ADELIO C. CRUZ vs. QUITERIO L. DALISAY
Adm. Matter No. R-181-P July 31, 1987
Facts:
1. Respondent sheriff attached and/or levied the money belonging to complainant Cruz when he was not himself the judgment debtor in the final judgment of NLRC Case sought to be enforced but rather the company known as "Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.," a duly registered corporation.
2. Respondent Dalisay explained that when he garnished complainant's cash deposit at the Philtrust bank, he was merely performing a ministerial duty. While it is true that said writ was addressed to Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., yet it is also a fact that complainant had executed an affidavit before the Pasay City assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/president of said corporation and, because of that declaration, the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor case advised him to serve notice of garnishment on the Philtrust bank.
Issue:
Whether or not the act of Dalisay is justified
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
The tenor of the NLRC judgment and the implementing writ is clear enough. It directed Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc. to reinstate the discharged employees and pay them full backwages. Respondent, however, chose to "pierce the veil of corporate entity" usurping a power belonging to the court and assumed improvidently that since the complainant is the owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., they are one and the same. It is a well settled doctrine both in law and in equity that as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. The mere fact that one is president of a corporation does not render the property he owns or possesses the property of the corporation, since the president, as individual, and the corporation are separate entities.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment