Case Summary (G.R. No. 191525)
Factual Background
Atty. Emmanuel T. Santos, lessee of two buildings owned by Litton, incurred rental arrears and unpaid realty taxes under his lease. Litton sued Santos for unlawful detainer before the MeTC of Manila. The MeTC ruled for Litton and ordered Santos to vacate the A.I.D. Building and Litton Apartments and to pay arrears, taxes, penalties, and attorney’s fees. The MeTC judgment was not promptly executed. Litton obtained revival of the judgment, and the RTC and subsequently the CA affirmed the revival; the CA judgment became final and executory on 22 March 1994. On 11 November 1996 the sheriff levied upon a Makati parcel covered by TCT No. 187565 registered in the name of I/AME, and the annotation on the title indicated levy “only up to the extent of the share of Emmanuel T. Santos.”
Motion to Remove Annotations and Initial Orders
I/AME filed a motion before the MeTC to lift or remove the annotations on TCT No. 187565, asserting separate corporate personality distinct from Santos so that its property should not answer for his liabilities. The MeTC denied that motion in an Order dated 29 October 2004. Upon I/AME’s motion for reconsideration the MeTC reversed and ordered cancellation of the levy annotations and writ of execution. Litton appealed that reversal to the RTC, which reinstated the original MeTC Order of 29 October 2004. I/AME then sought relief from the CA, which denied the petition and affirmed the RTC.
Issues Presented
The principal issues were whether I/AME was denied due process when the courts pierced its corporate veil and made its property subject to execution to satisfy a judgment against Santos; whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies to non-stock, non-profit corporations; whether the doctrine may be applied to a natural person who used the corporation; and whether reverse piercing of the corporate veil was proper to permit a creditor to reach corporate assets to satisfy a judgment against an individual.
The Court of Appeals’ Findings
The CA affirmed the trial courts’ findings that Santos used I/AME to shield the Makati property from execution. The CA emphasized that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 31 August 1979 reflected Santos as President representing I/AME although I/AME was organized only in 1985, that the transfer occurred during the pendency of the appeal for revival of the judgment, and that TCT No. 187565 issued on 17 November 1993, years after the sale and after incorporation. The CA concluded these facts demonstrated use of the corporate form to evade execution and found that piercing the corporate veil was warranted.
Petitioner's Contentions
I/AME contended that its right to due process was violated because it was not impleaded in the main unlawful detainer case and the court a quo therefore lacked jurisdiction over it. Petitioner also argued that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies only to stock corporations and cannot be invoked against a non-stock, non-profit educational corporation. Finally, petitioner argued that piercing the veil against a natural person like Santos is conceptually inapplicable because a natural person does not possess a corporate veil.
Supreme Court Ruling on Reviewability and Due Process
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that under Rule 45 only questions of law are generally cognizable, and the finding of facts that justified piercing the corporate veil is one of fact ordinarily not reviewable on a petition for certiorari. The Court found the factual findings of the MeTC, RTC, and CA to be consistent and supported by the record and therefore binding. The Court further held that the protection of due process for a corporation not impleaded does not automatically preclude veil piercing where clear and convincing evidence shows the corporation’s separate personality was purposefully employed to evade a legitimate obligation. Consequently, no due process violation was found.
Legal Principles Governing Piercing the Corporate Veil
The Court reiterated that corporations are separate juridical entities but that this privilege is subject to equitable limitations to prevent fraud, illegality, or evasion of obligations. Citing established precedent, the Court stated that piercing the corporate veil is warranted when the corporate form is used to perpetrate fraud, to evade an existing obligation, to circumvent statutes, or where the corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person. The Court acknowledged a corollary rule that, ordinarily, a corporation should be properly served or subjected to jurisdiction before it is made to answer; however, the Court recognized the exception that where there is clear and convincing proof that the corporation’s separate personality was used to evade a binding obligation or perpetuate fraud, the veil may be pierced even if the corporation was not a party to the principal action.
Application to Non-stock Corporations
The Court rejected I/AME’s contention that non-stock, non-profit corporations are immune from veil piercing. It held that the law does not distinguish between stock and non-stock corporations for purposes of applying the equitable remedy of veil piercing. The Court explained that the equitable character of piercing permits scrutiny of any organization, and that control and effective ownership need not depend on stock ownership. The Court cited Philippine and foreign authorities showing that non-profit corporations are susceptible to veil piercing where facts show misuse of the corporate form.
Application to Natural Persons and the Alter Ego Finding
The Court held that the doctrine may apply to natural persons and concluded on the record that Santos and I/AME were alter egos. The Court relied on a number of uncontroverted facts: Santos’s representation of himself as President in a 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale predating I/AME’s incorporation in 1985; Santos’s significant monetary contribution of PHP 1,200,000 out of PHP 1,500,000 making him majority contributor; Santos’s role as conceptualizer and implementor of the school; the naming of the building after his nickname; and I/AME’s pleaded admission that it was used by Santos as his alter ego to shield assets from creditors. The Court treated the corporate mask as liftable and held Santos personally liable in the same manner as the corporation where the evidence demonstrated that he used the corporate form to defeat judicial processes and evade his obligation to Litton.
Reverse Piercing and Equitable Relief
The Court adopted the d
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191525)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- International Academy of Management and Economics (I/AME) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 against the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 107727 and its subsequent resolution.
- Litton and Company, Inc. was the judgment creditor in the underlying unlawful detainer and collection proceedings against Atty. Emmanuel T. Santos.
- The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila rendered an original judgment in favor of Litton and ordered eviction and monetary recovery which later became the subject of enforcement proceedings.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted revival of the MeTC judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, producing a final and executory judgment on 22 March 1994 in favor of Litton.
- A sheriff levy dated 11 November 1996 targeted real property covered by TCT No. 187565 registered in the name of I/AME to execute the judgment against Santos.
- The MeTC initially denied I/AME's motion to lift annotations but later granted reconsideration, and the RTC reversed that grant and reinstated the MeTC's original Order dated 29 October 2004, a ruling the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court denied the I/AME petition and affirmed the CA Decision dated 30 October 2009 and its Resolution dated 12 March 2010, and it reinstated the MeTC Order dated 29 October 2004.
Key Factual Allegations
- Santos was a lessee of two buildings owned by Litton and defaulted on monthly rentals and his share of realty taxes under the lease.
- The MeTC rendered judgment against Santos ordering him to vacate the A.I.D. Building and Litton Apartments and to pay unpaid arrears, taxes, penalties, and attorney's fees.
- Execution on the MeTC judgment was not immediately completed, prompting a revival action that resulted in an RTC decision and subsequent CA affirmation.
- The subject real property was transferred by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 31 August 1979 purporting to show Santos as President representing I/AME, yet I/AME was incorporated only in 1985.
- The property’s Transfer Certificate of Title No. 187565 was issued on 17 November 1993, which postdated both the Deed of Absolute Sale and the incorporation of I/AME.
- Annotations on TCT No. 187565 reflected a levy “only up to the extent of the share of Emmanuel T. Santos.”
- I/AME asserted a corporate personality separate from Santos and sought removal of levy annotations, while pleading admissions in an Answer characterized I/AME as the alter ego of Santos.
- Evidence showed Santos contributed P1,200,000 of the P1,500,000 capital and that the building bore his nickname, indicating his dominant control of I/AME.
Lower Court Decisions
- The MeTC originally entered judgment in favor of Litton in the unlawful detainer and monetary action and later issued an Order dated 29 October 2004 denying I/AME's motion to lift annotations.
- Upon reconsideration the MeTC reversed its denial and ordered cancellation of annotations and the writ of execution, but the RTC reversed that reconsideration and reinstated the MeTC Order dated 29 October 2004.
- The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107727 affirmed the RTC's reinstatement and held that the trial courts did not commit grave abuse of discretion in piercing the corporate veil of I/AME.
- The MeTC, RTC, and CA made congruent factual findings that Santos used I/AME to shield the Makati real property from post-judgment execution.
Issues
- Whether I/AME was denied due process when the trial courts pierced the corporate veil and made its property subject to a writ of execution to satisfy Santos's judgment.
- Whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies to a non-stock, non-profi