EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10510. March 17, 1961.]

M. MCCONNEL, W.P. COCHRANE, RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, ET

AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and DOMINGA
DE LOS REYES, assisted by her husband, SABINO PADILLA,
respondents.

Jesus B. Santos and Cornelio Antiquera for petitioners.

Teodoro Padilla for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CORPORATIONS; WHEN

INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDERS ARE LIABLE FOR OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTED BY
THE CORPORATION. — Whenever circumstances have shown that the
corporate entity is being use as an alter ego or business conduit for the sole
benefit of the stockholders, or else to defeat public convenience, justify
wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the individual stockholder may be
held liable for obligations contracted by the corporation. (Koppel [Phil. Inc.]
vs. Yatco, 77 Phil., 496; Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson, 44 Phil., 364).
2. ACTIONS; JURISDICTION; SUIT IS ONE TO HAVE NON-PARTIES TO
JUDGMENT HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS PAYMENT AND NOT AN ACTION TO
ENFORCE JUDGMENT; COURT HAS JURISDICTION. — Since the instant suit is
not an action to enforce a judgment five (5) years from its rendition, but an
action to have non-parties to that judgment held responsible for its payment,
the Court had jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

DECISION

REYES, J.B.L., J : p

The issue before us is the correctness of the decision of the Court of

Appeals that, under the circumstances of record, there was justification for
disregarding the corporate entity of the Park Rite Co., Inc., and holding its
controlling stockholders personally responsible for a judgment against the
corporation.
The Court of Appeals found that the Park Rite Co., Inc., a Philippine
corporation, was originally organized on or about April 15, 1947, with a
capital stock of 1,500 shares at P1.00 a share. The corporation leased from
Rafael Perez Rosales y Samanillo a vacant lot on Juan Luna street (Manila)
which it used for parking motor vehicles for a consideration.
It turned out that in operating its parking business, the corporation
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 occupied and used not only the Samanillo lot it had leased but also an
adjacent lot belonging to the respondents-appellees Padilla, without the
owners' knowledge and consent. When the latter discovered the truth around
October of 1947, they demanded payment for the use and occupation of the
lot.
The corporation (then controlled by petitioners Cirilo Paredes and
Ursula Tolentino, who had purchased and held 1,496 of its 1,500 shares)
disclaimed liability, blaming the original incorporators, McConnel, Rodriguez
and Cochrane. Whereupon, the lot owners filed against it a complaint for
forcible entry in the Municipal Court of Manila on 7 October 1947 (Civ. Case
No. 4031).
Judgment was rendered in due course in 13 November 1947, ordering
the Park Rite Co., Inc., to pay P7,410.00 plus legal interest as damages from
April 15 to October 15, 1947, and P1,235.00 a month from October 15, 1947
until return of the lot. Restitution not having been made until 31 January
1948, the entire judgment amounted to P11,732.50. Upon execution, the
corporation was found without any assets other than P550.00 deposited in
Court. After their application to the judgment credit, there remained a
balance of P11,182.50 outstanding and unsatisfied.
The judgment creditors then filed suit in the Court of First Instance of
Manila against the corporation and its past and present stockholders, to
recover from them, jointly and severally, the unsatisfied balance of the
judgment, plus legal interest and costs. The Court of First Instance denied
recovery; but on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA-G. R. No. 8434-R)
reversed, finding that the corporation was a mere alter ego or business
conduit of the principal stockholders that controlled it for their own benefit,
and adjudged them responsible for the amounts demanded by the lot
owners, as follows:
"WHEREFORE premises considered the decision appealed from is
reversed. Defendants-appellees Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino are
hereby declared liable to the plaintiffs-appellants for the rentals due on
the lot in question from August 22, 1947 to January 31, 1948 at the
rate of P1,235.00 a month with legal interest thereon from the time of
the filing of the complaint. Deducting the P550.00 which was paid at
the time when the corporation was already acquired by said
defendants-appellees Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino, they are
hereby ordered to pay to plaintiffs-appellants Dominga de los Reyes
and Sabino Padilla the sum of P6,036.66 with legal interest thereon
from the time of the filing of the complaint until fully paid.

Defendant-appellee Ricardo Rodriguez is hereby ordered to pay

to the plaintiffs-appellants Dominga de los Reyes and Sabino Padilla
the sum of P1,742.64 with legal interest thereon from the time of the
filing of the complaint and until it is fully paid. In addition thereto the
defendants-appellees Cirilo Paredes, Ursula Tolentino and Ricardo
Rodriguez shall pay the costs proportionately in both instances.

IT IS SO ORDERED."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino then resorted to this Court. We
granted certiorari.
On the main issue whether the individual stockholders may be held
liable for obligations contracted by the corporation, this Court has already
answered the question in the affirmative wherever circumstances have
shown that the corporate entity is being used as an alter ego or business
conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders, or else defeat public
convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime (Koppel [Phil. Inc.]
vs. Yatco, 77 Phil., 496; Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson, 44 Phil., 364).
The Court of Appeals has made express findings to the following effect:
"There is no question that a wrong has been committed by the
so- called Park Rite Co. Inc., upon the plaintiffs when it occupied the lot
of the latter without its prior knowledge and consent and without
paying the reasonable rentals for the occupation of said lot. There is
also no doubt in our mind that the corporation was a mere alter ego or
business conduit of the defendants Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino,
and before them — the defendants M. McConnel, W. P. Cochrane, and
Ricardo Rodriguez. The evidence clearly shows that these persons
completely dominated and controlled the corporation and that the
functions of the corporation were solely for their benefits.
When it was originally organized on or about April 15, 1947, the
original incorporators were M. McConnel, W. P. Cochrane, Ricardo
Rodriguez, Benedicto M. Dario and Aurea Orfrecio with a capital stock
of P1,500.00 divided into 1,500 shares at P1.00 a share. McConnel and
Cochrane each owned 500 shares, Ricardo Rodriguez 498 shares, and
Dario and Orfrecio 1 share each. It is obvious that the shares of the last
two named persons were merely qualifying shares. Then on or about
August 22, 1947 the defendants Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino
purchased 1,496 shares of the said corporation and the remaining four
shares were acquired by Bienvenido J. Claudio, Quintin C. Paredes,
Segundo Tarictican, and Paulino Marquez at one share each. It is
obvious that the last four shares bought by these four persons were
merely qualifying shares and that to all intents and purposes the
spouses Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino composed the so-called
Park Rite Co. Inc. That the corporation was a mere extension of their
personality is shown by the fact that the offices of Cirilo Paredes and
that of Park Rite Co., Inc., were located in the same building, in the
same floor and in the same room at 507 Wilson Building. This is further
shown by the fact that the funds of the corporation were kept by Cirilo
Paredes in his own name (p. 14, November 8, 1950, t.s.n.). The
corporation itself had no visible assets, as correctly found by the trial
court, except perhaps the toll house, the wire fence around the lot and
the signs thereon. It was for this reason that the judgment against it
could not be fully satisfied." (Emphasis supplied).
The facts thus found can not be varied by us, and conclusively show
that the corporation is a mere instrumentality of the individual stockholders,
hence the latter must individually answer for the corporate obligations.
While the mere ownership of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a
corporation is a mere business conduit of the stock holders, that conclusion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 is amply justified where it is shown, as in the case before us, that the
operations of the corporation were so merged with those of the stockholders
as to be practically indistinguishable from them. To hold the latter liable for
the corporation's obligations is not to ignore the corporation's separate
entity, but merely to apply the established principle that such entity can not
be invoked or used for purposes that could not have been intended by the
law that created that separate personality.
The petitioners-appellants insist that the Court could have no
jurisdiction over an action to enforce a judgment within five (5) years from
its rendition, since the Rules of Court provide for enforcement by mere
motion during those five years. The error of this stand is apparent, because
the second action, originally begun in the Court of First Instance, was not an
action to enforce the judgment of the Municipal Court, but an action to have
non-parties to the judgment held responsible for its payment.
Finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against petitioners-appellants Cirilo Paredes and Ursula
Tolentino.
Bengzon, Actg. C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.
Concepcion and Paredes, JJ., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com