Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Hacienda Cataywa Vs Lorenzo

    Uploaded by

    EA
    1) On October 22, 2002, respondent Rosario Lorezo received a letter from SSS informing her that she did not qualify for retirement benefits because she had only paid contributions for 16 months, falling short of the 120 month requirement. 2) Lorezo filed a petition alleging she worked on Hacienda Cataywa from 1970-1995 but her contributions were only reported starting in 1978 and not all were remitted, causing the rejection of her claim. 3) The court agreed with the petitioners that there was no need to pierce the corporate veil of Mancy and Sons Enterprises, as Lorezo did not substantiate her claim that it and Manuel Villanueva were alter egos,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hacienda Cataywa Vs Lorenzo

    Uploaded by

    EA
    103 views1 page
    1) On October 22, 2002, respondent Rosario Lorezo received a letter from SSS informing her that she did not qualify for retirement benefits because she had only paid contributions for 16 months, falling short of the 120 month requirement. 2) Lorezo filed a petition alleging she worked on Hacienda Cataywa from 1970-1995 but her contributions were only reported starting in 1978 and not all were remitted, causing the rejection of her claim. 3) The court agreed with the petitioners that there was no need to pierce the corporate veil of Mancy and Sons Enterprises, as Lorezo did not substantiate her claim that it and Manuel Villanueva were alter egos,

    Original Description:

    ggttyy

    Original Title

    16. Hacienda Cataywa vs Lorenzo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) On October 22, 2002, respondent Rosario Lorezo received a letter from SSS informing her that she did not qualify for retirement benefits because she had only paid contributions for 16 months, falling short of the 120 month requirement. 2) Lorezo filed a petition alleging she worked on Hacienda Cataywa from 1970-1995 but her contributions were only reported starting in 1978 and not all were remitted, causing the rejection of her claim. 3) The court agreed with the petitioners that there was no need to pierce the corporate veil of Mancy and Sons Enterprises, as Lorezo did not substantiate her claim that it and Manuel Villanueva were alter egos,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views1 page

    Hacienda Cataywa Vs Lorenzo

    Uploaded by

    EA
    1) On October 22, 2002, respondent Rosario Lorezo received a letter from SSS informing her that she did not qualify for retirement benefits because she had only paid contributions for 16 months, falling short of the 120 month requirement. 2) Lorezo filed a petition alleging she worked on Hacienda Cataywa from 1970-1995 but her contributions were only reported starting in 1978 and not all were remitted, causing the rejection of her claim. 3) The court agreed with the petitioners that there was no need to pierce the corporate veil of Mancy and Sons Enterprises, as Lorezo did not substantiate her claim that it and Manuel Villanueva were alter egos,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case: Hacienda Cataywa vs Lorezo, March 18, 2015

    Facts:

    On October 22, 2002, respondent Rosario Lorezo received, upon inquiry, a letter from the Social
    Security System (SSS) Western Visayas Group informing her that she cannot avail of their retirement
    benefits since per their record she has only paid 16 months. Such is 104 months short of the minimum
    requirement of 120 months payment to be entitle to the benefit. She was also informed that their
    investigation of her alleged employment under employer Hda. Cataywa could not be confirmed
    because Manuel Villanueva was permanently residing in Manila and Joemarie Villanueva denied
    having managed the farm. She was also advised of her options: continue paying contributions as
    voluntary member; request for refund; leave her contributions in-trust with the System, or file a petition
    before the Social Security Commission (SSC) so that liabilities, if any, of her employer may be
    determined. Aggrieved, respondent then filed her Amended Petition dated September 30, 2003,
    before the SSC. She alleged that she was employed as laborer in Hda. Cataywa managed by Jose
    Marie Villanueva in 1970 but was reported to the SSS only in 1978. She alleged that SSS contributions
    were deducted from her wages from 1970 to 1995, but not all were remitted to the SSS which,
    subsequently, caused the rejection of her claim. She also impleaded Talisay Farms, Inc. by virtue of its
    Investment Agreement with Mancy and Sons Enterprises. She also prayed that the veil of corporate
    fiction be pierced since she alleged that Mancy and Sons Enterprises and Manuel and Jose Marie
    Villanueva are one and the same. Petitioners Manuel and Jose Villanueva refuted in their answer, the
    allegation that not all contributions of respondent were remitted. Petitioners alleged that all farm
    workers of Hda. Cataywa were reported that their contributions were duly paid and remitted to SSS. It
    was the late Domingo Lizares, Jr. who managed and administered the hacienda. While, Talisay
    Farms, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action in the absence of an
    allegation that there was an employer-employee relationship between Talisay Farms and
    respondent.

    Issue: WON the veil of corporate fiction be pierced?

    Held: This Court has cautioned against the inordinate application of this doctrine, reiterating the
    basic rule that "the corporate veil may be pierced only if it becomes a shield for fraud, illegality or
    inequity committed against a third person. The Court has expressed the language of piercing
    doctrine when applied to alter ego cases, as follows: Where the stock of a corporation is owned by
    one person whereby the corporation functions only for the benefit of such individual owner, the
    corporation and the individual should be deemed the same. This Court agrees with the petitioners
    that there is no need to pierce the corporate veil. Respondent failed to substantiate her claim that
    Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. and Manuel and Jose Marie Villanueva are one and the same. She
    based her claim on the SSS form wherein Manuel Villanueva appeared as employer. However, this
    does not prove, in any way, that the corporation is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong,
    protect fraud, or defend crime, or when it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues,
    warranting that its separate and distinct personality be set aside. Also, it was not alleged nor proven
    that Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. functions only for the benefit of Manuel Villanueva, thus, one
    cannot be an alter ego of the other.

    You might also like