Case Digest (G.R. No. 199687)
Facts:
Pacific Rehouse Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Export and Industry Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 199687 and G.R. No. 201537, March 24, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
The underlying dispute began with a complaint filed in the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, against EIB Securities, Inc. (E‑Securities) for the unauthorized sale of 32,180,000 DMCI shares belonging to private respondents — Pacific Rehouse Corporation, Pacific Concorde Corporation, Mizpah Holdings, Inc., Forum Holdings Corporation and East Asia Oil Company, Inc. The RTC, by Resolution dated October 18, 2005, rendered judgment on the pleadings directing E‑Securities to return the 32,180,000 DMCI shares and directing the plaintiffs to reimburse E‑Securities for the buyback price of certain KPP shares; that judgment was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court and became final.
When the writ of execution produced no satisfaction, the private respondents moved for an alias writ of execution seeking to hold Export and Industry Bank, Inc. (Export Bank) — the parent and 100% stockholder of E‑Securities — liable on the theory that E‑Securities was Export Bank’s alter ego and mere business conduit. E‑Securities opposed; the private respondents later attached a sworn statement by Atty. Ramon F. Aviado, Jr., former corporate secretary of both corporations. On July 29, 2011, the RTC concluded that E‑Securities was an alter ego of Export Bank and ordered issuance of an alias writ; by Order dated August 26, 2011 the RTC denied Export Bank’s omnibus motion and directed garnishment of Php1,465,799,000 to acquire the DMCI shares.
Export Bank petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and applied for injunctive relief. The CA issued a 60‑day temporary restraining order on September 2, 2011 and later, after hearing and memoranda, granted a writ of preliminary injunction on October 25, 2011 (reiterated by a Special Division resolution on December 22, 2011). Private respondents filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 199687) challenging the CA’s injunctive resolutions; separately petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 201537) seeking review of the CA’s April...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in granting Export Bank’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction (G.R. No. 199687)?
- Did the CA err in ruling that Export Bank may not be held liable for the final and executory judgment against E‑Securities by piercing the corporate veil in an alias writ of execution (G.R. No. 201537)?
- Is the alter ego doctrine applicable to hold Export Bank liable for the obliga...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)