SUBJECT QUESTIONS

CIV PRO

CORP ANSWERED IN 03/21/2020 SESSION

1. As regards the liability of stockholders and
directors, given that piercing is a remedy of
last resort, should it be a requisite that we
check first whether the liability of the director
would fall under Section 31 of the RCC, such
that there is no need to pierce the veil if the
facts fall under such section?
2. In the case of General Credit Corporation,
why didn't the Court apply the alter ego
doctrine instead? (In my personal opinion, the
alter ego doctrine would have been more apt)
3. In the case of IAME, the application of the
outsider reverse piercing was applied.
however, should this be a general exception?
or should it be applied ONLY to certain cases
depending on the facts?
4. For the Alter Ego doctrine, contrary to Fraud
Piercing, can the Alter Ego doctrine create
rights and be applied in cases to obtain
jurisdiction?
5. In our syllabus under section c. Objectives
and Effects of the Application of the Piercing
Doctrine bullet (i), it provides that Piercing may
only be had only if the objective is to make the
stockholders/officers liable. How do we
reconcile this doctrine with other case laws
which applied the piercing doctrine (alter ego
and defeat of public convenience specifically)
without the requirement of stockholder's
/officer's pecuniary liability?
6. In the case of Caño, despite the corporation
not being impleaded, the Court ruled that it
should still be held liable as the officers were
impleaded in their official capacity. Is this an
ironclad exception to the lack of jurisdiction (if
 the corp is not impleaded) such that, in all
cases where the corp is not impleaded but the
officers are impleaded in their official capacity,
there is still jurisdiction?

ADMIN

TAX

LEGAL ETHICS

PIL

PUB CORP

LEG MED

AGRA SOC