2014 (Commercial Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 25

[Answer / discuss the question below. Or see 2014 bar exam Commercial Law Instructions; 2014 Commercial Law essay and multiple choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29; See also 2014 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


In an action for collection of a sum of money, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City issued a decision finding D-Securities, Inc. liable to Rehouse Corporation for P10,000,000.00. Subsequently, the writ of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied because D-Securities had no more assets to satisfy the judgment. Rehouse moved for an Alias Writ of Execution against Fairfield Bank (FB), the parent company of D-Securities. FB opposed the motion on the grounds that it is a separate entity and that it was never made a party to the case. The RTC granted the motion and issued the Alias Writ of Execution. In its Resolution, the RTC relied on the following facts: 499,995 out of the 500,000 outstanding shares of stocks of D-Securities are owned by FB; FB had actual knowledge of the subject matter of litigation as the lawyers who represented D-Securities are also the lawyers of FB. As an alter ego, there is no need for a finding of fraud or illegality before the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction can be applied. The RTC ratiocinated that being one and the same entity in the eyes of the law, the service of summons upon D-Securities has bestowed jurisdiction over both the parent and wholly-owned subsidiary. Is the RTC correct? (4%)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *