Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    McConnel V CA

    Uploaded by

    Raymond Cheng
    This case involved Park Rite Co. (PRC), a corporation that leased a vacant lot for parking but ended up occupying an adjacent lot without permission. When the owners discovered this, they demanded payment. A court ordered PRC to pay damages but it had few assets, leaving most of the judgment unsatisfied. The owners then sued PRC's stockholders to recover the balance. The court found that PRC was essentially an alter ego of its two majority stockholders, Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino, who each owned most of the shares. The corporation's office was in the same room as Paredes' office and its funds were kept in his name. As the corporation was really an instrument of the individuals

    Copyright:

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

    McConnel V CA

    Uploaded by

    Raymond Cheng
    1K views2 pages
    This case involved Park Rite Co. (PRC), a corporation that leased a vacant lot for parking but ended up occupying an adjacent lot without permission. When the owners discovered this, they demanded payment. A court ordered PRC to pay damages but it had few assets, leaving most of the judgment unsatisfied. The owners then sued PRC's stockholders to recover the balance. The court found that PRC was essentially an alter ego of its two majority stockholders, Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino, who each owned most of the shares. The corporation's office was in the same room as Paredes' office and its funds were kept in his name. As the corporation was really an instrument of the individuals

    Original Description:

    McConnel v. CA

    Original Title

    18. McConnel v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved Park Rite Co. (PRC), a corporation that leased a vacant lot for parking but ended up occupying an adjacent lot without permission. When the owners discovered this, they demanded payment. A court ordered PRC to pay damages but it had few assets, leaving most of the judgment unsatisfied. The owners then sued PRC's stockholders to recover the balance. The court found that PRC was essentially an alter ego of its two majority stockholders, Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino, who each owned most of the shares. The corporation's office was in the same room as Paredes' office and its funds were kept in his name. As the corporation was really an instrument of the individuals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    McConnel V CA

    Uploaded by

    Raymond Cheng
    This case involved Park Rite Co. (PRC), a corporation that leased a vacant lot for parking but ended up occupying an adjacent lot without permission. When the owners discovered this, they demanded payment. A court ordered PRC to pay damages but it had few assets, leaving most of the judgment unsatisfied. The owners then sued PRC's stockholders to recover the balance. The court found that PRC was essentially an alter ego of its two majority stockholders, Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino, who each owned most of the shares. The corporation's office was in the same room as Paredes' office and its funds were kept in his name. As the corporation was really an instrument of the individuals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    McConnel v.

    CA
    1 SCRA 722
    March 17, 1961
    Facts:
    Park Rite Co. (PRC) leased from Rafael Perez Rosales y Samanillo a vacant lot on Juan Luna
    which it used for parking motor vehicles for a consideration. It turned out that in operating its
    parking business, PRC occupied and used not only the lot it had leased but also an adjacent lot
    belonging to the respondents 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.
    A judgment was rendered ordering the Park Rite Co., Inc. to pay P7,410.00 plus legal interest as
    damages from April 15, 1947 until return of the lot. As restitution was not 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 reversed, finding that the corporation was a
    mere alter ego or business conduit of the principal stockholders, Cirilo Paredes and Ursula
    Tolentino, [as they hold 1,496 out of the 1,500 stocks] that controlled it for their own benefit, and
    adjudged them responsible for the amounts demanded by the lot owners.
    Issue: Whether the individual stockholders may be held liable for obligations contracted by
    PRC, disregarding its corporate entity.
    Held:
    Yes. 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 to defeat public convenience,
    justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.
    In the case at bar, the SC summarized the expressed findings of the CA which is as follows:
    On or about August 22, 1947 the defendants Cirilo Paredes and Ursula Tolentino
    purchased 1,496 shares of the said corporation from the original incorporators [M.
    McConnel, W. P. Cochrane, Ricardo Rodriguez, Benedicto M. Dario and Aurea
    Ordrecio]. 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. It is
    Tolentino and Paredes who 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 office 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.
    The fact that the funds of the corporation were kept by Cirilo Paredes in his own name.
    The corporation itself had no visible assets, except perhaps the toll house, the wire fence
    around the lot and the signs thereon.
    Based on such facts, the corporation is a mere instrumentality of the individual stockholder's,
    hence the latter must individually answer for the corporate obligations. To hold the stockholders
    [Tolentino and Parades] 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 cannot be invoked
    or used for purposes that could not have been intended by the law that created that separate
    personality.
    Note:
    Qualifying share -- The number of shares that a member of the board needs to own to qualify to
    be on the board of directors of a company. If not enough shares are owned the person does not
    qualify to be on the board.

    You might also like