should not have been held liable in solidum with the resp. Jose Maglutac filed a case for illegal dismissal against Commart and Jesus Maglutac.. pet. In 1984. The president or presidents of the corporation may be held liable for the corporations’ obligations to its workers. affirming the finding of the Labor Arbiter that complainant was illegally dismissed by Commart but deleting the award for moral and exemplary damages in favor of the complainant and absolving Jesus Maglutac from any personal liability. The same circumstance is obtaining in the instant case in the light of the manifestation of Commar that it had become insolvent and that It had suspended operations. it was likewise found that he had a direct hand in the latter’s dismissal. In this petition. any decision that may be rendered against the latter would be useless and ineffective for there would be no one against whom it can be enforced. Facts: Jose Maglutac was employed by Commart (Phils. NLRC These petitions for Certiorari seek to review the Decision of respondent NLRC. Jose Maglutac raised the issue that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and contravened existing laws and jurisprudence in holding that resp. it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer being the person acting in the interest of the employer. he received a notice of termination signed by the VP-Gen Mgr. . otherwise. The Labor Arbiter therefore correctly ruled that Jesus T. Jose alleged that his dismissal was part of a vendetta drive against his parents who dared to expose the massive and fraudulent diversion of company funds to the company president’s private accounts.) Inc. Maglutac was jointly and severally liable with Commart not only because he was the most ranking officer of Commart at the time of the termination of the complainant. Since a Corp is an artificial being. and Corporate Sec of CMS Intl.Jose Maglutac. vs. pres and Chairman of the BD of Commart. Corp Issue: Whether Jesus Maglutac should be held jointly and severally liable with Commart Ruling: Yes.

Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales made by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the said agreement. It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it. the presumption of validity and regularity of the service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must stand. until the contrary is shown.F.Northwest Airlines. In this case. Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision in Japan. plaintiff sued defendant in Tokyo. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein. It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. Ruling: Yes. Facts: Northwest Air and Sharp through its Japan branch. the same became final and executory. with claim for damages. hence. entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes. Accordingly. CA and C. A writ of summons was issued by the District Court of Japan. It may not be taken judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any other fact. a suit for enforcement of the judgment was filed by plaintiff before the RTC of Manila. Japan. After the two attempts of service were unsuccessful.petitioner v. Defendant received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the judgment. . the assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. As to what this law is is a question of fact. whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales. It did not. it is the procedural law of Japan where the judgment was rendered that determines the validity of the extraterritorial service of process on SHARP. Sharp & Company-respondents This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint to enforce the judgment of a Japanese court. Defendant not having appealed the judgment. the judge of the Tokyo District Court decided to have the complaint and the writs of summons served at the head office of the defendant in Manila through diplomatic channels. not of law. Issue: Whether a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation doing business in Japan by serving summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had failed.

.. officers. in their capacity as directors of AFPSLAI. Andaya filed an action for Injunction and Damages with Restraining Orders and/or Preliminary Injunction against Abadia et al. causing petitioner moral and exemplary damages. the issue of consequential damages may just as well be resolved and adjudicated by the SEC. alleging that the latter acting in concerts and pursuant to an illegal and nefarious scheme to oust petitioner from his then positions as President and General Manager of the AFPSLAI. in intra-corporate matters such as those affecting the corporation. with grave abuse of authority and in gross and deliberate violation of the norms of human relations and of petitioner's right to due process. petitioner argues that the court a quo should not have dismissed Civil Case filed by him against the respondents. although unsuccessfully.C. The Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction on corporate matters. by use of civil law terms and phrases. maliciously and with evident bad faith. The amended complaint impleads herein respondents who. incidental issues that properly fall within the authority of a tribunal may also be considered by it to avoid multiplicity of actions. petitioner from his positions therein. Hence this appeal Issue: Whether the RTC and not the SEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner’s complaint Ruling: The allegations against herein respondents in the amended complaint unquestionably reveal intra-corporate controversies cleverly concealed. While it may be said that the same corporate acts also give rise to civil liability for damages. Moreover. convened a meeting of the AFPSLAI Board of Directors and illegally reorganized the management of AFPSLAI by ousting and removing. Consequently. it does not follow that the case is necessarily taken out of the jurisdiction of the SEC as it may award damages which can be considered consequential in the exercise of its adjudicative powers.C. shareholders. its directors. allegedly convened an illegal meeting and voted for the reorganization of management resulting in petitioner's ouster as corporate officer. trustees. Facts: Before the RTC of Q. without just and lawful cause. mere allegations of violation of the provisions of the Civil Code on human relations do not necessarily call for the application of the provisions of the Civil Code in place of AFPSLAI By-Laws.Andaya v. He asserts that the complaint is based not so much on plaintiff's attempted removal but rather on the manner of his removal and the consequent effects thereof. illegally.. Abadia et al This is an appeal praying for the reversal of the orders of the RTC Q. Maintaining that the RTC and not the SEChas jurisdiction over his complaint. Besides.

GEE’s m/r was denied. ROCES filed an ejectment case against the petitioner.Good Earth Emporium Inc and Lim Ka Ping. is not supportive of the Regional Trial Court's conclusions that the payment was in favor of the latter. hence this petition. especially 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. upon failure of the latter to pay its rentals. The MTC of Mla rendered a decision ordering GEE and all persons under him to vacate the premises and surrender the same to ROCES and pay the plaintiffs the rental. 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. respondents This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision CA reversing the decision of respondent Judge RTC of Manila. A five-storey building was the subject of which. that said payment was in satisfaction of the judgment debt. In 1987 the RTC of Manila reversed the decision of the MTC finding that the amount of P1 million evidenced by Exhibit "I" and another P1 million evidenced by the pacto de retro sale instrument were in full satisfaction of the judgment obligation. . petitioners v. 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). Facts: A lease contract was entered into between ROCES and GEE. Issue: 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 Ruling: The fact that at the time payment was made to the two Roces brothers. the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and reinstated the Resolution of the MTC of Manila. On further appeal. 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. CA and Roces-Reyes Realty Inc. GEE filed a motion to quash the writ of execution but the same was denied by the MTC for lack of merit. GEE was also indebted to respondent corporation for a larger amount. Likewise. Respondent court was correct in stating that it "cannot go beyond what appears in the documents submitted by petitioners themselves 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.. which reversed the resolution of the Metropolitan Trial Court Of Manila denying herein GEE’s motion to quash the alias writ of execution issued against them.

or used the transfer of the employees as a means to perpetrate an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of existing obligations. Yes. living allowance. They were therefore properly served with summons and they were not deprived of due process. Record shows that while originally it was PIF which was impleaded as respondent before the LA. 13th month pay and other benefits under existing laws and/or separation pay. The LA ruled in its favor. the circumvention of statutes. respondents This is a petition for certiorari on the decision of the NLRC affirming the ruling of the LA which ordered the petitioners to pay jointly and severally with the Philippine Inter-Fashion Inc. petitioners vs. LA and the Sheriff of the NLRC. In a M/R. as officers of the corporation deliberately and maliciously designed to evade the financial obligation of the corporation to its employees. petitioners also appeared in their behalf through counsel.Pabalan and Lagdameo. complainants did not allege or show that petitioners. Here. the NLRC affirmed the appealed decision. a company manager acting in good faith within the scope of his authority in terminating the services of certain employees cannot be held personally liable for damages. Thereafter when the supplemental position paper was filed by complainants. Hence. The settled rule is that the corporation is vested by law with a personality separate and distinct from the persons composing it. Complainants demanded reinstatement with full backwages. this petition alleging lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of jurisdiction in adjudging herein petitioners as jointly and severally liable with the PIF Issue: (1) Whether the respondents acquired jurisdiction over the peitioners (2) Whether the officers of the PIF could be held jointly and severally liable with the corporation for its liablility Ruling: 1. 130. or to confuse the legitimate issues. No. 2. NLRC. petitioners were impleaded as respondents to which they filed an opposition inasmuch as they filed their own supplemental position papers. Facts: Eighty-four (84) workers of the PIF filed a complaint against the latter for illegal transfer simultaneous with illegal dismissal without justifiable cause and in violation of the provision of the Labor Code on security of tenure as well as the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. Thus. Hence petitioners can not be held jointly and severally liable with the PIF corporation . including its officers as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related.

. Issue: Whether the IAC erred in disregarding the corporate fiction and in holding the petitioner personally liable for the obligation of the Corporation Ruling: Yes. Coprada reiterated that he was applying for a loan from the DBP from the proceeds of which payment of the obligation shall be made. The environmental facts of this case show that there is no cogent basis to pierce the corporate veil of Akron and hold petitioner personally liable for its obligation to private respondent. It has not been clearly shown that petitioner had any part or participation in the perpetration of the same. who negotiated with said respondent for the purchase of 13 cargo trucks. purchased thirteen trucks from private respondent on January 25.Remo Jr. private respondent tried to collect from Coprada but the latter promised to pay only upon the release of the DBP loan. it does not appear that said resolution was intended to defraud anyone and more particularly private respondent. President and Chairman of Akron. Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence.. Private respondent sent Coprada a letter of demand. Upon inquiry. While it is true that petitioner was still a member of the board of directors of Akron and that he participated in the adoption of a resolution authorizing the purchase of 13 trucks for the use in the brokerage business of Akron to be paid out of a loan to be secured from a lending institution.00 as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. respondents This is a petition for review of a resolution of the IAC seeking the reversal and the reinstatement of its earlier decision which set aside the decision of the CFI of Rizal ordering the defendants (B/D of Akron) to pay jointly and severally with Akron Coprada (later changed to Akron Transport Intl.000. a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering them to pay jointly and severally. In his reply to the said letter.. Inc.) Facts: Feliciano Coprada. private respondent found that no loan application was ever filed by Akron with DBP. It was Coprada. as President and Chairman of Akron. The word "WE' in the said promissory note must refer to the corporation which Coprada represented in the execution of the note and not its stockholders or directors. After the lapse of 90 days. 1978 for and in consideration of P525. After an ex parte reception of the evidence. It was Coprada who signed a promissory note to guarantee the payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price out of the proceeds of a loan he supposedly sought from the DBP.B> Marcha Transport Company Inc. Petitioner did not sign the said promissory note so he cannot be personally bound thereby. petitioner vs IAC and E.

petitioner vs. Converse Rubber Corp.Universal Rubber Products. and Navarro. respondents . CA. Edwardson Manufacturing Corp Inc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful