Scribd
Upload
27 views1 page

CASE 6-11: Case No. 8: Cruz Versus Dalisay

This case discusses whether a sheriff validly garnished an individual's cash deposit to satisfy a judgment against a corporation where the individual was the corporation's president. The court held that the sheriff improperly assumed the individual and corporation were the same entity, when in fact they are separate legal entities, so garnishing the individual's personal funds was invalid.

Uploaded by

CJ Mel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views1 page

CASE 6-11: Case No. 8: Cruz Versus Dalisay

This case discusses whether a sheriff validly garnished an individual's cash deposit to satisfy a judgment against a corporation where the individual was the corporation's president. The court held that the sheriff improperly assumed the individual and corporation were the same entity, when in fact they are separate legal entities, so garnishing the individual's personal funds was invalid.

Uploaded by

CJ Mel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE 6-11

Case No. 8: Cruz versus Dalisay

(Adm. Matter No. R-181-P July 31, 1987


ADELIO C. CRUZ vs.
QUITERIO L. DALISAY, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Manila)

Ruling (Book Page 94): It held that the mere fact that one is president of the corporation does not render
the property he owns or processes the property of the corporation, since the president, as an individual,
and the corporation are separate entities

Facts: Respondent sheriff attached and/or levied the money belonging to complainant Cruz when he was
not himself the judgment debtor in the final judgment of NLRC NCR Case sought to be enforced but
rather the company known as "Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.," a duly registered corporation. He
likewise caused the service of the alias writ of execution upon complainant who is a resident of Pasay
City, despite knowledge that his territorial jurisdiction covers Manila only and does

Respondent Dalisay contended he garnished complainant's cash deposit at the Philtrust bank as
eventhough the said writ was addressed to Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., the complainant had
executed an affidavit before the Pasay City assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/president of said
corporation and, because of that declaration, the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor case advised him to
serve notice of garnishment on the Philtrust bank.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent sheriff validly garnished complainant’s cash deposit.

Held: No. NLRC judgment and the implementing writ is clear enough. It directed Qualitrans Limousine
Service, Inc. to reinstate the discharged employees and pay them full backwages. Respondent, however,
chose to "pierce the veil of corporate entity" usurping a power belonging to the court and assumed
improvidently that since the complainant is the owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.,
they are one and the same.

It is a well-settled doctrine both in law and in equity that as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality
distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. The mere fact that one is president of
a corporation does not render the property he owns or possesses the property of the corporation, since
the president, as individual, and the corporation are separate entities. 3

Respondent Deputy Sheriff Quiterio L. Dalisay was NEGLIGENT in the enforcement of the writ of
execution and was fined and sternly warned.

You might also like