G.R. No. 199687 - Pacific Rehouse Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Private respondents Pacific Rehouse Corporation, Pacific Concorde Corporation, Mizpah Holdings, Inc., Forum Holdings Corporation, and East Asia Oil Company, Inc. filed a complaint in Makati RTC Branch 66 against EIB Securities, Inc. (E-Securities) for the unauthorized sale of 32,180,000 DMCI shares.
On October 18, 2005, the RTC rendered judgment on the pleadings directing E-Securities to return the DMCI shares and plaintiffs to reimburse P10,942,200.00 for 60,790,000 KPP shares; this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court and became final.

The writ of execution issued on the final judgment proved unsatisfied. Private respondents moved for an alias writ to hold Export and Industry Bank, Inc. (Export Bank) liable as E-Securities’ alter ego, alleging total ownership and domination.
E-Securities opposed, invoking its separate corporate personality. Private respondents attached a sworn statement by E-Securities’ former corporate secretary to support the alter-ego theory.

On July 29, 2011, the RTC concluded E-Securities was a mere business conduit of Export Bank and issued an alias writ of execution against both entities.
Export Bank filed an omnibus motion contesting its impleading; the RTC denied relief on August 26, 2011, ordered garnishment of P1,465,799,000.00 based on the market value of the DMCI shares.

Export Bank petitioned the CA for certiorari and TRO, arguing lack of jurisdiction and separate corporate identity. The CA issued a 60-day TRO on September 2, 2011.
After hearing and memoranda, on October 25, 2011, the CA granted a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) enjoining enforcement of the RTC’s July 29 and August 26, 2011 orders; this was reiterated on December 22, 2011.

Pacific Rehouse filed a Rule 65 petition (G.R. No. 199687) challenging the CA resolutions granting the WPI; later, petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 201537) assailing the CA’s April 26, 2012 decision nullifying the RTC orders and rendering the WPI permanent.
The Supreme Court consolidated both cases due to common facts, parties, and issues.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Export Bank’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

Whether the CA erred in ruling that Export Bank may not be held liable for the final executory judgment against E-Securities via alias writ of execution by piercing the corporate veil.
Whether the CA erred in ruling that the alter ego doctrine is not applicable to hold Export Bank liable for E-Securities’ obligations.