Secosa vs. Heirs of Erwin Suarez Francisco (433 SCRA 273 [2004]) Facts: Francisco, an 18 year old 3rd year physical therapy student was riding a motorcycle. A sand and gravel truck was traveling behind the motorcycle, which in turn was being tailed by the Isuzu truck driven by Secosa. The Isuzu cargo truck was owned by Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc..The three vehicles were traversing the southbound lane at a fairly high speed. When Secosa overtook the sand and gravel truck, he bumped the motorcycle causing Francisco to fall. The rear wheels of the Isuzu truck then ran over Francisco, which resulted in his instantaneous death. Secosa left his truck and fled the scene of the collision. The parents of Francisco, respondents herein, filed an action for damages against Secosa, Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. and Dassad’s president, El BuenasucensoSy. The court a quo rendered a decision in favor of herein respondents; thus petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which unfortunately affirmed the appealed decision in toto. Hence, the present petition.
Issues: Whether or not Dassad’s president, El BuenasucensoSy, can be held solidary liable with co-petitioners.
Held: No. Sy cannot be held solidarily liable with his co-petitioners. While it may be true that Sy is the president of Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc., such fact is not by itself sufficient to hold him solidarily liable for the liabilities adjudged against his co-petitioners. A corporation has a personality separate from that of its stockholders or members. The doctrine of ‘veil of corporation’ treats as separate and distinct the affairs of a corporation and its officers and stockholders. As a rule, a corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary appears. When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons. Also, the corporate entity may be disregarded in the interest of justice in such cases as fraud that may work inequities among members of the corporation internally, involving no rights of the public or third persons. In both instances, there must have been fraud and proof of it. The records of the case does not point toward the presence of any grounds enumerated above that will justify the piercing of the veil of corporate entity such as to hold Sy, the president of Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc., solidarily liable with it. Furthermore, the Isuzu cargo truck which ran over Francisco was registered in the name of Dassad and not in the name of Sy. Secosa is an employee of Dassad and not of Sy. These facts showed Sy’s exclusion from liability for damages arising from the death of Francisco.
