Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 325 views

    Francisco Motors V Ca G.R. No. 100812. June 25, 1999 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Kat Jolejole
    The petitioner corporation, Francisco Motors, was sued by Gregorio Manuel to collect legal fees for representing corporation directors and their family members in an intestate estate case. The case did not involve any business of the corporation. The court held that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil did not apply because the legal services were incurred by the directors and officers in their personal capacities, not as representatives of the corporation. Applying the doctrine in this case would violate basic principles of corporate law by holding the corporation liable for personal obligations it did not incur.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Francisco Motors V Ca G.R. No. 100812. June 25, 1999 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Kat Jolejole
    325 views1 page
    The petitioner corporation, Francisco Motors, was sued by Gregorio Manuel to collect legal fees for representing corporation directors and their family members in an intestate estate case. The case did not involve any business of the corporation. The court held that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil did not apply because the legal services were incurred by the directors and officers in their personal capacities, not as representatives of the corporation. Applying the doctrine in this case would violate basic principles of corporate law by holding the corporation liable for personal obligations it did not incur.

    Original Description:

    FRANCISCO MOTORS v CA G.R. No. 100812. June 25, 1999 doctrine of piercing the veil

    Original Title

    Francisco v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner corporation, Francisco Motors, was sued by Gregorio Manuel to collect legal fees for representing corporation directors and their family members in an intestate estate case. The case did not involve any business of the corporation. The court held that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil did not apply because the legal services were incurred by the directors and officers in their personal capacities, not as representatives of the corporation. Applying the doctrine in this case would violate basic principles of corporate law by holding the corporation liable for personal obligations it did not incur.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    325 views1 page

    Francisco Motors V Ca G.R. No. 100812. June 25, 1999 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Kat Jolejole
    The petitioner corporation, Francisco Motors, was sued by Gregorio Manuel to collect legal fees for representing corporation directors and their family members in an intestate estate case. The case did not involve any business of the corporation. The court held that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil did not apply because the legal services were incurred by the directors and officers in their personal capacities, not as representatives of the corporation. Applying the doctrine in this case would violate basic principles of corporate law by holding the corporation liable for personal obligations it did not incur.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    18.

    FRANCISCO MOTORS v CA
    G.R. No. 100812. June 25, 1999

    Facts:
    Gregorio Manuel was employed as assistant legal officer of petitioner corporation, and
    that his services were solicited by the incorporators, directors and members to handle
    and represent them in the Intestate Estate of their deceased mother. These estate
    proceedings did not involve any business of petitioner. He sought to collect legal fees not
    just from certain Francisco family members but also from petitioner corporation on the
    claims that its management had requested his services and he acceded thereto as an
    employee of petitioner from whom it could be deduced he was also receiving a salary.

    Issue:
    Is the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction applicable in this case?

    Held:
    No. Considering the nature of the legal services involved, whatever obligation said
    incorporators, directors and officers of the corporation had incurred, it was incurred in
    their personal capacity. When directors and officers of a corporation are unable to
    compensate a party for a personal obligation, it is far-fetched to allege that the corporation
    is perpetuating fraud or promoting injustice, and be thereby held liable therefor by piercing
    its corporate veil. While there are no hard and fast rules on disregarding separate
    corporate identity, we must always be mindful of its function and purpose. A court should
    be careful in assessing the milieu where the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil may
    be applied. Otherwise an injustice, although unintended, may result from its erroneous
    application.

    The personality of the corporation and those of its incorporators, directors and officers in
    their personal capacities ought to be kept separate in this case. The claim for legal fees
    against the concerned individual incorporators, officers and directors could not be
    properly directed against the corporation without violating basic principles governing
    corporations.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy