Ba Finance PDF
Ba Finance PDF
Ba Finance PDF
SO ORDERED.
Petition denied.
——o0o——
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
70
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
71
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
72
_______________
73
_______________
74
_______________
75
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
_______________
76
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
_______________
9 Id.
10 Id., at pp. 20-26.
77
The Issues
_______________
78
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
79
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
PEDRO F. VIOLAGO FLORENCIA R.
VIOLAGO
763 Constancia St., Sampaloc,
Manila same
(Address) (Address)
80
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Marivic Avaria Jesus Tuazon
(WITNESS) (WITNESS)
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 21.
81
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
_______________
82
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
_______________
83
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
to buy the car. Avelino, knowing fully well that the vehicle
was already sold, and with abuse of his relationship with
the spouses, still proceeded with the sale and collected the
down payment from petitioners. The trial court found that
the vehicle was not delivered to the spouses. Avelino
clearly defrauded petitioners. His actions were the
proximate cause of petitioners’ loss. He cannot now hide
behind the separate corporate personality of VMSC to
escape from liability for the amount adjudged by the trial
court in favor of petitioners.
The fact that VMSC was not included as defendant in
petitioners’ third party complaint does not preclude
recovery by petitioners from Avelino; neither would such
non-inclusion constitute a bar to the application of the
piercing-of-the-corporate-veil doctrine. We suggested as
much in Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, an appellate
proceeding involving petitioner Arcilla’s bid to avoid the
adverse CA decision on the argument that he is not
personally liable for the amount adjudged since the same
constitutes a corporate liability which nevertheless cannot
even be enforced against the corporation which has not
been impleaded as a party below. In that case, the Court
found as well-taken the CA’s act of disregarding the
separate
_______________
22 G.R. No. 108734, May 29, 1996, 257 SCRA 149, 157-159.
84
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
12/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 559
knows only too well that from the beginning, he merely used the
corporation for his personal purposes.”23
_______________
23 G.R. No. 89804, October 23, 1992, 215 SCRA 120, 129.
** Additional member as per Special Order No. 509 dated July 1, 2008.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001761b8964cd42d43dec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15