Title
McConnel vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-10510
Decision Date
Mar 17, 1961
Park Rite Co., Inc. used a lot without consent; court pierced corporate veil, holding controlling stockholders personally liable for unpaid damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10510)

Background of the Case

Park Rite Co., Inc. was organized around April 15, 1947, with a capitalization of 1,500 shares priced at P1.00 each. The corporation leased a lot from Rafael Perez Rosales y Samanillo for its parking operations but also occupied an adjacent lot belonging to Padilla without consent. Upon discovering this unauthorized occupation, Padilla demanded payment, which led to a legal complaint for forcible entry in October 1947.

Legal Proceedings and Initial Judgments

The Municipal Court of Manila rendered a judgment on November 13, 1947, requiring Park Rite Co., Inc. to compensate the Padillas for unauthorized usage of their property, culminating in a judgment amounting to P11,732.50 after interest. However, upon execution of the judgment, it was found that Park Rite had minimal assets, with only P550.00 deposited in court, leaving a substantial balance unsatisfied. Consequently, a suit was filed in the Court of First Instance to hold current and former stockholders of the corporation liable for the outstanding debt.

Court of Appeals’ Findings

The Court of First Instance initially denied the claim, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Appeals Court concluded that the corporation acted solely as an “alter ego” or business conduit for its controlling stockholders, thereby holding them personally liable for corporate debts. The court's rationale was based on the finding that the actions of Park Rite Co., Inc. were indistinguishable from those of Paredes and Tolentino, who had acquired the majority of the shares and controlled the corporation's finances and operations.

Liability of Stockholders

The critical issue addressed in the judgment is whether the individual stockholders can be held liable for the corporation's obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that where a corporation is merely an instrumentality for the personal business of its stockholders, those stockholders may be held personally liable for debts incurred by the corporation. The previous ruling noted that no separate corporate identity can be maintained when an entity is essentially a facade for the individuals behind it.

Conclusion and Affirm

...continue reading

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