Rebecca Boyer-Roxas and Guillermo Roxas v Hon.Court of Appeals and Heirs ofEugenia V.

Roxas

FACTS:

In 2 separate complaints fpr recovery of possession filed by petitioners Rebecca-Boyer Roxa and
Guillermo Roxas respectively, Respondents Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas prayed for Ejectment of Rebecca
and Guillermo Roxas from buildings inside the Hidden Valley pring Resort located at Limao, Calauan,
Laguna, allegedly owned by Heirs of Roxas.

In the case of Rebecca Roxas, the Heirs of Eugenia alleged that Rebecca was in possession of 2 houses,
one of which Is still under construction, built at the expense and whose occupancy was only
tolerated by the Heirs of Eugenia, while in the case of Guillermo Roxas, the Heirs of Eugenia
alleged that Guillermo occupied a house which was built at the expense of the Heits of Roxas
during the time when Guillermo’s father, Ernberto Roxas, was still living and was the general
manager of the Heirs of Roxas corporation; that the houe was originally invented as a recreation
hall but was converted to recreational use by Guillermo, and that Guillermo’s possession over
the house and lot wa only upon the tolerance of the respondent corporation.

In both cases, the respondent corporation alleged that spouses Roxas never paid rentals for the ue of
the buildings and lots and that they ignored demand letters to vacate the premises.

The lower court held in favor of the Heirs of Roxas since spouses Roxas failed to present evidence due to
alleged negligence of their counsel.

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court denied the petition and affirmed
the RTC ruling. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: WON the contention of spouses Roxas were correct as regards to the piercing of the corporate
veil.

Ruling: The contention of the petitioners is untenable to the case at hand.

According the case of People’ Homesite & Housing Corp vs Tiongco and Ecasa, the court ruled that:

“ rocedural technicality should not be made a bar to the vindication of a legitimate grievance.
When such technicality deserts from being an aid to Justice, the courts are justified in excepting
from its operation a particular case. Where there was something fishy and suspicious about the
actuations of the former counsel of petitioners in the case at bar, in that he did not give any
significance at all to the processes of the court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights of said
clients, under a lame and flimsy explanation that the court's processes just escaped his attention,
it is held that said lawyer deprived his clients of their day in court, thus entitling said clients to
petition for relief from judgment despite the lapse of the reglementary period for filing said period
for filing said petition.