1. PNB v. Andrada Elec. & Engineering Co.

/ 381 SCRA 244

 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 another corporation. For reasons of public policy and
in the interest of justice, the corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for fraud,
illegality or inequity committed against third persons.
 Hence, any application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be done 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
rights. The wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established; it cannot be presumed. Otherwise,
an injustice that was never unintended may result from an erroneous application.
 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 plaintiff ’s legal right;
and(3) the said control and breach of duty must have proximately caused the injury or unjust loss
complained of.
 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 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 in order to escape liability for those debts.
2. Gochan v. Young / 354 SCRA 207
 Derivative suit - “[W]here corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires
acts, or negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a single
stockholder may institute that suit, suing on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the
benefit of the corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and
indirectly to the stockholders.”
 The notion of corporate entity will be pierced or disregarded and the individuals composing it will be treated as
identical if, as alleged in the present case, the corporate entity is being used as a cloak or cover for fraud or
illegality; as a justification for a wrong; or as an alter ego, an adjunct, or a business conduit for the sole
benefit of the stockholders.
3. Union Bank v. CA / 290 SCRA 198
 The SEC’s jurisdiction on matters of suspension of payments is confined only to those initiated by corporations,
partnerships or associations
 Only corporations, partnerships and associations—not private individuals can file with the SEC petitions
to be declared in a state of suspension of payments
 Neither are we convinced by petitioner’s reasoning that the Yutingcos and the corporate entities making up the
EYCO Group, on the basis of the footnote that the former were filing the petition because they bound
themselves as surety to the corporate obligations, should be considered as mere individuals who should
file their petition for suspension of payments with the regular courts pursuant to Section 2 of the
Insolvency Law. We do not see any legal ground which should lead one to such conclusion. The doctrine of
piercing the veil of corporate fiction heavily relied upon by petitioner is entirely misplaced, as said doctrine
only applies when such corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect
fraud or defend crime.