HERBOSA owned a building in Sta Mesa, which he leased to RUBEN RAMIREZ, the president

of the Ramirez Telco. The building was the workshop of the corporation, despite the head office
being in Escolta. The rent however was not paid, HERBOSA filed an eviction claim against
RAMIREZ and upon reaching the CFI of Manila, he was able to obtain a favorable decision. The
Sheriff of Manila, however, served a Garnishment Order upon the Bank of America, for a sum of
2,400PHP.

The bank replied that it did not hold any money for Ruben Ramirez; but upon persistence of the
Sheriff, it was found that the money was in the name of Ramirez Telephone Inc. The bank was
willing to comply with the garnishment order.

MONEY that Ramirez Telco had that day (Oct 17, 1950): 4,789.53 PHP

Minus the garnishment: 2,389.53 PHP

The following day, Ramirez Telco withdrew 1,500PHP, leaving a 889 PHP BALANCE

Ruben Ramirez had also issued a check for 2,320 PHP in favor of Ray Electronics—said check
was presented to Bank of America who rejected it for insufficiency of funds. Ramirez Telco’s
lawyer contacted Bank of America, who said that they should obtain a release on the civil case
involving Ruben Ramirez, and that they are merely acting in accordance with the garnishment
order.

The lawyer for Ramirez Telco initiated an action on its behalf, stating that the bank should have
known that Ruben Ramirez, defendant in said civil case, has no personal deposit in Bank of
America, and that the Ramirez Telco is an entirely distinct and separate entity, regardless of the
fact that Ruben Ramirez happened to be its President and General Manager.

In turn, the bank filed a counterclaim and a complaint against the Sheriff.

CFI: Ramirez wins; CFI ordering Bank of America to pay 3kphp and litigation costs

 3rd party defendant Herbosa is to reimburse Bank of America, any sum or sums which the
latter may pay Ramirez by virtue of this judgment

 3rd party complaint against Sheriff of Manila & counterclaim of defendant Bank of America
and 3rd party defendant Herbosa are DISMISSED

Up on appeal to CA

CA: REVERSED CFI!!

In his testimony, Estanislao HERBOSA stated that, although it was Ruben Ramirez who was his
lessee, the one who actually occupied the space was Ramirez Telco; that Ruben Ramirez used
to pay rent with checks from the Ramirez Telco Company. CA ruled that as it can be concluded
that Ruben Ramirez had funds that were deposited in the Bank of America under the name of
Ramirez Telco, which were in fact his own funds as well as the company’s; as well as the fact
that the company paid for the rent he had acquired personally; and the fact that 75% of the
shares of the company belonged to Ramirez and his wife; all but justify the conclusion that the
seizure of the Ramirez Telco funds was an act of justice in favor of HERBOSA as creditor.

CA dismissed the complaint, ordering Ramirez Telco to pay to Bank of America and Herbosa
500 PHP, as attorney’s fees.

Ramirez Telco appealed to the SC.

SC MERELY REITERATED CA DECISION.

While the general rule is that the corporate personality should be respected, it may be pierced to
administer the ends of justice.