Title
Source: Supreme Court
Pioneer Insurance Surety Corp. vs. Morning Star Travel and Tours, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 198436
Decision Date
Jul 8, 2015
Pioneer Insurance sought reimbursement from Morning Star Travel for unpaid IATA remittances. SC upheld CA, absolving individual directors, citing lack of proof for piercing corporate veil; only Morning Star held liable.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198436)

Key Individuals and Context

  • Petitioner: Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation (insurer under BSP-Philippines Agents Credit Insurance Program)
  • Accredited Agent: Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc. (appointed by IATA to sell air tickets on credit through the Billing and Settlement Plan)
  • Individual Respondents: Estelita Co. Wong (President/Director), Benny H. Wong (Chairman/Director), Arsenio Chua (Director), Sonny Chua (Secretary/Director), Wong Yan Tak (Treasurer/Director)
  • International Air Transport Association (IATA): Canadian corporation overseeing ticket settlement
  • Related Entities: Morning Star Management Ventures Corp.; Pic ’N Pac Mart, Inc.; Morning Star Tour Planners, Inc. (alleged successor)

Petitioner

  • Paid to IATA P100,479,171.59 and US$457,834.14 on behalf of Morning Star under credit insurance after Morning Star defaulted on remittances.
  • Seeks to hold Morning Star’s directors and officers personally and solidarily liable under Section 31, Corporation Code.

Respondents

  • Assert separate juridical personality shields them from personal liability absent clear proof of bad faith, gross negligence, or fraud.

Key Dates

  • 1993: IATA accredits Morning Star as BSP agent.
  • Nov. 1, 2001–Dec. 31, 2002 & Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2003: Credit insurance coverage.
  • Dec. 16, 2002–Apr. 30, 2003: Accrued unpaid remittances.
  • Nov. 10, 2005: Complaint filed before Makati RTC.
  • Nov. 9, 2007: RTC default judgment holding all respondents jointly and severally liable.
  • Feb. 28, 2011: CA decision deletes officers’ liability; holds only Morning Star liable; deletes exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.
  • Aug. 31, 2011: CA denies reconsideration.
  • Jul. 8, 2015: Supreme Court resolves Review on the Merits.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Constitution (Article VIII): judicial power vested in Supreme Court; limited review to questions of law under Rule 45.
  • Corporation Code (B.P. Blg. 68), Section 31: directors/trustees liable for willful, bad faith or grossly negligent acts.
  • Rule 45, Rules of Court: review of factual findings only for patent misappreciation.
  • Jurisprudence on separate corporate personality, piercing the veil (Concept Builders v. NLRC), badges of fraud (Oria v. McMicking), interest rate adjustment (Nacar v. Gallery Frames).

Procedural History

  1. RTC: Pioneer obtains ex parte default judgment against Morning Star and its officers; finds gross negligence and bad faith; orders solidary liability for P100,479,171.59 and US$457,834.14, plus interest (12%), attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, litigation expenses.
  2. CA: Affirms liability of Morning Star only; deletes officers’ liability, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for lack of basis.
  3. Supreme Court: Reviews petition under Rule 45; considers exceptions for misappreciation of facts; affirms CA’s ruling with modification on interest rate.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether factual findings on piercing the corporate veil may be reviewed under the “patent misappreciation of facts” exception.
  2. Whether circumstances justify piercing Morning Star’s corporate veil to impose solidary liability on its officers.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Reviewability

  • Under Rule 45, only questions of law are reviewable, except when there is patent misappreciation of facts.
  • No such misappreciation by the CA; its factual findings on lack of exceptional circumstances are supported by the record.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Separate Corporate Personality

  • A corporation is a separate legal entity (1987 Constitution, Article XII, Sec. 11); officers enjoy limited liability.
  • Section 31 requires clear and convincing proof of willful unlawful acts, bad faith, or gross negligence.
  • Bad faith implies conscious wrongdoing or fraud, not mere business risk or misjudgment.
  • Insolvency and interlocking directorships alone do not establish bad faith.

Analysis of Badges of Fraud

  • Petitio
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.