Title
Supreme Court
Gala vs. Ellice Agro-Industrial Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 156819
Decision Date
Dec 11, 2003
Family dispute over corporate control of Ellice and Margo, involving allegations of mismanagement, tax avoidance, and land reform evasion; courts upheld corporate legality and denied piercing the corporate veil.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156819)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Formation of Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation
    • On March 28, 1979, spouses Manuel and Alicia Gala, their children (Guia Domingo, Ofelia Gala, Raul Gala, Rita Benson) and their encargados (Virgilio Galeon, Julian Jader) organized Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation with an authorized capital of ₱3,500,000 (35,000 shares).
    • Payment of subscriptions was made by transferring parcels of land in Quezon and Laguna. In 1982, Manuel, Alicia, and Ofelia Gala subscribed to additional shares.
  • Formation of Margo Management and Development Corporation
    • On September 16, 1982, Guia Domingo, Ofelia Gala, Raul Gala, Virgilio Galeon, and Julian Jader formed Margo with a capital stock of ₱200,000 (20,000 shares).
    • Between November 1982 and July 1988, Manuel and Alicia Gala transferred large blocks of their Ellice shares to Margo and to their children, altering the ownership structure.
  • Shareholdings as of commencement
    • By the time of suit, Ellice had 50,000 issued shares (₱5,000,000), held by Margo (24,312.5 shares), Alicia Gala (21,480.2), Raul Gala (2,704.5), Ofelia Gala (980.8), Guia Domingo (516), and minor shareholders.
    • Margo’s board elected new officers on June 23, 1990 (with Raul Gala as president) and approved actions to annul certain property dispositions; Ellice’s board reorganized similarly on August 24, 1990.
  • SEC proceedings and consolidation
    • Respondents filed SEC Case No. 3747 (mismanagement, receiver, dissolution); petitioners filed SEC Case No. 4027 (nullification of elections and resolutions, return of titles and records).
    • The two cases were consolidated on November 23, 1993. On November 3, 1998, the SEC Hearing Officer dismissed 3747 and granted relief in 4027; on July 4, 2002, the SEC En Banc reversed, granting respondents relief in 3747 and dismissing 4027.
  • Appeals below and SC petition
    • Petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals; on November 8, 2002 and December 27, 2002 it affirmed the SEC En Banc decision.
    • Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court raising issues of corporate purpose, procedural speed, deprivation of legitime, and piercing the corporate veil.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in not declaring illegal and against public policy the purposes and manner of organization of Ellice and Margo (to avoid CARP coverage and for estate planning).
  • Whether the CA erred in disposing of the case within two days of respondents’ comment and in merely adopting the SEC’s factual findings without analysis.
  • Whether the CA erred in ruling that the organization of Ellice and Margo did not deprive petitioners Rita Benson and Guia Domingo of their legitime.
  • Whether the CA erred in refusing to pierce the corporate veils of Ellice and Margo.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.