Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    LBP v. CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    In this case, Land Bank of the Philippines sued ECO Management Corporation for defaulting on loans totaling 26 million pesos. Land Bank also sued Emmanuel Oñate, the majority shareholder and chairman/treasurer of ECO, arguing he should be held personally liable. Both lower courts ruled in favor of ECO and absolved Oñate of liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Land Bank did not provide sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and hold Oñate personally liable. Mere ownership of shares or coincidence of initials in the corporate name are not enough to disregard the separate legal identity of a corporation.

    Copyright:

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

    LBP v. CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    1K views1 page
    In this case, Land Bank of the Philippines sued ECO Management Corporation for defaulting on loans totaling 26 million pesos. Land Bank also sued Emmanuel Oñate, the majority shareholder and chairman/treasurer of ECO, arguing he should be held personally liable. Both lower courts ruled in favor of ECO and absolved Oñate of liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Land Bank did not provide sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and hold Oñate personally liable. Mere ownership of shares or coincidence of initials in the corporate name are not enough to disregard the separate legal identity of a corporation.

    Original Description:

    Agrarian

    Original Title

    Lbp v. CA Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In this case, Land Bank of the Philippines sued ECO Management Corporation for defaulting on loans totaling 26 million pesos. Land Bank also sued Emmanuel Oñate, the majority shareholder and chairman/treasurer of ECO, arguing he should be held personally liable. Both lower courts ruled in favor of ECO and absolved Oñate of liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Land Bank did not provide sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and hold Oñate personally liable. Mere ownership of shares or coincidence of initials in the corporate name are not enough to disregard the separate legal identity of a corporation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    LBP v. CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    In this case, Land Bank of the Philippines sued ECO Management Corporation for defaulting on loans totaling 26 million pesos. Land Bank also sued Emmanuel Oñate, the majority shareholder and chairman/treasurer of ECO, arguing he should be held personally liable. Both lower courts ruled in favor of ECO and absolved Oñate of liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Land Bank did not provide sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and hold Oñate personally liable. Mere ownership of shares or coincidence of initials in the corporate name are not enough to disregard the separate legal identity of a corporation.

    Copyright:

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

    Land Bank of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals

    Commercial Law – Corporation Law – Veil of Corporate Fiction – Corporate Name

    In 1980, ECO Management Corporation (ECO) obtained loans amounting to about P26 million from Land Bank. ECO
    defaulted in its payment but in 1981, ECO submitted a Payment Plan with the hope of restructuring its loan. The plan
    was rejected and Land Bank sued ECO. It impleaded Emmanuel C. Oñate, the majority stockholder of ECO who is
    serving as the Chairman and treasurer of ECO.
    The trial court ruled in favor of Land Bank but Oñate was absolved from liabilities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
    decision of the trial court.
    Land Bank appealed as it wanted Oñate to be personally liable on the following grounds (among others): a) ECO stands
    for Emmanuel C. Oñate, b) Oñate is the majority stockholder, c) ECO was formed ostensibly to allow Oñate to acquire
    loans from Land Bank which he used for his personal advantage, d) Oñate holds two positions in the corporation, and e)
    ECO never held any board meeting which just shows only Oñate was in control of the corporation.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Oñate should be held personally.

    HELD: No. Land Bank was not able to produce sufficient evidence to prove its claim. A corporation, upon coming into
    existence, is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those persons composing it as well as from
    any other legal entity to which it may be related. The corporate fiction is only disregarded when the fiction is used to
    defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, defend crime, confuse legitimate legal or judicial issues,
    perpetrate deception or otherwise circumvent the law. This is likewise true where the corporate entity is being used as an
    alter ego, adjunct, or business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders or of another corporate entity. None of the
    foregoing was proved by Land Bank.
    The mere fact that Oñate owned the majority of the shares of ECO is not a ground to conclude that Oñate and ECO is
    one and the same. Mere ownership by a single stockholder of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not
    by itself sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities.
    Anent the issue of the corporate name, the fact that Oñate’s initials coincide with the corporate name ECO is not
    sufficient to disregard the corporate fiction. Even if ECO does stand for “Emmanuel C. Oñate”, it does not mean that the
    said corporation is merely a dummy of Oñate. A corporation may assume any name provided it is lawful. There is nothing
    illegal in a corporation acquiring the name or as in this case, the initials of one of its shareholders.

    You might also like