Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Read Secosa Vs Francisco
Read Secosa Vs Francisco
The parents of Francisco, respondents herein, filed an action for damages against
Secosa, Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. and Dassad’s president, El
Buenasucenso Sy.
The court a quo rendered a decision in favor of herein respondents; thus petitioners
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which unfortunately affirmed the
appealed decision in toto. Hence, the present petition.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. exercised the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees; hence it
cannot be held solidary liable with the negligence of its employee.
(2) Whether or not Dassad’s president, El Buenasucenso Sy, can be held solidary liable
with co-petitioners.
Held:
(1) No. Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. did not exercise the required
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Hence, it cannot be held solidary liable with the negligence of its employee.
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible x x x.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry x x x.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
(2) No. Sy cannot be held solidarily liable with his co-petitioners. While it may be true
that Sy is the president of Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc., such fact is not
by itself sufficient to hold him solidarily liable for the liabilities adjudged against his co-
petitioners.
A corporation has a personality separate from that of its stockholders or members. The
doctrine of ‘veil of corporation’ treats as separate and distinct the affairs of a corporation
and its officers and stockholders. As a rule, a corporation will be looked upon as a legal
entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears. 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. Also, the
corporate entity may be disregarded in the interest of justice in such cases as fraud that
may work inequities among members of the corporation internally, involving no rights of
the public or third persons. In both instances, there must have been fraud and proof of
it.
The records of the case does not point toward the presence of any grounds enumerated
above that will justify the piercing of the veil of corporate entity such as to hold Sy, the
president of Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc., solidarily liable with it.
Furthermore, the Isuzu cargo truck which ran over Francisco wasregistered in the name
of Dassad and not in the name of Sy. Secosa is an employee of Dassad and not of Sy.
These facts showed Sy’s exclusion from liability for damages arising from the death of
Francisco.