ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142446. June 26, 2000]

CIRILO VELVEZ vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 26 2000.

G.R. No. 142446 (Cirilo Velvez vs. Court of Appeals, Ultra Steel Sales Industries, Co., and/or Ben Hur Go.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the regional trial court's dismissal of petitioner's action for damages against private respondents on the ground that the latter are not the proper party-defendants therein.

Petitioner owns a 7-unit apartment built near a 2 1/2-meter high adobe wall which divides his property from that of the adjacent lot of a certain Pio Alejandro and occupied by private respondent Ben Hur Go who caused the addition of 10 more layers of hollow blocks to the existing adobe wall.

On August of 1990, flood caused the subject wall to collapse, destroying the other side of petitioner's apartment. Petitioner demand payment for damages from Ben Hur Go who refused to pay. Barangay Conciliatory Proceedings having failed, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent Ultra Steel Sales Company which was later amended to implead private respondents Ben Hur Go after petitioner discovered that Ultra Steel Sales Company is not a corporation but a partnership with Go as president.

In the course of the trial, it was revealed that the actual lessee of the property occupied by private respondents is Hurleson Steel Corporation wherein private respondent Go is a shareholder and a member of the Board of Directors, which caused the putting up of the additional layers of hollow blocks on the subject wall.

Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of P15,000.00 as attorney's fees.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed, except for the deletion of the award of attorney's fees.

Still displeased, petitioner filed the instant petition which must likewise fail.

Initially, the Court notes that the instant petition is not accompanied by a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision, as only photocopies thereof were attached, in violation of Section 45 of Rule 45 in relation to Section 5, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This lapse, standing alone, is sufficient to cause the outright dismissal of the instant petition.

But even if the Court were minded to set aside this technicality, still the fact remains that the lessee of Pio Alenjadrino's property is Hurleson. In a corporate resolution dated April 30, 1989, the Board of Directors of Hurleson authorized its president, Ben Hur Go, to execute and deliver a contract of lease over the lot of Pio Alejnadrino at Velenzuela and covered by TCT 49502 (Exhibit 5 and Exhibit O). Accordingly, a contract of lease was forged and the property was occupied by Hurleson. Still in accordance with the lease, on May 10, 1989, Ben Hur Go applied for a building permit to erect a fence along the boundary between the lot of Velvez by placing additional layers of hollow blocks on top the existing wall.

Private respondent Ben Hur Go may be Hurleson's president, but still, he possesses a separate and distinct personality from the latter or from anyone of its stockholders and officers. A corporate officer's act as such officer cannot result in his private liability. (Cebu Filveneer Corporation vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 556)

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE