G.R. No. 216635. June 3, 2019.

TOPIC

Corporate Officers

DOCTRINE

To be considered as a corporate officer, the designation must be either provided by the Corporation Code or the by-laws of the corporation

FACTS

Dr. Mary Jean P. Loreche-Amit (petitioner) started working with Cagayan De Oro Medical Center, Inc. (CDMC), sometime in May 1996, when she was engaged by the late Dr. Jose N. Gaerlan (Dr. Gaerlan) as Associate Pathologist in the Department of Laboratories. Upon the demise of Dr. Gaerlan, CDMC’s Board of Directors formally appointed petitioner as Chief Pathologist for five years or until May 15, 2011.

TOPIC

Doctrine of Piercing of the Veil of Corporate Fiction

DOCTRINE

When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and opprobriously elude responsibility, the courts and the legal authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and shatter the said shield and deny the usual protections to the offending party, even after final judgment. The key element is the presence of fraud, malice or bad faith.

Defenses not Barred by Incontestability

FACTS

Dominador Albay got the insurance company to insure his life for the sum of P5,000 and that through the representations and statements made by said Dominador Albay in his application and the favorable medical examination made by Dr. Jose A. Vidal (record, p. 126), the company agreed to the life insurance sought, and on November 6,1912, issued the policy No. 5592, the value whereof was payable to the insured’s motherin-law, Francisca Eguaras. One month after said insurance policy had been issued, that is, on December 6, 1912, the insured Dominador Albay died in the municipality of Santa Cruz, Laguna, of intestinal occlusion,

On December 6, 1912, said policy being in force, the insured died in Laguna, and defendant company refused to pay to the plaintiff the value of the policy.

FACTS

Newlife Enterprises insured its stocks with Western Guaranty Corporation, Reliance Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., and Equitable Insurance Corporation. In 1982, the building was gutted by fire where the stocks insured are placed. According to the certification issued the cause of fire was electrical in nature.

After the fire, the petitioner went to the insurance companies to file a claim. Ultimately, the three insurance companies denied plaintiffs’ claim for payment  for breach of policy conditions. It allegedly violated Conditions No. 3 & 27 of the insurance contract where it provides that it must state or endorse thereon the other insurance coverage obtained or subsequently effected on the same stocks.

Petitioners contend that they are not to be blamed for the omissions, alleging that insurance agents knew about the existence of the additional insurance coverage d that they were not informed about the requirement that such other or additional insurance should be stated in the policy, as they have not even read policies