Title
Kukan International Corporation vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 182729
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2010
A contractual dispute led to a judgment against Kukan, Inc., but execution against KIC failed as the corporate veil was not pierced due to insufficient evidence of fraud or alter ego status.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 240144)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Dispute
    • In March 1998, Kukan, Inc. (a distinct corporation) awarded Romeo M. Morales a PhP 5 million contract (later reduced to PhP 3,388,502.00) for signages in Makati City. Morales performed but received only PhP 1,976,371.07, prompting him to sue for the unpaid PhP 1,412,130.93.
    • Morales filed Civil Case No. 99-93173 in the RTC of Manila, Branch 17. After Kukan, Inc. defaulted in November 2000, the court allowed ex parte evidence.
  • RTC Judgment and Execution Against KIC
    • On November 28, 2002, the RTC rendered final judgment against Kukan, Inc. ordering payment of PhP 1,201,724.00 (plus 12% interest), PhP 50,000.00 moral damages, PhP 20,000.00 attorney’s fees, and PhP 7,960.06 litigation expenses.
    • Morales secured a writ of execution (February 2003) and levied on personal properties at Unit 2205, 88 Corporate Center—owned and occupied by Kukan International Corporation (KIC), incorporated August 2000. KIC filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim.
    • Morales moved (April 2003) to pierce the corporate veil and hold KIC liable; the trial court denied (May 2003, May 2005). After Judge Peralta’s inhibition, the case was re-raffled to Branch 21.
  • Piercing Orders, CA Proceedings and SC Petition
    • RTC Branch 21 granted Morales’s “Motion to Pierce the Veil of Corporate Fiction” on March 12, 2007, declaring Kukan, Inc. and KIC one and the same, and made KIC jointly liable. Reconsideration was denied June 7, 2007.
    • KIC petitioned the CA; on January 23, 2008 it was denied, and a motion for reconsideration was denied April 16, 2008.
    • KIC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 182729).

Issues:

  • May a final and executory judgment against Kukan, Inc. be executed against KIC?
  • Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over KIC, given it was never impleaded or served with summons?
  • Was the principle of piercing the corporate veil properly applied to hold KIC liable for Kukan, Inc.’s indebtedness?

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.