The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Gold Line Tours, Inc. and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The two corporations, Gold Line Tours and Travel & Tours Advisers, are liable for the death of Maria Concepcion Lacsa who was killed in a collision between a passenger bus owned by Travel & Tours and a jeepney. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the two corporations have separate existences, finding that allowing them to avoid liability in this way would subvert justice.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Gold Line Tours, Inc. and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The two corporations, Gold Line Tours and Travel & Tours Advisers, are liable for the death of Maria Concepcion Lacsa who was killed in a collision between a passenger bus owned by Travel & Tours and a jeepney. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the two corporations have separate existences, finding that allowing them to avoid liability in this way would subvert justice.
Original Description:
digest
Original Title
164658908 Gold Line Tours v Heirs of Maria Concepcion
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Gold Line Tours, Inc. and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The two corporations, Gold Line Tours and Travel & Tours Advisers, are liable for the death of Maria Concepcion Lacsa who was killed in a collision between a passenger bus owned by Travel & Tours and a jeepney. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the two corporations have separate existences, finding that allowing them to avoid liability in this way would subvert justice.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Gold Line Tours, Inc. and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The two corporations, Gold Line Tours and Travel & Tours Advisers, are liable for the death of Maria Concepcion Lacsa who was killed in a collision between a passenger bus owned by Travel & Tours and a jeepney. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the two corporations have separate existences, finding that allowing them to avoid liability in this way would subvert justice.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
G.R. No.
159108 June 18, 2012 RULING:
GOLD LINE TOURS, INC., Petitioner, The Supreme Court the DENIED the petition for review on certiorari, and AFFIRMED vs. the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals. HEIRS OF MARIA CONCEPCION LACSA, Respondents. The two corporations are liable to the death of Ma. Concepcion Lacsa. FACTS: The Court was not persuaded by the proposition of the third party claimant that a Ma. Concepcion Lacsa (Concepcion) boarded a Goldline passenger bus owned and corporation has an existence separate and/or distinct from its members insofar as operated by Travel &Tours Advisers, Inc. Before reaching their destination, the this case at bar is concerned, for the reason that whenever necessary for the interest Goldline bus collided with a passenger jeepneys and as a result, a metal part of the of the public or for the protection of enforcement of their rights, the notion of legal jeepney was detached and struck Concepcion in the chest, causing her instant entity should not and is not to be used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime. death. Then, Concepcion’s heirs, represented by Teodoro Lacsa, instituted in the RTC a suit against Travel & Tours Advisers Inc. to recover damages arising from In the case of Palacio vs. Fely Transportation Co., the Supreme Court held that: breach of contract of carriage. The RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Concepcion and thereafter, Gold Line appealed the decision to the CA but the CA dismissed the "Where the main purpose in forming the corporation was to evade one’s subsidiary appeal for failure of the defendants to pay the docket and other lawful fees within the liability for damages in a criminal case, the corporation may not be heard to say that required period as provided in Rule 41, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. The it has a personality separate and distinct from its members, because to allow it to do dismissal became final. so would be to sanction the use of fiction of corporate entity as a shield to further an end subversive of justice (La Campana Coffee Factory, et al. v. Kaisahan ng mga Thereafter, the heirs of concepcion moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to Manggagawa, etc., et al., L-5677, May 25, 1953). implement the decision and RTC granted their motion. Petitioner submitted a verified third party claim, claiming that the tourist bus be returned to petitioner because it was This is what the third party claimant wants to do including the defendant in this case, the and that petitioner was a corporation entirely different from Travel & Tours to use the separate and distinct personality of the two corporation as a shield to further an end subversive of justice by avoiding the execution of a final Advisers, Inc. then RTC dismissed petitioner’s verified third-party claim, observing judgment of the court. that the identity of Travel & Tours Adivsers, Inc. could not be divorced from that of petitioner considering that Cheng had claimed to be the operator as well as the The RTC thus rightly ruled that petitioner might not be shielded from liability under President/Manager/incorporator of both entities; and that Travel & Tours Advisers, the final judgment through the use of the doctrine of separate corporate identity. Inc. had been known in Sorsogon as Goldline. They (Goldline) appealed the decision Truly, this fiction of law could not be employed to defeat the ends of justice. to CA but CA dismissed their petition and affirmed the decision of RTC. Hence this appeal to the Supreme Court where petitioner seeks to reverse the decision of CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the proposition of the third party claimant by the petitioner where Travel & Tours Advises, Inc. has an existence separate and/or distinct from Gold Line Tours, Inc.
