Lex Rex Ph

DBP vs. Hydro Resources (HRCC) Digest

Facts

DBP and PNB foreclosed NMIC’s properties which made the former as the majority stockholder of the latter. NMIC then engaged the services of Hercon/HRCC. NMIC failed to pay Hercon/HRCC. After default and several demands, Hercon sued NMIC, DBP and PNB to be solidarily liable. Cory Aquino then privatized DBP/PNB, transferring their shares to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT). HRCC amended its complaint and included APT as defendant.

Issue

Are DBP/PNB/APT liable to HRCC? Is the corporate veil covering NMIC pierced and reached DBP/PNB/APT?

Ruling

No. To determine if the veil is pierced, the Supreme Court uses a three-pronged test:

  1. Instrumentality or Control Test – is the subsidiary corporation (NMIC) under the full control and domination of the parent entity (DBP/PNB)? Does the subsidiary have no autonomy? Does it have no separate mind, will, or existence?
  2. Fraud Test – did the controlling parent entity use the subsidiary corporation to employ fraud against the plaintiff-creditor? Was the subsidiary used to make an unlawful or unjust act?
  3. Harm Test – did the parent’s control over the subsidiary caused harm to the plaintiff-creditor?

Using the 3 tests above, the answers are all ”no.” PNB and DBP are mere owners of the majority of the stocks of NMIC, which is not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Stare decisis

that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. – Virtucio vs. Alegarbes

Read More »

Body Language

Observing the demeanor of witnesses is the unique opportunity of the trial courts. Appellate (and the Supreme) courts merely rely on records. Truth is established

Read More »

Notarial Prohibition

A document that commences the 10 years prescription of a negative easement; It is a notice that officially prohibits the owner of a servient estate

Read More »

People v. Tumimpad

G.R. No. 109144. August 19, 1994. Syllabus:The result of a blood grouping test may not be admissible if it conflicts with substantial oral testimonies. It

Read More »
en_USEnglish