Reynolds v. Ca (Dy)

I. SHORT TITLE: REYNOLDS V.
CA
II. FULL TITLE: Reynolds Philippine Corporation versus Hon. Court of Appeals and Serg's
Products, Inc., respondents. – G.R. No. L-36187, January 17, 1989, GRIÑO-
AQUINO, J.:
III. TOPIC: Corporation Law – Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil Fiction
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Reynolds Philippine Corporation (Reynolds) alleged that Serg’s Products, Inc. failed to pay the sum
of P32,565.62 representing the unpaid price of aluminum foils and cores sold and delivered by it to
the latter. Serg’s Products denied liability contending that those were purchased by Serg’s Chocolate
Products, a partnership of Antonio Goquiolay and Luis Sequia Mendoza, not Serg's Products, Inc.,
a corporation managed and controlled by Antonio Goquiolay and his wife Conchita Goquiolay, as
majority stockholders and principal officers.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

In June 2, 1966, the Reynolds filed a complaint against Serg’s Products for collection of sum of
money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Based on the testimony of the witnesses, the trial
court held the corporation, "Serg's Products, Inc.," liable as the real buyer and user of the aluminum
foils and cores. RTC found that although the commercial documents were indeed in the name of
"Serg's Chocolate Products," the facts proved that the true purchaser of the aluminum foils and cores
from the petitioner, was "Serg's Products, Inc." not the partnership denominated "Serg's Chocolate
Products." However, upon appeal of Serg’s Products, the Court of Appeals, relying on the sales
orders, delivery receipts, statements of account and demand letters where the purchaser named was
"Serg's Chocolate Products," the partnership, reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground
that Reynolds had no cause of action.
VI. ISSUE:
Whether or not Serg’s Products is liable to Reynolds.
VII. RULING:
Yes, Serg’s Products is liable to Reynolds. Having ceased to exist since 1959, the partnership Serg's
Chocolate Products has no more juridical personality nor capacity to sue and be sued. "Serg's
Chocolate Products" is nothing but a name now which the manager of Serg's Products, Inc. appears
to have used to confuse, deceive, and delay, if not completely evade, the payment of the corporation's
just debt to the petitioner.
The rolls of aluminum foil were ordered and signed for by Antonio Goquiolay president of Serg's
Products, Inc. They were delivered to, accepted, and used by said corporation in its chocolate factory
at Cainta, Rizal. However, Antonio Goquiolay did not appear in court to shed light on whether he
signed the purchase orders and delivery receipts as managing partner of "Serg's Chocolate Products,"
or as president and general manager of "Serg's Products, Inc." Jesus V. Toledo, the Chief Accountant
of Serg's Products, Inc., admitted, however, that "we (Serg's products, Inc.) are buying from them
(Reynolds) the aluminum foil." The error in Identifying the customer as 'Serg's Chocolate Products,"
instead of Serg's Products, Inc." in the sales orders, delivery receipts and invoices was caused by
Antonio Goquiolay himself who placed the orders.
The trial court noted that "Serg's Products, Inc." "acted in such a manner that third persons dealing
with it were led to believe that 'Serg's Products, Inc.' and 'Serg's Chocolate Products' were one and
the same party. Serg's Products, Inc. has its address at 109 Cordillera St., Quezon City, which is also
the address of Serg's Chocolate Products (see Exhibit 'NN'), and the managing partner of the
partnership doing business under the name 'Serg's Chocolate Products is Antonio Goquiolay who is
also the manager of Serg's Products Inc."
Hence, the attempt to make the two factories appear as two separate businesses, when in reality they
are but one, is but a devise to defeat the ends of the law and should not be permitted to prevail. In
appropriate cases, the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced as when the same is made as a shield
to confuse legitimate issues.
VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed
and set aside and that of the trial court is reinstated. Costs against the private respondent Serg's
Products, Inc.

Reynolds v. Ca (Dy)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reynolds v. Ca (Dy)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reynolds v. Ca (Dy)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I. SHORT TITLE: REYNOLDS V.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

You might also like