Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 155 views

    Tan Boon Bee & Co. v. Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205

    Uploaded by

    hime mej
    This case involves a contract dispute between Anchor Supply Co. and Graphic Publishing Inc. where Graphic defaulted on payments. To satisfy the debt, a printing machine owned by Graphic was auctioned, but Philippine American Drug Company claimed ownership. The court ruled in favor of PADCO and nullified the auction. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that PADCO and Graphic should be considered one entity based on shared ownership and directors, as well as evidence the machine was with Graphic prior to the alleged purchase by PADCO. Therefore, the veil of corporate fiction was pierced and the auction sale was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan Boon Bee & Co. v. Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205

    Uploaded by

    hime mej
    155 views1 page
    This case involves a contract dispute between Anchor Supply Co. and Graphic Publishing Inc. where Graphic defaulted on payments. To satisfy the debt, a printing machine owned by Graphic was auctioned, but Philippine American Drug Company claimed ownership. The court ruled in favor of PADCO and nullified the auction. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that PADCO and Graphic should be considered one entity based on shared ownership and directors, as well as evidence the machine was with Graphic prior to the alleged purchase by PADCO. Therefore, the veil of corporate fiction was pierced and the auction sale was upheld.

    Original Title

    Tan Boon Bee

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a contract dispute between Anchor Supply Co. and Graphic Publishing Inc. where Graphic defaulted on payments. To satisfy the debt, a printing machine owned by Graphic was auctioned, but Philippine American Drug Company claimed ownership. The court ruled in favor of PADCO and nullified the auction. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that PADCO and Graphic should be considered one entity based on shared ownership and directors, as well as evidence the machine was with Graphic prior to the alleged purchase by PADCO. Therefore, the veil of corporate fiction was pierced and the auction sale was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan Boon Bee & Co. v. Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205

    Uploaded by

    hime mej
    This case involves a contract dispute between Anchor Supply Co. and Graphic Publishing Inc. where Graphic defaulted on payments. To satisfy the debt, a printing machine owned by Graphic was auctioned, but Philippine American Drug Company claimed ownership. The court ruled in favor of PADCO and nullified the auction. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that PADCO and Graphic should be considered one entity based on shared ownership and directors, as well as evidence the machine was with Graphic prior to the alleged purchase by PADCO. Therefore, the veil of corporate fiction was pierced and the auction sale was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan Boon Bee & Co. v.

    Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205

    FACTS: In 1972, Anchor Supply Co. (ASC), through Tan Boon Bee, entered into a
    contract of sale with Graphic Publishing Inc. (GPI) whereby ASC shall deliver paper
    products to GPI. GPI paid a down payment but defaulted in paying the rest despite
    demand from ASC. ASC sued GPI and ASC won. To satisfy the indebtedness, the trial
    court, presided by Judge Hilarion Jarencio, ordered that one of the printing machines of
    GPI be auctioned. But before the auction can be had, Philippine American Drug
    Company (PADCO) notified the sheriff that PADCO is the actual owner of said printing
    machine. Notwithstanding, the sheriff still went on with the auction sale where Tan Boon
    Bee was the highest bidder. Later, PADCO filed with the same court a motion to nullify
    the sale on execution. The trial court ruled in favor of PADCO and it nullified said
    auction sale. Tan Boon Bee assailed the order of the trial court. Tan Boon Bee averred
    that PADCO holds 50% of GPI; that the board of directors of PADCO and GPI is the
    same; that the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced based on the premises. PADCO
    on the other hand asserts ownership over the said printing machine; that it is merely leasing
    it to GPI.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced.

    HELD: Yes. PADCO, as its name suggests, is a drug company not engaged in the
    printing business. So it is dubious that it really owns the said printing machine regardless
    of PADCO‘s title over it. Further, the printing machine, as shown by evidence, has been
    in GPI‘s premises even before the date when PADCO alleged that it acquired ownership
    thereof. Premises considered, the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced; PADCO and
    GPI should be considered as one. When a corporation is merely an adjunct, business
    conduit or alter ego of another corporation the fiction of separate and distinct corporation
    entities should be disregarded.

    You might also like