5.

Savero vs Puyat
GR No. 186433 November 27, 2013 BRION, J.:

FACTS:
NSI allegedly owed Puyat a P460k balance from a MOA that Nuccio signed on behalf of NSI to
which the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Puyat which resulted into piercing the corporate veil.
SC held that first, the "Breakdown of Account") was not supported by the evidence Puyat
presented and that second, the corporate veil should not be pierced because Puyat failed to prove
that alter-ego elements were present.
The indicators that the RTC and CA appreciated in the case were not sufficient to pierce the
corporate veil and so, SC ruled in favor of Nuccio and NSI, and the case was remanded to the
RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision to pierce the veil was justified.

HELD:
No, as the facts of the case do not warrant the piercing of the veil of NSI's corporate fiction.
Aside from the undisputed fact of Nuccio's 40% shareholdings with NSI, the RTC applied the
piercing the veil doctrine based on the following reasons: 1) There was no board resolution
authorizing Nuccio to enter into a contract of loan, 2) Nuccio and NSI were represented by one
and the same counsel, 3) NSI did not object to Nuccio's act of contracting the loan, 4) The
control over NSI was used to commit a wrong or fraud and lastly that 5) Nuccio's admission that
"NS" in the corporate name "NSI" means "Nuccio Saverio."