Lanuza v. BF Corporation

LIABILITIES OF DIRECTORS, TRUSTEES OR OFFICERS
GERARDO LANUZA, JR. AND ANTONIO O. OLBES v. BF CORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA

PROPERTIES, INC., ALFREDO C. RAMOS, RUFO B. COLAYCO, MAXIMO G. LICAUCO III,
AND BENJAMIN C. RAMOS
G.R. No. 174938, October 01, 2014
Leonen, J.
Facts:
Gerardo Lanuza, Jr and Antonio Olbes are members of the Board of Directors of Shangri-La.
This is an Appeal on Certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution that affirmed the trial
court's decision holding that petitioners, as directors, should submit themselves as parties to the
arbitration proceedings between BF Corporation and Shangri-La Properties, Inc. (Shangri-La).
BF Corporation alleged that it entered into agreements with Shangri-La wherein it undertook to
construct for Shangri-La a mall and a multilevel parking structure along EDSA. Shangri-La had
been consistent in paying BF Corp in accordance with its progress billing statements. However,
Shangri-La started defaulting in payment. BF Corp filed a complaint against Shangri-La and its
board of directors. BF Corp alleged that Shangri-La misrepresented it had funds to pay and that it
was simply a matter of delayed processing of BFs progress billing statements. Construction
eventually was completed but despite demands, Shangri-La refused to pay the balance. BF also
alleged that Shangri-Las directors were in bad faith so they should be held jointly and severally
liable with Shangri-La. Shangri-La and respondent board members filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings in view of BFs failure to submit its dispute to arbitration. RTC denied the motion,
however. Petitioners filed an answer saying they are resigned members of the board since July
15, 1991. Shangri-La and respondents then filed certiorari with CA which granted their petition
and ordered submission to arbitration.
Issue:
Should petitioners be made parties to the arbitration proceedings, pursuant to the arbitration
clause provided in the contract between BF Corporation and Shangri-La?
Held:
Yes. Petitioners point out, their personalities as directors of Shangri-La are separate and distinct
from Shangri-La. Because a corporation's existence is only by fiction of law, it can only exercise
its rights and powers through its directors, officers, or agents, who are all natural persons. A
corporation cannot sue or enter into contracts without them. A consequence of a corporation's
separate personality is that consent by a corporation through its representatives is not consent of
the representative, personally. Its obligations, incurred through official acts of its representatives,
are its own. A stockholder, director, or representative does not become a party to a contract.
However, when there are allegations of bad faith or malice against corporate directors or
representatives, it becomes the duty of courts or tribunals to determine if these persons and the
corporation should be treated as one. Section 31 of the Corporation Code provides the instances
when directors, trustees, or officers may become solidarily liable for corporate acts:
a)
b)
c)
The director or trustee willfully and knowingly voted for or assented to a patently
unlawful corporate act;
The director or trustee was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing corporate
affairs; and
The director or trustee acquired personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with his or her
duties as director or trustee.
When the courts disregard the corporations distinct and separate personality from its directors or
officers, the courts do not say that the corporation, in all instances and for all purposes, is the
same as its directors, stockholders, officers, and agents. It does not result in an absolute
confusion of personalities of the corporation and the persons composing or representing it. Courts
merely discount the distinction and treat them as one, in relation to a specific act, in order to
extend the terms of the contract and the liabilities for all damages to erring corporate officials who
participated in the corporations illegal acts. This is done so that the legal fiction cannot be used to
perpetrate illegalities and injustices.
Thus, in cases alleging solidary liability with the corporation or praying for the piercing of the
corporate veil, parties who are normally treated as distinct individuals should be made to
participate in the arbitration proceedings in order to determine if such distinction should indeed be
disregarded and, if so, to determine the extent of their liabilities
Hence, the issue of whether the corporation's acts in violation of complainant's rights, and the
incidental issue of whether piercing of the corporate veil is warranted, should be determined in a
single proceeding.

Lanuza v. BF Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lanuza v. BF Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Lanuza v. BF Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIABILITIES OF DIRECTORS, TRUSTEES OR OFFICERS

GERARDO LANUZA, JR. AND ANTONIO O. OLBES v. BF CORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA

You might also like