Revised-Corporation-Code
Revised-Corporation-Code
ATTRIBUTES:
1. Artificial Being - it has juridical personality, separate and distinct from the
persons composing it.
a. Implications:
i. It may be held liable for fines for corporate crimes, but cannot be
held criminally liable particularly the penalty of imprisonment. The
corporate officers who approve the particular corporate crime will be
the ones to be held criminally liable.
1. Section 117: if the offender is a corporation, the penalty
may be directly imposed such corporation and/or upon
directors/stockholders/members/officers/employees
responsible for the violation or indispensable to its
commission.
ii. Generally, not entitled to moral damages because not being a
natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or sentiments
like wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish, and moral
shock except when a corporation has a reputation that is debased,
resulting in its humiliation in the business realm such in the case of
civil action for damages on the ground of libel or defamation.
iii. Not entitled to constitutional right against self-incrimination.
1. Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. Inc. vs. PCGG (1987);
While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating
questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not
follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and
franchises may refuse to show its hand when charged with an
abuse of such privileges. The corporation is a creature of the
state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the
public. There is a reserve right in the legislature to investigate
its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It
would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having
chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could
not, in the exercise of sovereignty, inquire how these franchises
had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and
demand the production of the corporate books and papers for
that purpose.
b. Corporate Entity Theory/Doctrine of Separate Personality
i. The corporation has a juridical personality separate and distinct from
the stockholders or members. If the corporation is one person
corporation, does it still have a juridical personality, separate
and distinct to that of its individual stockholder? YES. Section
130 provides that the principle of piercing the corporate veil
applies with equal force to OPC. However, a sole shareholder
claiming limited liability has the burden of affirmatively
showing that the corporation was adequately financed.
Otherwise, the corporate veil shall be pierced and the single
shareholder shall be held jointly and severally liable for the
debts.
1. It can sue and be sued in its own name
2. Can possess properties belonging to it to the exclusion of the
stockholders and their personal creditors. The stockholders
are not the owners of the corporate properties or assets
and vice versa. The interest of the stockholders over the
properties of the corporation is merely inchoate. Hence,
stockholders have no personality themselves to interfere
in a collection case covering the loans of the corporation.
They cannot enforce the rights of the corporation,
because the corporation can enforce that through
authorized representatives.
3. Cannot be made to answer the personal obligations of the
individual stockholders, and vice versa
4. Limited Liability Doctrine/Rule. Liabilities of the
corporations are generally its own and cannot extend to the
stockholders in their personal capacities
ii. Piercing the veil of corporate entity/fiction - the separate
juridical personality shall be set aside. Rationale: assurance to
the dealing public that in cases of mischief by the actors
behind the corporation, the piercing allows them to remedy
against the actors themselves.
-The piercing applies equally to non-stock corporations and
even to natural persons. There is such thing that you pierce the
individual first, then you go after the corporation properties.
-If you pierce the veil, it does not mean that the personality
ceases to exist, or that the corporation is dissolved when your
pierce the veil. They are just treated as one and the same entity
in reference only to a particular transactions involved.
1. Being used to defeat public convenience
2. Justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime or confuse
legitimate issues
3. Mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or when the
corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so
conducted to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit
or adjunct of another corporation.
iii. Example: Calingasan, the employer of Carillo, was held subsidiarily
liable when Carillo, driving the jeepney of Calingasan, ran over a
child. Later on, Calingasan transferred said jeep to Fely Transport
Corporation, where the incorporators are Calingasan, his wife, and his
son, and the only asset was the same jeepney. When Carillo was not
able to pay, the subsidiary liability of Calingasan was invoked and the
jeepney was sought to be sold to pay the civil liability. Calingasan
argued that the jeepney is owned by the Corporation with a separate
and distinct personality from him. Is calingasan correct?
No. The main purpose in forming the corporation was to evade his
subsidiary civil liability resulting from the conviction of his driver-
employee.