Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > February 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20502 February 26, 1965 - EMILIO CANO ENTERPRISES INC. v. CIR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20502. February 26, 1965.]

EMILIO CANO ENTERPRISES INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., Respondents.

D. T. Reyes & Associates for Petitioner.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

C. E. Santiago for respondent Honorata Cruz.


SYLLABUS


1. CORPORATIONS; SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY FROM MEMBERS DISREGARDED WHEN USED AS SHIELD TO SUBVERT JUSTICE. — The legal fiction that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its members or stockholders cannot be invoked if its purpose is to use it as a shield to further an end subversive of justice, especially where the corporation is a closed family corporation.

2. ID.; SUIT AGAINST CORPORATE OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY CONSIDERED AS SUIT AGAINST CORPORATION. — Where the defendants are used not in their private capacity but as president and manager, respectively of the corporation of which they were officers, their connection with the case must be deemed to be impressed with the representation of the corporation, and verily, the order against them is in effect against the corporation.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


In a complaint for unfair labor practice filed before the Court of Industrial Relations on June 6, 1956 by a prosecutor of the latter court, Emilio, Ariston and Rodolfo, all surnamed Cano, were made respondents in their capacity as president and proprietor, field supervisor and manager respectively, of Emilio Cano Enterprises, Inc.

After trial, Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista rendered decision finding Emilio Cano and Rodolfo Cano guilty of the unfair labor practice charge, but absolved Ariston for insufficiency of evidence. As a consequence, the two were ordered, jointly and severally, to reinstate Honorata Cruz to her former position with payment of back wages from the time of her dismissal up to her reinstatement, together with all other rights and privileges thereunto appertaining.

Meanwhile, Emilio Cano died on November 14, 1958 and the attempt to have the case dismissed against him having failed, the case was appealed to the court en banc, which in due course affirmed the decision of Judge Bautista. An order of execution was issued on August 23, 1961 the dispositive part of which reads: (1) to reinstate Honorata Cruz to her former position as ordered in the decision; and (2) to deposit with the court the amount of P7,222.58 within ten days from receipt of the order, failing which the court will order either a levy on respondents’ properties or the filing of an action for contempt of court.

The order of execution having been directed against the properties of Emilio Cano Enterprises, Inc. instead of those of the respondents named in the decision, said corporation filed an ex parte motion to quash the writ on the ground that the judgment sought to be enforced was not rendered against it which is a juridical entity separate and distinct from its officials. This motion was denied. And having failed to have it reconsidered, the corporation interposed the present petition for certiorari.

The issue posed before us is: Can the judgment rendered against Emilio and Rodolfo Cano in their capacity as officials of the corporation Emilio Cano Enterprises, Inc. be made effective against the property of the latter which was not a party to the case?

The answer must be in the affirmative. While it is an undisputed rule that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its member or stockholders because of a fiction of the law, here we should not lose sight of the fact that the Emilio Cano Enterprises, Inc. is a closed family corporation where the incorporators and directors belong to one single family. Thus, the following are its incorporators: Emilio Cano, his wife Juliana, his sons Rodolfo and Carlos, and his daughter-in-law Ana D. Cano. Here is an instance where the corporation and its members can be considered as one. And to hold such entity liable for the acts of its members is not to ignore the legal fiction but merely to give meaning to the principle that such fiction cannot be invoked if its purpose is to use it as a shield to further an end subversive of justice. 1 And so it has been held that while a corporation is a legal entity existing separate and apart from the persons composing it, that concept cannot be extended to a point beyond its reason and policy, and when invoked in support of an end subversive of this policy it should be disregarded by the courts (12 Am. Jur., 160-161).

A factor that should not be overlooked is that Emilio and Rodolfo Cano are here indicated, not in their private capacity, but as president and manager, respectively, of Emilio Cano Enterprises, Inc. Having been sued officially their connection with the case must be deemed to be impressed with the representation of the corporation. In fact, the court’s order is for them to reinstate Honorata Cruz to her former position in the corporation and incidentally pay her the wages she had been deprived of during her separation. Verily, the order against them is in effect against the corporation. No benefit can be attained if this case were to be remanded to the court a quo merely in response to a technical substitution of parties for such would only cause an unwarranted delay that would work to Honorata’s prejudice. This is contrary to the spirit of the law which enjoins a speedy adjudication of labor cases disregarding as much as possible the technicalities of procedure. We, therefore, find unmeritorious the relief herein prayed for.

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. La Campana Coffee Factory, Et. Al. v. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa, etc., Et Al., L-5677, March 25, 1953; McConnel, Et. Al. v. The Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-10510, March 17, 1961.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-14520 February 26, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO EVARISTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15897 February 26, 1965 - AUREA ESQUEJO v. CERAPIO FORTALEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17681 February 26, 1965 - MINDANAO ACADEMY, INC., ET AL. v. ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17695 February 26, 1965 - ORIENTAL TIN CANS WORKERS’ UNION-PAFLU v. CIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18529 February 26, 1965 - FRANCISCO G. ALEJA, ET AL. v. GSIS

  • G.R. No. L-18935 February 26, 1965 - SALVADOR D. LACUNA v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18935 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: BEATRIZ C. DE RAMA v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-19361 February 26, 1965 - PEPITO MAGNO v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19432 February 26, 1965 - COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO., INC. v. PLARIDEL LUMBER CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19498 February 26, 1965 - VICENTE ABELLANA, ET AL. v. TERESO M. DOSDOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19575 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: HARRY ONG PING SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19637 February 26, 1965 - FELIPE TOCHIP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19639 February 26, 1965 - CHUA U, ET AL. v. MANUEL LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19778 February 26, 1965 - CROMWELL COMM. EMP. AND LABORERS UNION v. CIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19845 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: NESTORA EUFRACIA SONG SIONG HAY UY v. REPUBLIC OF PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19846 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: JUAN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19927 February 26, 1965 - ANDREA R. VDA. DE AGUINALDO v. COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19946 February 26, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20019 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: LORENZO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20089 February 26, 1965 - BEATRIZ P. WASSMER v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20169 February 26, 1965 - IN RE: YU KIAN CHIE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20307 February 26, 1965 - YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v. CIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20502 February 26, 1965 - EMILIO CANO ENTERPRISES INC. v. CIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20574 February 26, 1965 - EDGARDO R. HOJILLA v. SALVADOR L. MARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20676 February 26, 1965 - TEOTIMO ROJA v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20699 February 26, 1965 - OLONGAPO JEEPNEY OPERATORS ASSO. v. PSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21361 February 26, 1965 - PAULITA L. ESTEBAN v. ANTONIO V. CAVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23731 February 26, 1965 - PEDRO ACHARON v. FIDEL P. PURISIMA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-16572 February 27, 1965 - CONSTANTE V. ALZATE v. GEN. HQRTS. EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD OF THE AFP

  • G.R. No. L-17126 February 27, 1965 - ALFONSO HILADO v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17486-88 February 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CABAGEL MACATEMBAL

  • G.R. No. L-18649 February 27, 1965 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19158 February 27, 1965 - CIRIACO C. DIAZ v. EUTIQUIO RAQUID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19496 February 27, 1965 - SILVERIO ALMIRAÑEZ, ET AL. v. GASPARA DEVERA

  • G.R. Nos. L-19530 & L-19444 February 27, 1965 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20291 February 27, 1965 - RAMON GONZAGA, ET AL. v. TERTULINO BICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21022 February 27, 1965 - DAVID DELFIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22010 February 27, 1965 - FAUSTO PANGILINAN v. RICE AND CORN ADMI.