Piercing the corporate veil; solidary liability

Piercing the corporate veil is warranted when "[the separate personality of a corporation] is used as a means to perpetrate fraud or an illegal act, or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, or to confuse legitimate issues." It is also warranted in alter ego cases "where a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation."

When corporate veil is pierced, the corporation and persons who are normally treated as distinct from the corporation are treated as one person, such that when the corporation is adjudged liable, these persons, too, become liable as if they were the corporation.Among the persons who may be treated as the corporation itself under certain circumstances are its directors and officers. Section 31 of the Corporation Code provides the instances when directors, trustees, or officers may become liable for corporate acts:
Sec. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. — Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons. 
When a director, trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquires, in violation of his duty, any interest adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in him in confidence, as to which equity imposes a disability upon him to deal in his own behalf, he shall be liable as a trustee for the corporation and must account for the profits which otherwise would have accrued to the corporation.
Based on the above provision, a director, trustee, or officer of a corporation may be made solidarily liable with it for all damages suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members, and other persons in any of the following cases:
  1. The director or trustee willfully and knowingly voted for or assented to a patently unlawful corporate act;
  2. The director or trustee was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing corporate affairs; and
  3. The director or trustee acquired personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with his or her duties as director or trustee.
Solidary liability with the corporation will also attach in the following instances:
  1. "When a director or officer has consented to the issuance of watered stocks or who, having knowledge thereof, did not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto";
  2. "When a director, trustee or officer has contractually agreed or stipulated to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the corporation"; and
  3. "When a director, trustee or officer is made, by specific provision of law, personally liable for his corporate action."
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. Without a trial, courts and tribunals have no basis for determining whether the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced. Courts or tribunals do not have such prior knowledge. Thus, the courts or tribunals must first determine whether circumstances exist to warrant the courts or tribunals to disregard the distinction between the corporation and the persons representing it.

The determination of these circumstances must be made by one tribunal or court in a proceeding participated in by all parties involved, including current representatives of the corporation, and those persons whose personalities are impliedly the same as the corporation. This is because when the court or tribunal finds that circumstances exist warranting the piercing of the corporate veil, the corporate representatives are treated as the corporation itself and should be held liable for corporate acts. The corporation's distinct personality is disregarded, and the corporation is seen as a mere aggregation of persons undertaking a business under the collective name of the corporation.

Hence, when the directors, as in this case, are impleaded in a case against a corporation, alleging malice or bad faith on their part in directing the affairs of the corporation, complainants are effectively alleging that the directors and the corporation are not acting as separate entities. They are alleging that the acts or omissions by the corporation that violated their rights are also the directors' acts or omissions. They are alleging that contracts executed by the corporation are contracts executed by the directors. Complainants effectively pray that the corporate veil be pierced because the cause of action between the corporation and the directors is the same.

In the case of PhilCom v. Vigil Investments (G.R. No. 205348. September 19, 2018), petitioner failed to show any circumstance for the Supreme Court to disregard the separate personalities of respondents Vazquez and Vigil. Aside from the bare allegation that respondents defrauded petitioner, the latter did not present any evidence showing that the "separate personality of the corporation is being used to perpetrate fraud, illegalities, and injustices." As correctly found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, respondent Vazquez is not liable in this case.


[1] Piercing the veil of corporate fiction in labor law.
[2] Lanuza, Jr., et al. v. BF Corporation, et al. 744 Phil. 612 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[3] University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Senlral ng Pilipinas, et al, 776 Phil. 401, 439 (2016) [Per J. Leoncn, Second Division].