Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Benny Hung v. Bpi Finance Corporation: G.R. No. 182398 July 20, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Ivee Ong
    Benny Hung signed two merchant agreements for Guess Footwear/B&R Footwear Distributors, agreeing to honor BPI credit cards. BPI mistakenly credited money to B&R Footwear Distributors and asked for repayment. Hung partially repaid but owed a balance. BPI sued B&R Sportswear Distributor but it was B&R Footwear Distributors that responded. The court ruled Hung could be held personally liable as he signed the agreements personally and B&R Sportswear Enterprises was his sole proprietorship with no separate legal status from Hung.

    Copyright:

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

    Benny Hung v. Bpi Finance Corporation: G.R. No. 182398 July 20, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Ivee Ong
    68 views1 page
    Benny Hung signed two merchant agreements for Guess Footwear/B&R Footwear Distributors, agreeing to honor BPI credit cards. BPI mistakenly credited money to B&R Footwear Distributors and asked for repayment. Hung partially repaid but owed a balance. BPI sued B&R Sportswear Distributor but it was B&R Footwear Distributors that responded. The court ruled Hung could be held personally liable as he signed the agreements personally and B&R Sportswear Enterprises was his sole proprietorship with no separate legal status from Hung.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Hung v. BPI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Benny Hung signed two merchant agreements for Guess Footwear/B&R Footwear Distributors, agreeing to honor BPI credit cards. BPI mistakenly credited money to B&R Footwear Distributors and asked for repayment. Hung partially repaid but owed a balance. BPI sued B&R Sportswear Distributor but it was B&R Footwear Distributors that responded. The court ruled Hung could be held personally liable as he signed the agreements personally and B&R Sportswear Enterprises was his sole proprietorship with no separate legal status from Hung.

    Copyright:

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

    Benny Hung v. Bpi Finance Corporation: G.R. No. 182398 July 20, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Ivee Ong
    Benny Hung signed two merchant agreements for Guess Footwear/B&R Footwear Distributors, agreeing to honor BPI credit cards. BPI mistakenly credited money to B&R Footwear Distributors and asked for repayment. Hung partially repaid but owed a balance. BPI sued B&R Sportswear Distributor but it was B&R Footwear Distributors that responded. The court ruled Hung could be held personally liable as he signed the agreements personally and B&R Sportswear Enterprises was his sole proprietorship with no separate legal status from Hung.

    Copyright:

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

    Benny Hung

    v.
    Bpi Finance Corporation
    G.R. No. 182398
    July 20, 2010

    Facts:
    Guess Footwear or B& R Footware Distributors entered into two merchant agreements,
    wherey Guess Footwear agreed to honor validly issued BPI Express Credit Cards presented by
    cardholders in the purchase of its goods and services. In the first agreement, Benny Hung
    signed as the owner and manager of B & R Footware Distributors, while in the second
    agreement he signed as the president of B&R Sportswear Enterprises. For certain years, BPI
    mistakenly credited money to the account of B& R Footware Distributors, and asked Benny
    Hung to return the said amounts. When Benny Hung was informed of such credit, he
    transferred a sum of money from the bank account of B&R Sportwear Enterprises to BPI’s
    account as partial payment, but failed to pay the remaining balance. BPI then filed a collection
    suit naming as defendant B & R Sportswear Distributor, Inc., but it was B & R Footwear
    Distributors, Inc. that filed an answer, appeared and participated in the trial. BPI then moved to
    pierce the corporate personality of B & R Footwear Distributors to hold Hung liable which the
    RTC granted since he signed the agreements in his personal capacity.

    Issue: Whether or not Benny Hung can be held personally liable of the balance against B & R
    Sportswear Distributor, Inc.

    Ruling: Yes.

    When the corporation (BR Sportswear, Inc.) which the plaintiff erroneously impleaded in
    a collection case was not the party to the actionable agreement and turned out to be not
    registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the judgment may still be enforced
    against the corporation (BR Footwear, Inc.) which filed the answer and participated in the
    proceedings, as well as its controlling shareholder who signed the actionable agreement in his
    personal capacity and as a single proprietorship doing business under the trade name and style
    of BB Sportswear Enterprises. In this case, petitioner has represented in his dealings with
    respondent that Guess Footwear or B & R Footwear Distributors, Inc. is also B & R Sportswear
    Enterprises. Petitioner is the proper defendant because his sole proprietorship B & R
    Sportswear Enterprises has no juridical personality apart from him. The correction, which is
    allowed under the Rules of Court, only confirms the voluntary correction already made by B & R
    Footwear Distributors, Inc. or Guess Footwear which is also B & R Sportswear Enterprises. The
    correction on the name of the defendant has rendered moot any further discussion on the
    doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction.

    You might also like