Corpo Quiz Week 1

Instruction: Write your answers/comments on the following problems and submit your papers on the next
meeting. Prepare for recitation.

1 Petitioner also contends that LWDs are private corporations because Section 6 of PD
19821 declares that LWDs "shall be considered quasi-public" in nature. Decide.

2 Respondents argue that MIAA, being a government-owned or controlled corporation, is not

exempt from real estate tax. Respondents claim that the deletion of the phrase "any government-owned
or controlled so exempt by its charter" in Section 234(e) of the Local Government Code withdrew the
real estate tax exemption of government-owned or controlled corporations. Decide.

3 Appellant insists that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action because the subject
matter of the controversy is one of common interest to the members of the corporation who are so
numerous that the present complaint should be treated as a class suit.

4 BASECO xx contends that its right against self incrimination xx had been transgressed by the
Order of April 18, 1986 which required it "to produce corporate records from 1973 to 1986 under pain of
contempt of the Commission if it fails to do so."

The order was issued upon the authority of Section 3 (e) of Executive Order No. 1, treating of the
PCGG's power to "issue subpoenas requiring * * the production of such books, papers, contracts,
records, statements of accounts and other documents as may be material to the investigation
conducted by the Commission, " and paragraph (3), Executive Order No. 2 dealing with its power to
"require all persons in the Philippines holding * * (alleged "ill-gotten") assets or properties, whether
located in the Philippines or abroad, in their names as nominees, agents or trustees, to make full
disclosure of the same * *.”

5 Private respondents contend that petitioner Posadas surreptitiously formed Luxuria Homes, Inc.,
and transferred the subject parcel of land to it to evade payment and defraud creditors, including private
respondents. RULE whether Luxuria Homes, Inc., was a party to the transactions entered into by
petitioner Posadas and private respondents and thus could be held jointly and severally with petitioner
Posadas.

6 RESOLVE whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of
discretion when it issued a "break-open order" to the sheriff to be enforced against personal property
found in the premises of petitioner's sister company.

7 Pantranco, on its part, filed a third-party complaint against Jose M. Villarama, alleging that
Villarama and the Corporation, are one and the same; that Villarama and/or the Corporation was
disqualified from operating the two certificates in question by virtue of the aforementioned agreement
between said Villarama and Pantranco, which stipulated that Villarama "shall not for a period of 10 years
from the date of this sale, apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the buyer.”

8 On the question of its liability for attorney's fees owing to private respondent Gregorio Manuel,
petitioner argued that being a corporation, it should not be held liable therefor because these fees were
owed by the incorporators, directors and officers of the corporation in their personal capacity as heirs of
Benita Trinidad.

9 Petitioners contend that both the appellate and trial courts erred in holding them liable for the
obligations incurred by BEC through the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate
fiction absent any clear showing of fraud on their part.