Title
Halley vs. Printwell, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 157549
Decision Date
May 30, 2011
Stockholders held liable for unpaid subscriptions under trust fund doctrine; corporate veil pierced to prevent injustice, affirming liability for corporate debts.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 223572)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Incorporation and Capital Stock of BMPI
    • Business Media Philippines, Inc. (BMPI) was incorporated on November 12, 1987 with an authorized capital stock of ₱3,000,000 divided into 300,000 shares at ₱10 par value each.
    • Five incorporators subscribed to 75,000 shares (₱750,000), paying only ₱187,500:
      • Donnina C. Halley – 35,000 shares (₱350,000), paid ₱87,500
      • Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr. – 18,000 shares (₱180,000), paid ₱45,000
      • Albert T. Yu – 18,000 shares (₱180,000), paid ₱45,000
      • Zenaida V. Yu – 2,000 shares (₱20,000), paid ₱5,000
      • Rizalino C. Vineza – 2,000 shares (₱20,000), paid ₱5,000
  • BMPI’s Credit Transactions with Printwell, Inc.
    • BMPI commissioned Printwell for printing a magazine and related materials from October 11, 1988 to July 12, 1989, generating invoices totaling ₱316,342.76.
    • BMPI paid only ₱25,000, resulting in an unpaid balance of ₱291,342.76.
  • Printwell’s Lawsuit and Impleader of Stockholders
    • Printwell sued BMPI on January 26, 1990 for the ₱291,342.76 balance.
    • On February 8, 1990, it amended the complaint to implead original stockholders to recover their unpaid subscriptions totaling ₱562,500.
  • Defendants’ Answer and Proof of Payment
    • Stockholders denied liability, claiming full payment and corporate separateness; they submitted seven official receipts, financial statements, tax returns, journal vouchers, deposit slips, and a bank passbook.
    • They also asserted a board resolution to dissolve BMPI and noted an assignment of shares by Rizalino Vineza.

Issues:

  • Did the RTC violate constitutional and procedural requirements by copying the plaintiff’s memorandum and failing to state the facts and law clearly?
  • Was it proper to pierce the corporate veil and hold stockholders personally liable for BMPI’s debts?
  • Did the trust fund doctrine apply despite alleged full payment of subscriptions by the stockholders?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.