Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 381 views

    MARK Arcilla Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    Allen
    This document summarizes a court case between Calvin Arcilla and Emilio Rodulfo. Arcilla took advantage of his relationship with Rodulfo to obtain cash, items, and checks on credit. Arcilla signed 30 promissory notes but then refused to pay back the debt. Rodulfo sued for recovery of the money. The court ruled that Arcilla was personally liable for the debt even though it was incurred in the name of his corporation, as the corporation was essentially his alter ego and business conduit. The court rejected Arcilla's argument that he could not be held personally liable since the corporation was not a party, finding that he had waived this defense already in his pleadings and admissions.

    Copyright:

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

    MARK Arcilla Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    Allen
    381 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Calvin Arcilla and Emilio Rodulfo. Arcilla took advantage of his relationship with Rodulfo to obtain cash, items, and checks on credit. Arcilla signed 30 promissory notes but then refused to pay back the debt. Rodulfo sued for recovery of the money. The court ruled that Arcilla was personally liable for the debt even though it was incurred in the name of his corporation, as the corporation was essentially his alter ego and business conduit. The court rejected Arcilla's argument that he could not be held personally liable since the corporation was not a party, finding that he had waived this defense already in his pleadings and admissions.

    Original Title

    MARK-arcilla-vs-ca.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Calvin Arcilla and Emilio Rodulfo. Arcilla took advantage of his relationship with Rodulfo to obtain cash, items, and checks on credit. Arcilla signed 30 promissory notes but then refused to pay back the debt. Rodulfo sued for recovery of the money. The court ruled that Arcilla was personally liable for the debt even though it was incurred in the name of his corporation, as the corporation was essentially his alter ego and business conduit. The court rejected Arcilla's argument that he could not be held personally liable since the corporation was not a party, finding that he had waived this defense already in his pleadings and admissions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    381 views2 pages

    MARK Arcilla Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    Allen
    This document summarizes a court case between Calvin Arcilla and Emilio Rodulfo. Arcilla took advantage of his relationship with Rodulfo to obtain cash, items, and checks on credit. Arcilla signed 30 promissory notes but then refused to pay back the debt. Rodulfo sued for recovery of the money. The court ruled that Arcilla was personally liable for the debt even though it was incurred in the name of his corporation, as the corporation was essentially his alter ego and business conduit. The court rejected Arcilla's argument that he could not be held personally liable since the corporation was not a party, finding that he had waived this defense already in his pleadings and admissions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    89804 October 23, 1992


    CALVIN S. ARCILLA, petitioner, vs.
    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIO RODULFO, respondents.
    Facts: Petitioner Calvin Arcilla, taking advantage of his close relationship with respondent
    Emilio Rodulfo, succeeded in securing on credit from the latter, items, cash and checks.
    RODULFO willingly extended the credit because of the representations of ARCILLA that he was
    a successful financial consultant.
    The indebtedness is shown and described in 30 “vales” signed by ARCILLA.
    When RODULFO demanded payment, ARCILLA, acting in gross and evident bad faith, refused
    to satisfy the claim. Hence, he filed a complaint for RECOVERY OF SUM OF MONEY.
    In his Answer, ARCILLA did not deny having had business transactions with RODULFO. He
    explicitly admits that the loan was in the name of his family corporation, CSAR MARINE
    RESOURCES, INC.
    After hearing, the Court rendered judgment against ARCILLA ordering him to pay private
    respondent Emilio Rodulfo in his capacity as President of CSAR MARINE.
    ARCILLA argued that he cannot be ordered to pay in his capacity as President of CSAR MARINE
    since the said corporation was not impleaded in the case. The personality and liability of
    ARCILLA and CSAR MARINE as a corporation are separate and distinct.
    Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can raise the issue of separate corporate identity in the
    pleadings for the first time in a Motion for Clarificatory Judgment?
    Ruling: The records bear nothing to prop up the instant petition. The arguments adduced by the
    petitioner breathe no life to it.
    On the contrary, the pleadings lead Us to the inescapable conclusion that the petitioner, who is
    himself a lawyer, is merely taking advantage of the use of the innocuous phrase "in his capacity
    as President" found in the dispositive portion of the challenged Amended Decision — making
    the same a sanctuary for a defense which he, as hereinafter discussed, had long since abandoned
    or waived either deliberately or through his obliviscence. His sole purpose, of course, is to avoid
    complying with the liability adjudged against him by the public respondent; such avoidance is
    premiered on the so-called newly discovered evidence offered after the public respondent had
    bent over backwards to grant him a new trial despite the availability of such evidence during
    pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. It is to be noted that he failed to assign as
    error in his Brief the denial by the said court of his motion for new trial on the basis thereof.
    if We are to assume arguendo that the obligation was incurred in the name of the corporation,
    the petitioner would still be personally liable therefor because for all legal intents and purposes,
    he and the corporation are one and the same. Csar Marine Resources, Inc. is nothing more than
    his business conduit and alter ego. The fiction of a separate juridical personality conferred upon
    such corporation by law should be disregarded. Significantly, petitioner does not seriously
    challenge the public respondent's application of the doctrine which permits the piercing of the
    corporate veil and the disregarding of the fiction of a separate juridical personality; this is
    because he knows only too well that from the very beginning, he merely used the corporation for
    his personal purposes.
    Petitioner's volunteered admission that he procured the pro-forma invoice from the private
    respondent in connection with his loan from the KKK, using his family corporation in the
    process, and his deliberate waiver of the aforementioned defense provide an insurmountable
    obstacle to the viability of this petition.

    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