Pacific Rehouse Corp. v.

CA
March 24, 2014 | Reyes | Piercing the Corporate Veil

PETITIONER: PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION

RESPONDENT: COURT OF APPEALS and EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, INC.,

SUMMARY: Judgment was rendered against EIB Securities. This case reached the SC which ruled in favor of the petitioners, for
the return of the DMCI shares of stock to them. The writ of execution went unsatisfied, so they filed an alias writ, which was
sought to be enforced against Export Bank, the alleged parent corporation of EIB. The SC did not allow this, saying the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over Export Bank, and that the alter ego doctrine did not apply.

DOCTRINE: There must be a perpetuation of fraud or at least a fraudulent or illegal purpose behind the control to justify
piercing the veil of corporate fiction.
FACTS:
EIB Securities sold 32,180,000 shares of DMCI belonging to
respondents. The lower court rendered judgment, ordering EIB
to return the shares to the respondents. This ruling reached the
SC and attained finality. Writ of execution issued, but was
unsatisfiied.
Respondents then filed for issuance of an alias writ to hold
Export and Industry Bank liable because EIB Securities is a
wholly-owned controlled and dominated subsidiary of Export
snd Industry Bank, and is thus a mere alter ego and business
conduit.
EIB Securities opposed, saying it has a separate corporate
personality, distinct from Export Bank.
RTC ruled that E-securities is a mere business conduit of
Export Bank and pierced the veil of corporate fiction.
Respondent questioned this, saying it was not impleaded as a
party to the case. This was denied, and directed garnishment of
P1.4B, the total amount of the 32.18M DMCI shares. RTC
said that since they are the same entity, service of summons
upon E-Securities bestowed jurisdiction over the parent and
subsidiary.
CA issued 60-day TRO enjoining the execution of the RTC
orders granting ther alias writ. Then they issued writ of
preliminary injunction. Then they ruled in the merits, saying
that the alter ego theory cannot be sustained because
ownership by a parent corporation of a subsidiary is not
enough justification to pierce the veil. Proof must be shown,
apart from mere ownership, that Export Bank misused the
corporate fiction of E-Securities.
Mere interlocking of directors not enough
Export Bank does not have complete control over
business policies and affairs
They went to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N CA erred in ruling that alter ego doctrine is
inapplicable NO
RATIO: Export Bank argues that it was never impleaded in
the earlier case between E-Securities and Pacific Rehouse.
However, the SC held that in the case of Kukan International
v. Reyes, compliance with the recognized modes of acquiring
jurisdiction cannot be dispensed with even in piercing the veil
of corporate fiction:
Piercing the veil is applied only to determine liability.
It is not available to confer jurisdiction it has not
acquired over a party not impleaded in the case.
In other words, a corporation not impleaded in a suit
cannot be subject to the courts process of piercing
the veil of its corporate fiction.
Court must first acquire jurisdiction over the parties before
piercing its corporate veil; otherwise, it cannot pierce because
such action offends the corporations right to due process.
Jurisdiction is acquire by service of summons. Without
summons or voluntary submission, any judgment over such
person is null and void.
In this case, Export Bank was not served with summons, nor
voluntarily appeared before the court.
Export Bank has consistently disputed RTC
jurisdiction by filing of Omnibus Motion by way of
special appearance
It was not pleaded as a party
It was never served with summons
It did not voluntarily appear before RTC
Alter ego doctrine is not applicable
Where one corporation is organized and controlled,
and its affairs conducted so that it is in fact a mere
instrumentality of the other, the fiction of the
instrumentality may be disregarded.
Stock control not enough. Must be such domination
of finances, policies, and practices, that the controlled
corporation has no separate mind, will or existence of
its own. Control must be exercised at the time the
acts complained of took place.
Three pronged test
o Complete domination (above mentioned)
 o Control must have been used to commit
fraud or wrong, to perpetuate violation of a
statutory or other positive legal duty, or
dishonest and unjust act in contravention of
plaintiffs legal right
o The aforesaid control and breach of duty
must have proximately caused the injury or
unjust loss complained of
Absence of any one of these prevents piercing of the
corporate veil in applying the alter ego doctrine.
The RTC said alter ego because of the ff:
o EIB Securities was only reactivated in 2002-
2003 to serve as the securities brokerage
arm of said parent corporation bank,
o its capital was supplied by Export Bank
because EIB was cash strapped
o Offices located in the same building
o They share key directors and corporate
officers
o It was admitted in the Banks financial
statements that EIB is a controlled
subsidiary
o Same lawyers
o Control was prevailing during the time the
acts complained of happened
However, these were not pleaded properly in
accordance with ROC, and were merely raised in the
Motion for Issuance of Alias writ.
Nonetheless, there must be a perpetuation of fraud or
at least a fraudulent or illegal purpose behind the
control to justify piercing the veil. In this case, there
is none.
The 32.8 M shares were originally bought at 0.38 per
share, and were sold at 0.24. The proceeds were used
to buy back 61M KPP shares. Unexpectedly, the total
amount of the DMCI shares ballooned to 1.4B, which
did not inure to E-Securities benefit nor Export Bank.
Ownership by single stockholder of all or
substantially all stock is not sufficient, in the absence
of fraud and other public policy considerations.
RULING: Petition is DENIED.