Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION DONNINA C. HALLEY, Petitioner, G.R. No. 157549 Present: CARPIO MORAL S, Chairperson, !RIO", ! RSAMI", #ILLARAMA, $R., and S R "O, JJ. Promul%ated: PRINTWELL, INC., Ma& '(, )(** Respondent. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION BERSAMIN, J: Stoc+holders of a corporation are liable for the debts of the corporation up to the e,tent of their unpaid subscriptions. -he& cannot in.o+e the .eil of corporate identit& as a shield from liabilit&, because the .eil ma& be lifted to a.oid defraudin% corporate creditors. /eaffirm 0ith modification the decisionpromul%ated on Au%ust *1, )((), 2*3 0hereb& the Court of Appeals4CA5 upheld thedecision of the Re%ional -rial Court, !ranch 6*, in Pasi% Cit& 4R-C5,2)3orderin% the defendants 4includin% the petitioner5to pa& to Print0ell, Inc. 4Print0ell5 the principal sum of P)7*,'1).68 plus interest.

-versus-

Ant ! " nt# -he petitioner 0asan incorporator and ori%inal director of !usiness Media Philippines, Inc. 4!MPI5, 0hich, at its incorporation on "o.ember *), *796, 2'3had an authori:ed capital stoc+ of P',(((,(((.(( di.ided into '((,((( shares each 0ith a par .alue of P*(.((,of 0hich 6;,((( 0ere initiall& subscribed, to 0it:
Subscriber "o. of shares -otal subscription Amount paid <onnina C. =alle& ';,((( P ';(,(((.(( P96,;((.(( Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. *9,((( P *9(,(((.(( P1;,(((.(( Albert -. >u *9,((( P *9(,(((.(( P1;,(((.(( ?enaida #. >u ),((( P )(,(((.(( P;,(((.(( Ri:alino C. #ine:a ),((( P )(,(((.(( P;,(((.(( -O-AL 6;,((( P6;(,(((.(( P*96,;((.((

Print0ellen%a%ed in commercial and industrial printin%.!MPI commissioned Print0ell for the printin% of the ma%a:ine Philippines, Inc. 4to%ether 0ith 0rappers and subscription cards5 that !MPI published and sold. @or that purpose, Print0ell e,tended '(-da& credit accommodations to !MPI. In the period from October **, *799 until $ul& *), *797, !MPI placed0ith Print0ell se.eral orders on credit, e.idenced b&in.oices and deli.er& receipts totalin%P'*8,'1).68.Considerin% that !MPI paidonl&P);,(((.((,Print0ell sued!MPIon $anuar& )8, *77( for the collection of the unpaid balance of P)7*,'1).68 in the R-C.213 On @ebruar& 9, *77(,Print0ell amended thecomplaint in order to implead as defendants all the ori%inal stoc+holders and incorporators to reco.er on theirunpaid subscriptions, as follo0s:2;3
"ame <onnina C. =alle& Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. Albert -. >u ?enaida #. >u Ri:alino C. #iBe:a Anpaid Shares P )8),;((.(( P*';,(((.(( P*';,(((.(( P*;,(((.(( P*;,(((.((

-O-AL

P ;8),;((.((

-he defendants filed a consolidated ans0er,283a.errin% that the& all had paid their subscriptions in fullC that !MPI had a separate personalit& from those of its stoc+holdersC thatRi:alino C. #iBe:a had assi%ned his full&-paid up sharesto a certain Derardo R. $acinto in *797C andthat the directors and stoc+holders of !MPI had resol.ed to dissol.e !MPI durin% the annual meetin%held on @ebruar& ;, *77(. -o pro.e pa&ment of their subscriptions, the defendantstoc+holderssubmitted in e.idence!MPI official receipt 4OR5 no. )*6, OR no. )*9, OR no. ))(,OR no. ))*, OR no. ))), OR no. ))', andOR no. ))6,to 0it:
Receipt "o. )*6 )*9 ))( ))* ))) ))' ))6 <ate "o.ember ;, *796 Ma& *', *799 Ma& *', *799 "o.ember ;, *796 "o.ember ;, *796 Ma& *', *799 Ma& *', *799 "ame Albert -. >u Albert -. >u Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. ?enaida #. >u ?enaida #. >u <onnina C. =alle& Amount P 1;,(((.(( P *';,(((.(( P *';,(((.(( P 1;,(((.(( P ;,(((.(( P *;,(((.(( P )8),;((.((

In addition, the stoc+holderssubmitted other documentsin e.idence, namel&: 4a5 an audit report dated March '(, *797 prepared b& Ila%an, Cepillo E Associates 4submitted to the S C and the !IR5C2634b5 !MPIbalance sheet293 and income statement273as of <ecember '*, *799C 4c5 !MPI income ta, return for the &ear *799 4stamped FreceivedG b& the !IR5C2*(34d5 Hournal .ouchersC2**34e5 cash deposit slipsC 2*)3 and4f5!an+ of the Philippine Islands 4!PI5 sa.in%s account passboo+in the name of !MPI.2*'3 R$%&n' o( t) RTC On "o.ember ', *77', the R-C rendereda decision in fa.or of Print0ell, reHectin% the alle%ation of pa&ment in full of the subscriptions in .ie0 of an

irre%ularit& in the issuance of the ORs and obser.in%that the defendants had used !MPIIs corporate personalit& to e.ade pa&ment and create inHustice, viz:
-he claim of indi.idual defendants that the& ha.e full& paid their subscriptions to defend2a3nt corporation, is not 0orth& of consideration, because: J a5 in the case of defendants-spouses Albert and ?enaida >u, it 0ill be noted that the alle%ed pa&ment made on Ma& *', *799 amountin% to P*';,(((.((, is co.ered b& Official Receipt "o. )*9 4 ,h. F)G5, 0hereas the alle%ed pa&ment made earlier on "o.ember ;, *796, amountin% to P;,(((.((, is co.ered b& Official Receipt "o. ))) 4 ,h. F'G5. -his is co%ent proof that said receipts 0erebelatedl& issued Hust to suit their theor& since in the ordinar& course of business, a receipt issued earlier must ha.e serial numbers lo0er than those issued on a later date. !ut in the case at bar, the receipt issued on "o.ember ;, *796 has serial numbers 4)))5 hi%her than those issued on a later date 4Ma& *', *7995. b5 -he claim that since there 0as no call b& the !oard of <irectors of defendant corporation for the pa&ment of unpaid subscriptions 0ill not be a .alid e,cuse to free indi.idual defendants from liabilit&. Since the indi.idual defendants are members of the !oard of <irectors of defendantcorporation, it 0as 0ithin their e,clusi.e po0er to pre.ent the fulfillment of the condition, b& simpl& not ma+in% a call for the pa&ment of the unpaid subscriptions. -heir inaction should not 0or+ to their benefit and unHust enrichment at the e,pense of plaintiff. Assumin% ar%uendo that the indi.idual defendants ha.e paid their unpaid subscriptions, still, it is .er& apparent that indi.idual defendants merel& used the corporate fiction as a cloa+ or co.er to create an inHusticeC hence, the alle%ed separate personalit& of defendant corporation should be disre%arded 4-an !oon !ee E Co., Inc. .s. $ud%e $arencio, D.R. "o. 1*''6, '( $une *7995.2*13

Appl&in% the trust fund doctrine, the R-C declared the defendant stoc+holders liable to Print0ell pro rata, thusl&:
<efendant !usiness Media, Inc. is a re%istered corporation 4 ,hibits FAG, FA-*G to FA-7G5, and, as appearin% from the Articles of Incorporation, indi.idual defendants ha.e the follo0in% unpaid subscriptions: "ames Anpaid Subscription <onnina C. =alle& P)8),;((.(( Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. *';.(((.(( Albert -. >u *';,(((.(( ?enaida #. >u *;,(((.((

Ri:alino #. #ine:a -otal

*;,(((.(( -------------------P;8),;((.((

and it is an established doctrine that subscriptions to the capital stoc+ of a corporation constitute a fund to 0hich creditors ha.e a ri%ht to loo+ for satisfaction of their claims 4Philippine "ational !an+ .s. !itulo+ Sa0mill, Inc., )' SCRA *'885 and, in fact, a corporation has no le%al capacit& to release a subscriber to its capital stoc+ from the obli%ation to pa& for his shares, and an& a%reement to this effect is in.alid 4#elasco .s. Poi:at, '6 Phil. 9()5. -he liabilit& of the indi.idual stoc+holders in the instant case shall be prorated as follo0s: "ames Amount <onnina C. =alle& P*17,7;;.8; Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. 66,*11.;; Albert -. >u 66,*11.;; ?enaida #. >u 9,;67.(( Ri:alino #. #ine:a 9,;67.(( ------------------otal P')*,'1).6;2*;3

-he R-C disposed as follo0s:

/= R @OR , Hud%ment is hereb& rendered in fa.or of plaintiff and a%ainst defendants, orderin% defendants to pa& to plaintiff the amount of P)7*,'1).68, as principal, 0ith interest thereon at )(K per annum, from date of default, until full& paid, plus P'(,(((.(( as attorne&Is fees, plus costs of suit. <efendantsI counterclaims are ordered dismissed for lac+ of merit. SO OR< R <.2*83

R$%&n' o( t) CA All the defendants, e,cept !MPI, appealed. Spouses <onnina and Simon =alle&, andRi:alino#iBe:a defined the follo0in% errors committed b& the R-C, as follo0s:

I. -= -RIAL COARRR < I" =OL<I"D APP LLA"-SS-OCL=OL< RS LIA!L @OR -= LIA!ILI-I S O@ -= < @ "<A"CORPORA-IO". II. ASSAMI"D ARDA "<O -=A- APP LLA"-S MA> ! LIA!L -O -= M- "- O@ -= IR A"PAI< SA!SCRIP-IO" O@ S=AR S O@ S-OCL, I@ A">, -= -RIAL COAR- "O" -= L SS RR < I" "O- @I"<I"D -=A- APP LLA"-S-S-OCL=OL< RS =A# , A- -= -IM -= SAI/AS @IL <, "O SAC= A"PAI< SA!SCRIP-IO"S.

On their part, Spouses Albert and ?enaida >u a.erred:

I. -= R-C RR < I" R @ASI"D -O DI# CR < "C A"< / ID=- -O < @ "<A"-S-APP LLA"-S SPOAS S AL! R- A"< ? "AI<A >AIS M=I!I-S ) A"< ' < SPI- -= A"R !A-- < - S-IMO"> -= R O" !> APP LLA"- AL! R- >A A"< -= A!S "C O@ PROO@ CO"-RO# R-I"D -= M. II. -= R-C RR < I" =OL<I"D < @ "<A"-S-APP LLA"-S SPOAS S AL! R- A"< ? "AI<A >A P RSO"ALL> LIA!L @OR -= CO"-RAC-AAL O!LIDA-IO" O@ !ASI" SS M <IA P=ILS., I"C. < SPI- @ALL PA>M "- !> SAI< < @ "<A"-S-APP LLA"-S O@ -= IR R SP C-I# SA!SCRIP-IO"S -O -= CAPI-AL S-OCL O@ !ASI" SS M <IA P=ILS., I"C.

Roberto #. Cabrera, $r. ar%ued:

I. I- IS DRA# RROR O" -= PAR- O@ -= COAR- A NAO -O APPL> -= <OC-RI" O@ PI RCI"D -= # IL O@ CORPORAP RSO"ALI-> I" A!S "C O@ A"> S=O/I"D O@ M-RA-OR<I"AR> CIRCAMS-A"C S -=A- /OAL< $AS-I@> R SOR- -= R -O. II. I- IS DRA# RROR O" -= PAR- O@ -= COAR- A NAO -O RAL -=A- I"<I#I<AAL < @ "<A"-S AR LIA!L -O PA> -= PLAI"-I@@-APP LL IS CLAIM !AS < O" -= IR R SP C-I# SA!SCRIP-IO". "O-/I-=S-A"<I"D O# R/= LMI"D #I< "C S=O/I"D @ALL S --L M "- O@ SA!SCRI! < CAPI-AL !> -= I"<I#I<AAL < @ "<A"-S.

On Au%ust *1, )((), the CA affirmed the R-C, holdin% that the defendantsI resort to the corporate personalit& 0ould createan inHustice becausePrint0ell 0ould thereb& be at a loss a%ainst 0hom it 0ould assert the ri%ht to collect, viz:
Settled is the rule that 0hen the .eil of corporate fiction is used as a means of perpetratin% fraud or an ille%al act or as a .ehicle for the e.asion of an e,istin% obli%ation, the circum.ention of statutes, the achie.ements or perfection of monopol& or %enerall& the perpetration of +na.er& or crime, the .eil 0ith 0hich the la0 co.ers and isolates the corporation from the members or stoc+holders 0ho compose it 0ill be lifted to allo0 for its consideration merel& as an a%%re%ation of indi.iduals 4First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals , );) SCRA );75. Moreo.er, under this doctrine, the corporate e,istence ma& be disre%arded 0here the entit& is formed or used for non-le%itimate purposes, such as to e.ade a Hust and due obli%ations or to Hustif& 0ron% 4Claparols vs. CI , 8; SCRA 8*'5. In the case at bench, it is undisputed that !MPI made se.eral orders on credit from appellee PRI"-/ LL in.ol.in% the printin% of business ma%a:ines, 0rappers and subscription cards, in the total amount of P)7*,'1).68 4Record pp. '-;, Anne, FAG5 0hich facts 0ere ne.er denied b& appellantsI stoc+holders that the& o0e appellee the amount of P)7*,'1).68. -he said %oods 0ere deli.ered to and recei.ed b& !MPI but it failed to pa& its o.erdue account to appellee as 0ell as the interest thereon, at the rate of )(K per annum until full& paid. It 0as also durin% this time that appellants stoc+holders 0ere in char%e of the operation of !MPI despite the fact that the& 0ere not able to pa& their unpaid subscriptions to !MPI &et %reatl& benefited from said transactions. In .ie0 of the unpaid subscriptions, !MPI failed to pa& appellee of its liabilit&, hence appellee in order to protect its ri%ht can collect from the appellantsI stoc+holders re%ardin% their unpaid subscriptions. -o den& appellee from reco.erin% from appellants 0ould place appellee in a limbo on 0here to assert their ri%ht to collect from !MPI since the stoc+holders 0ho are appellants herein are a.ailin% the defense of corporate fiction to e.ade pa&ment of its obli%ations.2*63

@urther, the CA concurred 0ith the R-C on theapplicabilit& of the trust fund doctrine, under 0hich corporate debtors mi%ht loo+ to the unpaid subscriptions for the satisfaction of unpaid corporate debts, statin% thus:
It is an established doctrine that subscription to the capital stoc+ of a corporation constitute a fund to 0hich creditors ha.e a ri%ht to loo+ up to for satisfaction of their claims, and that the assi%nee in insol.enc& can maintain an

action upon an& unpaid stoc+ subscription in order to reali:e assets for the pa&ment of its debts 4P!B vs. Bitulok "a#$ill, )' SCRA *'885. Premised on the abo.e-doctrine, an inference could be made that the funds, 0hich consists of the pa&ment of subscriptions of the stoc+holders, is 0here the creditors can claim monetar& considerations for the satisfaction of their claims. If these funds 0hich ou%ht to be full& subscribed b& the stoc+holders 0ere not paid or remain an unpaid subscription of the corporation then the creditors ha.e no other recourse to collect from the corporation of its liabilit&. Such occurrence 0as e.ident in the case at bar 0herein the appellants as stoc+holders failed to full& pa& their unpaid subscriptions, 0hich left the creditors helpless in collectin% their claim due to insufficienc& of funds of the corporation. Li+e0ise, the claim of appellants that the& alread& paid the unpaid subscriptions could not be %i.en 0ei%ht because said pa&ment did not reflect in the Articles of Incorporations of !MPI that the unpaid subscriptions 0ere full& paid b& the appellantsI stoc+holders. @or it is a rule that a stoc+holder ma& be sued directl& b& creditors to the e,tent of their unpaid subscriptions to the corporation 4 %eller vs. C&B 'arketin(, *1* SCRA 985. Moreo.er, a corporation has no po0er to release a subscription or its capital stoc+, 0ithout .aluable consideration for such releases, and as a%ainst creditors, a reduction of the capital stoc+ can ta+e place onl& in the manner and under the conditions prescribed b& the statute or the charter or the Articles of Incorporation. 4P!B vs. Bitulok "a#$ill, )' SCRA *'885.2*93

-he CAdeclared thatthe inconsistenc& in the issuance of the ORs rendered the claim of full pa&ment of the subscriptions to the capital stoc+ un0orth& of considerationC andheld that the .eil of corporate fiction could be pierced 0hen it 0as used as a shield to perpetrate a fraud or to confuse le%itimate issues, to 0it:
@inall&, appellants SPS >A, ar%ued that the fact of full pa&ment for the unpaid subscriptions 0as incontro.ertibl& established b& competent testimonial and documentar& e.idence, namel& O ,hibits F*G, F)G, F'G E F1G, 0hich 0ere ne.er disputed b& appellee, clearl& sho0s that the& should not be held liable for pa&ment of the said unpaid subscriptions of !MPI. -he reliance is misplaced. /e are hereb& reproducin% the contents of the abo.e-mentioned e,hibits, to 0it: ,h: F*G O >A O Official Receipt "o. )*6 dated "o.ember ;, *796 amountin% to P1;,(((.(( alle%edl& representin% the initial pa&ment of subscriptions of stoc+holder Albert >u.

,h: F)G O >A O Official Receipt "o. )*9 dated Ma& *', *799 amountin% to P*';,(((.(( alle%edl& representin% full pa&ment of balance of subscriptions of stoc+holder Albert >u. 4Record p. ';)5. ,h: F'G O >A O Official Receipt "o. ))) dated "o.ember ;, *796 amountin% to P;,(((.(( alle%edl& representin% the initial pa&ment of subscriptions of stoc+holder ?enaida >u. ,h: F1G O >A O Official Receipt "o. ))' dated Ma& *', *799 amountin% to P*;,(((.(( alle%edl& representin% the full pa&ment of balance of subscriptions of stoc+holder ?enaida >u. 4Record p. ';'5. !ased on the abo.e e,hibits, 0e are in accord 0ith the lo0er courtIs findin%s that the claim of the indi.idual appellants that the& full& paid their subscription to the defendant !MPI is not 0orth& of consideration, because, in the case of appellants SPS. >A, there is an inconsistenc& re%ardin% the issuance of the official receipt since the alle%ed pa&ment made on Ma& *', *799 amountin% to P*';,(((.(( 0as co.ered b& Official Receipt "o. )*9 4Record, p. ';)5, 0hereas the alle%ed pa&ment made earlier on "o.ember ;, *796 amountin% to P;,(((.(( is co.ered b& Official Receipt "o. ))) 4Record, p. ';'5. Such issuance is a clear indication that said receipts 0ere belatedl& issued Hust to suit their claim that the& ha.e full& paid the unpaid subscriptions since in the ordinar& course of business, a receipt is issued earlier must ha.e serial numbers lo0er than those issued on a later date. !ut in the case at bar, the receipt issued on "o.ember ;, *796 had a serial number 4)))5 hi%her than those issued on Ma& *', *799 4)*95. And e.en assumin% ar%uendo that the indi.idual appellants ha.e paid their unpaid subscriptions, still, it is .er& apparent that the .eil of corporate fiction ma& be pierced 0hen made as a shield to perpetuate fraud andPor confuse le%itimate issues. 4Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, *79 SCRA )**5.2*73

Spouses =alle& and #iBe:a mo.ed for a reconsideration, but the CA denied their $otion for reconsideration.

I##$ # Onl& <onnina =alle& has come to the Court to see+ a further re.ie0, positin% the follo0in% for our consideration and resolution, to 0it:
I.

-= COAR- O@ APP ALS RR < I" A@@IRMI"D I" -O-O -= < CISIO" -=A- <I< "O-S-A- -= @AC-S A"< -= LA/ APO" /=IC= -= $A<DM "- /AS !AS < !A- M R L> COPI < -= CO"- "-S O@ R SPO"< "-IS M MORA"<AM A<OP-I"D -= SAM AS -= R ASO" @OR -= < CISIO" II. -= COAR- O@ APP ALS RR < I" A@@IRMI"D -= < CISIO" O@ -= R DIO"AL -RIAL COAR- /=IC= SS "-IALL> ALLO/ < -= PI RCI"D O@ -= # IL O@ CORPORA- @IC-IO" III. -= =O"ORA!L COAR- O@ APP ALS RR < I" APPL>I"D -= -RAS- @A"< <OC-RI" /= " -= DROA"<S -= R @OR =A# "O! " SA-IS@I <.

On the first error, the petitioner contends that the R-C lifted .erbatim from the memorandum of Print0ellC and submits that the R-Cthereb& .iolatedthe reQuirement imposed in Section *1, Article #III of the Constitution 2)(3 as 0ell as in Section *,Rule '8 of the ules of Court,2)*3to the effect that a Hud%ment or final order of a court should state clearl& and distinctl& the facts and the la0 on 0hich it is based. -he petitioner claims that the R-CIs .iolation indicated that the R-C did not anal&:e the case before renderin% its decision, thus den&in% her the opportunit& to anal&:e the decisionC andthat a suspicion of partialit& arose from the fact that the R-C decision 0as but a replica of Print0ellIs memorandum.She cites Francisco v. Per$skul,2))3 in 0hich the Court has stated that the reason underl&in% the constitutional reQuirement, that e.er& decision should clearl& and distinctl& state the facts and the la0 on 0hich it is based, is to inform the reader of ho0 the court has reached its decision and thereb& %i.e the losin% part& an opportunit& to stud& and anal&:e the decision and enable such part& to appropriatel& assi%n the errors committed therein on appeal. On the second and third errors, the petitioner maintains that the CA and the R-C erroneousl& pierced the .eil of corporate fiction despite the absence of co%ent proof sho0in% that she, as stoc+holder of !MPI, had an& hand in transactin% 0ith Print0ellC thatthe CA and the R-C failed to appreciate the e.idence that she had full& paid her subscriptionsC and the CA and the R-C0ron%l& relied on the articles of incorporation in determinin% the current list of unpaid subscriptions despite

the articles of incorporationbein% at best reflecti.eonl& of the pre-incorporation status of !MPI. As her submissions indicate, the petitioner assails the decisions of the CA on: 4a5 the propriet& of disre%ardin% the separate personalities of !MPI and its stoc+holdersb& piercin% the thin .eil that separated themC and 4 b5 the application of the trust fund doctrine. R$%&n'

-he petition for re.ie0 fails. I T) RTC "&" not *&o%+t t) Con#t&t$t&on +n" t) Rules of Court

-he contention of the petitioner, that the R-C merel& copied the memorandum of Print0ell in 0ritin% its decision, and did not anal&:e the records on its o0n, thereb& manifestin% a bias in fa.or of Print0ell, is unfounded. It is noted that the petition for re.ie0 merel& %enerall& alle%es that startin% from its pa%e ;, the decision of the R-C Fcopied .erbatim the alle%ations of herein Respondents in its Memorandum before the said court,G as if Fthe Memorandum 0as the draft of the <ecision of the Re%ional -rial Court of Pasi%,G 2)'3but fails to specif& either the portions alle%edl& lifted .erbatim from the memorandum, or 0h& she re%ards the decision as copied. -he omission renders thepetition for re.ie0 insufficient to support her contention, considerin% that the mere similarit&in lan%ua%e or thou%ht bet0een Print0ellIs memorandum and the trial courtIs decisiondid not necessaril& Hustif& the conclusion that the R-C simpl& lifted .erbatim or copied from thememorandum. It is to be obser.ed in this connection that a trial or appellate Hud%e ma& occasionall& .ie0a part&Is memorandum or brief as 0orth& of due consideration either entirel& or partl&. /hen he does so, the Hud%ema& adopt and incorporatein

his adHudicationthe memorandum or the parts of it he deems suitable,and &et not be %uilt& of the accusation of liftin% or cop&in% from the memorandum. 2)13 -his isbecause ofthe a.o0ed obHecti.e of the memorandum to contribute in the proper illumination and correct determination of the contro.ers&."or is there an&thin% unto0ard in the con%ruence of ideas and .ie0s about the le%al issues bet0een himself and the part& draftin% the memorandum.-he freQuenc& of similarities in ar%umentation, phraseolo%&, e,pression, and citation of authorities bet0een the decisions of the courts and the memoranda of the parties, 0hich ma& be %reat or small, can be fairl& attributable tothe adherence b& our courts of la0 and the le%al profession to 0idel& +no0nor uni.ersall& accepted precedents set in earlier Hudicial actions 0ith identical factual milieus or posin% related Hudicial dilemmas. /e also do not a%ree 0ith the petitioner that the R-CIs manner of 0ritin% the decisiondepri.edher ofthe opportunit& to anal&:e its decisionas to be able to assi%n errors on appeal. -he contrar& appears, considerin% that she 0as able to impute and assi%nerrors to the R-Cthat she e,tensi.el& discussed in her appeal in the CA, indicatin% her thorou%h anal&sis ofthe decision of the R-C. Our o0n readin%of the trial courtIs decision persuasi.el& sho0s that the R-C did compl& 0ith the reQuirements re%ardin% the content and the manner of 0ritin% a decision prescribed in the Constitution and the ules of Court. -he decision of the R-C contained clear and distinct findin%s of facts, and stated the applicablela0 and Hurisprudence, full& e,plainin% 0h& the defendants 0ere bein% held liable to the plaintiff. In short, the reader 0as at once informed of the factual and le%al reasons for the ultimate result. II Co,-o,+t - ,#on+%&t. not to / $# " to (o#t , &n0$#t&!

Print0ell impleaded the petitioner and the other stoc+holders of !MPI for t0o reasons, namel&: 4a5 to reach the unpaid subscriptions because it appeared that such subscriptions 0ere the remainin% .isible assets of !MPIC and 4b5 to a.oid multiplicit& of suits.2);3

-he petitionersubmits that she had no participation in the transaction bet0een !MPI and Print0ellCthat !MPI acted on its o0nC and that shehad no hand in persuadin% !MPI to rene%e on its obli%ation to pa&. =ence, she should not be personall& liable. /e rule a%ainst the petitionerIs submission. Althou%h a corporation has a personalit& separate and distinct from those of its stoc+holders, directors, or officers,2)83such separate and distinct personalit& is merel& a fiction created b& la0 for the sa+e of con.enience and to promote the ends of Hustice.2)63-he corporate personalit& ma& be disre%arded, and the indi.iduals composin% the corporation 0ill be treated as indi.iduals, if the corporate entit& is bein% used as a cloa+ or co.er for fraud or ille%alit&Cas a Hustification for a 0ron%C as an alter e%o, an adHunct, or a business conduit for the sole benefit of the stoc+holders.2)93 As a %eneral rule, a corporation is loo+ed upon as a le%al entit&, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrar& appears. -hus,the courts al0a&s presume %ood faith, andfor that reason accord prime importance to the separate personalit& of the corporation, disre%ardin% the corporate personalit& onl& after the 0ron%doin% is first clearl& and con.incin%l& established. 2)73It thus behoo.es the courts to be careful in assessin% the milieu 0here the piercin% of the corporate .eil shall be done.2'(3 Althou%h no0here in Print0ellIs amended complaint or in the testimonies Print0ell offered can it be read or inferred from that the petitioner 0as instrumental in persuadin% !MPI to rene%e onits obli%ation to pa&C or that sheinduced Print0ell to e,tend the credit accommodation b& misrepresentin% the sol.enc& of !MPI toPrint0ell, her personal liabilit&, to%ether 0ith that of her codefendants, remainedbecause the CA found her and the other defendant stoc+holders to be in char%e of the operations of !MPI at the time the unpaid obli%ation 0as transacted and incurred, to 0it:
In the case at bench, it is undisputed that !MPI made se.eral orders on credit from appellee PRI"-/ LL in.ol.in% the printin% of business ma%a:ines, 0rappers and subscription cards, in the total amount of P)7*,'1).68 4Record pp. '-;, Anne, FAG5 0hich facts 0ere ne.er denied b& appellantsI stoc+holders that the& o0e4d5 appellee the amount of P)7*,'1).68. -he said %oods 0ere deli.ered to and recei.ed b& !MPI but it failed to pa& its o.erdue account to appellee as 0ell as the interest thereon, at the rate of )(K per annum until full& paid. It 0as

also durin% this time that appellants stoc+holders 0ere in char%e of the operation of !MPI despite the fact that the& 0ere not able to pa& their unpaid subscriptions to !MPI &et %reatl& benefited from said transactions. In .ie0 of the unpaid subscriptions, !MPI failed to pa& appellee of its liabilit&, hence appellee in order to protect its ri%ht can collect from the appellants stoc+holders re%ardin% their unpaid subscriptions. -o den& appellee from reco.erin% from appellants 0ould place appellee in a limbo on 0here to assert their ri%ht to collect from !MPI since the stoc+holders 0ho are appellants herein are a.ailin% the defense of corporate fiction to e.ade pa&ment of its obli%ations.2'*3

It follo0s, therefore, that 0hether or not the petitioner persuaded !MPI to rene%e on its obli%ations to pa&, and 0hether or not she induced Print0ell to transact 0ith !MPI 0ere not %ooddefensesin the suit. III 1n-+&" !, "&to, 2+. #+t&#(. &t# !%+&2 (,o2 $n-+&" #$/#!,&-t&on#3#to!4)o%" ,# 2$#t -,o* ($%% -+.2 nt o(t) &, #$/#!,&-t&on#

!oth the R-C and the CA applied the trust fund doctrinea%ainst the defendant stoc+holders, includin% the petitioner. -he petitionerar%ues, ho0e.er,that the trust fund doctrine0as inapplicablebecause she had alread& full& paid her subscriptions to the capital stoc+ of !MPI. She thus insiststhat both lo0er courts erred in disre%ardin% the e.idence on the complete pa&ment of the subscription, li+e receipts, income ta, returns, and rele.ant financial statements. -he petitionerIs ar%umentis de.oid of substance. -he trust fund doctrineenunciates a O
,,, rule that the propert& of a corporation is a trust fund for the pa&ment of creditors, but such propert& can be called a trust fund Ronl& b& 0a& of analo%& or metaphor.I As bet0een the corporation itself and its creditors it is a simple debtor, and as bet0een its creditors and stoc+holders its assets are in eQuit& a fund for the pa&ment of its debts.2')3

-he trust fund doctrine, first enunciated in the American case of )ood v. *u$$er,2''30as adopted in our Hurisdiction in Philippine +rust Co. v. ivera, 2'13 0here thisCourt declared that:
It is established doctrine that subscriptions to the capital of a corporation constitute a fund to 0hich creditors ha.e a ri%ht to loo+ for satisfaction of their claims and that the assi%nee in insol.enc& can maintain an action upon an& unpaid stoc+ subscription in order to reali:e assets for the pa&ment of its debts. 4#elasco .s. Poi:at, '6 Phil., 9()5 ,,,2';3

/e clarif& that the trust fund doctrineis not limited to reachin% the stoc+holderIs unpaid subscriptions. -he scope of the doctrine 0hen the corporation is insol.ent encompasses not onl& the capital stoc+, but also other propert& and assets %enerall& re%arded in eQuit& as a trust fund for the pa&ment of corporate debts.2'83All assets and propert& belon%in% to the corporation held in trust for the benefit of creditors that0ere distributed or in the possession of the stoc+holders, re%ardless of full pa&mentof their subscriptions, ma& be reached b& the creditor in satisfaction of its claim. Also, under the trust fund doctrine,a corporation has no le%al capacit& to release an ori%inal subscriber to its capital stoc+ from the obli%ation of pa&in% for his shares, in 0hole or in part,2'63 0ithout a .aluable consideration,2'93 or fraudulentl&, to the preHudice of creditors.2'73-he creditor is allo0ed to maintain an action upon an& unpaid subscriptions and thereb& steps into the shoes of the corporation for the satisfaction of its debt.21(3-o ma+e out a pri$a facie case in a suit a%ainst stoc+holders of an insol.ent corporation to compel them to contribute to the pa&ment of its debts b& ma+in% %ood unpaid balances upon their subscriptions, it is onl& necessar& to establish that thestoc+holders ha.e not in %ood faith paid the par .alue of the stoc+s of the corporation.21*3 -he petitionerposits that the findin% of irre%ularit& attendin% the issuance of the receipts 4ORs5 issued to the other stoc+holdersPsubscribers should not affect her becauseher receipt did not suffer similar irre%ularit&. "ot0ithstandin% that the R-C and the CA did not find an& irre%ularit& in the OR issued in her fa.or,0e still cannot sustain the petitionerIs defense of full pa&ment of her subscription.

In ci.il cases, thepart& 0ho pleads pa&ment has the burden of pro.in% it, that e.en 0here the plaintiff must alle%e nonpa&ment, the %eneral rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to pro.e pa&ment, rather than on the plaintiff to pro.e nonpa&ment. In other 0ords, the debtor bears the burden of sho0in% 0ith le%al certaint& that the obli%ation has been dischar%ed b& pa&ment.21)3 Apparentl&, the petitioner failed to dischar%e her burden. A receipt is the 0ritten ac+no0led%ment of the fact of pa&ment in mone& or other settlement bet0een the seller and the bu&er of %oods, thedebtor or thecreditor, or theperson renderin% ser.ices, and theclient or thecustomer. 21'3 Althou%ha receipt is the best e.idence of the fact of pa&ment, it isnot conclusi.e, but merel& presumpti.eCnor is it e,clusi.e e.idence,considerin% thatparole e.idence ma& also establishthe fact of pa&ment.2113 -he petitionerIs OR"o. ))6,presentedto pro.e the pa&ment of the balance of her subscription, indicated that her supposed pa&ment had beenmade b& means of a chec+. -hus, to dischar%e theburden to pro.e pa&ment of her subscription, she had to adduce e.idence satisfactoril& pro.in% that her pa&ment b& chec+ 0asre%ardedas pa&ment under the la0. Pa&mentis defined as the deli.er& of mone&.21;3>et, because a chec+ is not mone& and onl& substitutes for mone&, the deli.er& of a chec+ does not operate as pa&ment and does not dischar%e the obli%ation under a Hud%ment.2183 -he deli.er& of a bill of e,chan%e onl& produces the fact of pa&ment 0hen the bill has been encashed.2163-he follo0in% passa%e fromBank of Philippine Islands v. o,eca2193is enli%htenin%:
Settled is the rule that pa&ment must be made in le%al tender. A !) !4 &# not % '+% t n" , +n", t) , (o, , !+nnot !on#t&t$t + *+%&" t n" , o( -+.2 nt. S&n! + n 'ot&+/% &n#t,$2 nt &# on%. + #$/#t&t$t (o, 2on . +n" not 2on ., t) " %&* ,. o( #$!) +n &n#t,$2 nt "o # not, /. &t# %(, o- ,+t +# -+.2 nt. M , " %&* ,. o( !) !4# "o # not "&#!)+,' t) o/%&'+t&on $n" , + 0$"'2 nt. T) o/%&'+t&on &# not 5t&n'$&#) " +n" , 2+&n# #$#- n" " $nt&% t) -+.2 nt /. !o22 ,!&+% "o!$2 nt &# +!t$+%%. , +%&6 ".

To #t+/%&#) t) &, " ( n# , t) , #-on" nt# t) , (o, )+" to -, # nt -,oo(, not on%. t)+t t) . " %&* , " t) !) !4# to t) - t&t&on ,, /$t +%#o t)+t t) !) !4# 7 , n!+#) ". -he respondents failed to do so. H+" t) !) !4# / n +!t$+%%. n!+#) ", t) , #-on" nt# !o$%" )+* +#&%. -,o"$! " t) !+n! %% " !) !4# +# *&" n! to -,o* t) #+2 . In#t +", t) . 2 , %. +* ,, " t)+t t) . / %& * " &n 'oo" (+&t) t)+t t) !) !4# 7 , n!+#) " / !+$# t) . 7 , not not&(& " o( t) "&#)ono, o( t) !) !4# +n" t), . +,# )+" +%, +". %+-# " #&n! t) . &##$ " t) !) !4#. !ecause of this failure of the respondents to present sufficient proof of pa&ment, it 0as no lon%er necessar& for the petitioner to pro.e non-pa&ment, particularl& proof that the chec+s 0ere dishonored. -he burden of e.idence is shifted onl& if the part& upon 0hom it is lod%ed 0as able to adduce preponderant e.idence to pro.e its claim.

Ostensibl&, therefore, the petitionerIs mere submission of the receipt issued in e,chan%e of the chec+ did not satisfactoril& establish her alle%ation of full pa&ment of her subscription. Indeed, she could not e.en inform the trial court about the identit& of her dra0ee ban+,2173and about 0hether the chec+ 0as cleared and its amount paid to !MPI.2;(3In fact, she did not present the chec+ itself. -heincome ta, return 4I-R5 and statement of assets and liabilities of !MPI, albeit presented, had no bearin% on the issue of pa&ment of the subscription because the& did not b& themsel.es pro.e pa&ment. I-Rsestablish ata,pa&erIs liabilit& for ta,es or a ta,pa&erIs claim for refund. In the same manner, the deposit slips and entries in the passboo+ issued in the name of !MPI 0ere hardl& rele.ant due to their not reflectin% the alle%ed pa&ments. It is notable, too, that the petitioner and her co-stoc+holders did not support their alle%ation of complete pa&ment of their respecti.e subscriptions 0ith the stoc+ and transfer boo+ of !MPI. Indeed, boo+s and records of a corporation 4includin% the stoc+ and transfer boo+5 are admissible in e.idence in fa.or of or a%ainst the corporation and its members to pro.e the corporate acts, its financial status and other matters 4li+e the status of the stoc+holders5, and are ordinaril& the best e.idence of corporate acts and proceedin%s. 2;*3Specificall&, a stoc+ and transfer boo+ is necessar& as a measure of precaution, e,pedienc&, and con.enience because it pro.ides the onl& certain and accurate method of establishin% the .arious corporate acts and transactions and of sho0in% the o0nership of stoc+ and li+e matters.2;)3-hat she tendered no e,planation 0h& the stoc+ and transfer boo+

0as not presented 0arrants the inference that the boo+ did not reflect the actual pa&ment of her subscription. "or did the petitioner present an& certificate of stoc+ issued b& !MPI to her. Such a certificate co.erin% her subscription mi%ht ha.e been a reliable e.idence of full pa&ment of the subscriptions, considerin% that under Section 8; of the Corporation Code a certificate of stoc+ issues onl& to a subscriber 0ho has full& paid his subscription. -he lac+ of an& e,planation for the absence of a stoc+ certificate in her fa.or li+e0ise 0arrants an unfa.orable inference on the issue of pa&ment. Lastl&, the petitioner maintains that both lo0er courts erred in rel&in% on the articles of incorporationas proof of the liabilities of the stoc+holders subscribin% to !MPIIs stoc+s, a.errin% that the articles of incorporationdid not reflect the latest subscription status of !MPI. Althou%h the articles of incorporation ma& possibl& reflect onl& the preincorporation status of a corporation, the lo0er courtsI reliance on that document to determine 0hether the ori%inal subscribersalread& full& paid their subscriptions or not 0as neither un0arranted nor erroneous. As earlier e,plained, the burden of establishin% the fact of full pa&ment belon%ed not to Print0ell e.en if it 0as the plaintiff, but to the stoc+holders li+e the petitioner 0ho, as the defendants, a.erredfull pa&ment of their subscriptions as a defense. -heir failure to substantiate their a.erment of full pa&ment, as 0ell as their failure to counter the reliance on the recitals found in the articles of incorporation simpl& meant their failure or inabilit& to satisfactoril& pro.e their defense of full pa&ment of the subscriptions. -o reiterate, the petitioner0as liablepursuant to the trust fund doctrine for the corporate obli%ation of !MPI b& .irtue of her subscription bein% still unpaid. Print0ell, as !MPIIs creditor,had a ri%ht to reachher unpaid subscription in satisfaction of its claim. IV L&+/&%&t. o( #to!4)o%" ,# (o, !o,-o,+t " /t# &#$to t) 5t nto( t) &, $n-+&" #$/#!,&-t&on

-he R-C declared the stoc+holders pro rata liable for the debt4based on the proportion to their shares in the capital stoc+ of !MPI5C and held the petitionerpersonall& liable onl&in the amount of P*17,7;;.8;. /e do not a%ree. -he R-C lac+ed the le%al and factual support for its proratin% the liabilit&. =ence, 0e need to modif& the e,tent of the petitionerIs personal liabilit& to Print0ell. -he pre.ailin% rule is that a stoc+holder is personall& liable for the financial obli%ations of the corporation to the extent of his unpaid subscription.2;'3In .ie0 ofthe petitionerIs unpaid subscription bein% 0orth P)8),;((.((, she0as liable up to that amount. Interest is also imposable on the unpaid obli%ation. Absent an& stipulation, interest is fi,ed at *)K per annu$ from the date the amended complaint 0as filed on @ebruar& 9, *77( until the obli%ation 4 i.e., to the e,tent of the petitionerIs personal liabilit& of P)8),;((.((5 is full& paid.2;13 Lastl&, 0e find no basis to%rant attorne&Is fees, the a0ard for 0hich must be supported b& findin%s of fact and of la0 as pro.ided under Article ))(9 of the Civil Code2;;3incorporated in the bod& of decision of the trial court. -he absence of the reQuisite findin%s from the R-C decision 0arrants the deletion of the attorne&Is fees. ACCORDINGLY, 0e den& the petition for re.ie0 on certiorariCand affirm 0ith modification the decision promul%ated on Au%ust *1, )(()b& orderin% the petitionerto pa& to Print0ell, Inc. the sum of P)8),;((.((, plus interest of *)K per annu$ to be computed from @ebruar& 9, *77( until full pa&ment. -he petitioner shall pa&cost of suit in this appeal. SO ORDERED.

L1CAS P. BERSAMIN Associate $ustice WE CONC1R:

CONCHITA CARPIOMORALES Associate $ustice Chairperson

ART1RO D. BRION Associate $ustice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA Associate $ustice

MARIA LO1RDES P. A. SERENO Associate $ustice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the abo.e <ecision had been reached in consultation before the case 0as assi%ned to the 0riter of the opinion of the CourtIs <i.ision.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate $ustice Chairperson

CERTI8ICATION Pursuant to Section *', Article #III of the Constitution, and the <i.ision ChairpersonIs Attestation, I certif& that the conclusions in the abo.e <ecision had been reached in consultation before the case 0as assi%ned to the 0riter of the opinion of the CourtIs <i.ision.

RENATO C. CORONA Chief $ustice

2*3

Penned b& Associate $ustice Mercedes Do:o-<adole, 0ith Associate $ustices Sal.ador $. #alde:, $r. and Amelita D. -olentino concurrin%, rollo, pp. '8-17. 2)3 ntitled Print#ell, Inc. v. Business 'edia Phils., Inc., *onnina C. -alle, and "i$on -alle,, oberto .. Cabrera, Jr., Albert +. /u, 0enaida .. /u, and izalino C. .ineza, rollo, pp. )))-)'(. 2'3 Id., p. *(7. 213 Records, pp. 8-6. 2;3 Id., pp. *)-*8. 283 Id., pp. );-)9. 263 Id., p. );'. 293 Id., p. );1. 273 Id., p. );;. 2*(3 Id., pp. );8-);7. 2**3 Id., pp. )8(-)8;. 2*)3 Id., pp. )88-)6). 2*'3 Id., pp. )6'-)68. 2*13 Id., pp. '87-'6(. 2*;3 Id., pp. '89-'87 2*83 Records, p. '6*. 2*63 ollo, p. 1;. 2*93 Id., pp. 18-16. 2*73 ollo, pp. 16-17. 2)(3 Section *1. "o decision shall be rendered b& an& court 0ithout e,pressin% therein clearl& and distinctl& the facts and the la0 on 0hich it is based. ,,, 2)*3 Section *. endition of 1ud($ents and final orders.JA Hud%ment or final order determinin% the merits of the case shall be in 0ritin% personall& and directl& prepared b& the Hud%e, #t+t&n' !% +,%. +n" "&#t&n!t%. t) (+!t# +n" t) %+7 on 7)&!) &t &# /+# ", si%ned b& him, and filed 0ith the cler+ of the court. 2))3 D.R. "o. 9*((8, Ma& *), *797, *6' SCRA ')1. 2)'3 ollo, p. )'. 2)13 See, for instance, Bank of the Philippine Islands v. 2eobrera , D.R. "o. *'6*16, $anuar& )7, )((), '6; SCRA 9*, 98 40here the Court declared that althou%h it 0as not %ood practice, there 0as nothin% ille%al in the act of the trial court completel& cop&in% the memorandum submitted b& a part& pro.ided that the decision clearl& and distinctl& stated sufficient findin%s of fact and the la0 on 0hich it 0as based5. 2);3 ollo, p. ;;.

2)83

Section ), Corporation CodeC Article 11 4'5, Civil CodeC Francisco 'otors Corporation v. Court of Appeals , D.R. "o. *((9*), $une );, *777, '(7 SCRA 6), 9). 2)63 Prudential Bank v. Alviar, D.R. "o. *;(*76, $ul& )9, )((;, 181 SCRA ';', '8)C 'artinez v. Court of Appeals, D.R. "o. *'*86', September *(, )((1, 1'9 SCRA *'(, *17-*;(. 2)93 2i(ht ail +ransit Authorit, v. .enus, Jr., D.R. "o. *8'69), March )1, )((8, 19; SCRA '8*, '6)C 34 +ransport, Inc. v. 2ata(, D.R. "o. *;;)*1, @ebruar& *', )((1, 1)) SCRA 879C "ecosa v. -eirs of 4r#in "uarez Francisco, D.R. "o. *8(('7, $une )7, )((1, 1'' SCRA )6'C5ochan v. /oun(, D.R. "o. *'*997, March *), )((*, ';1 SCRA )(6, )))C *evelop$ent Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , D.R. "o. **()(', Ma& 7, )((*, ';6 SCRA 8)8C *el osario v. !ational 2abor elations Co$$ission, D.R. "o. 9;1*8, $ul& )1, *77(, *96 SCRA 666, 69(. 2)73 "olidbank Corporation v. 'indanao Ferroallo, Corporation , D.R. "o. *;';';, $ul& )9, )((;, 181 SCRA 1(7, 1)1-1);C Construction 3 *evelop$ent Corporation of the Philippines v. Cuenca , D.R. "o. *8'79*, Au%ust *), )((;, 188 SCRA 6*1, 6)6C 'atu(uina Inte(rated )ood Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , D.R. "o. 79'*(, October )1, *778, )8' SCRA 17(, ;(7. 2'(3 Francisco 'otors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra, note )8. 2'*3 ollo, p. 1;. 2')3 1)A, /ords and Phrases, +rust Fund *octrine, p. 11;, citin% 'cIver v. /oun( -ard#are Co., ;6 S. . *87, *6*, *11 ".C. 169, **7 Am. St. Rep. 76(C 5alla(her v. Asphalt Co. of A$erica, ;; A. );7, )8), 8; ".$. Q. );9. 2''3 ' Mason '(9, @ed Cas. "o. *6, 711. 2'13 11 Phil 187 4*7)'5. 2';3 Id., p. 16(. 2'83 #illanue.a, Philippine Corporate 2a# 4)((*5, pp. ;;9, citin% Chica(o ock Island 3 Pac. . . Co. v. -o#ard, 6 )all., '7), *7 L. d. **6C "a#,er v. -oa(, *6 /all 8*(, )* L. d. 6'*C and Pull$an v. 7pton, 78 A.S. ')9, )1 L. d. 9*9. 2'63 .elasco v. Poizat, '6 Phil 9(), 9(9 4*7*95. 2'93 Philippine +rust v. ivera, supra, note '1, pp. 16(-16*. 2'73 Fo(( v. Blair, *'7 AS **9 4*97*5. 21(3 See .elasco v. Poizat, '6 Phil 9(), 9(8 4*7*95. 21*3 +ierne, v. 2edden, *)* "/ *(;(. 21)3 Alonzo v. "an Juan, D.R. "o. *'6;17, @ebruar& **, )((;, 1;* SCRA 1;, ;;-;8C 7nion efiner, Corporation v. +olentino, "r., D.R. "o. *;;8;', September '(, )((;, 16* SCRA 8*', 8)*. 21'3 Co$$issioner of Internal evenue v. 'anila 'inin( Corporation , D.R. "o. *;')(1, Au%ust '*, )((;, 189 SCRA ;6*, ;7(. 2113 Philippine !ational Bank v. Court of Appeals , D.R. "o. **8*9*, April *6, *778, );8 SCRA 17*, '';''8C +o#ne 3 Cit, *evelop$ent Corporation v. Court of Appeals , D.R. "o. *';(1', $ul& *1, )((1, 1'1 SCRA ';8, '8*-'8). 21;3 Art. *)'), Civil Code. 2183 Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, D.R. "o. 17*99, $anuar& '(, *77(, *9* SCRA ;;6, ;89. 2163 Art. *)17, Civil Code. 2193 D.R. "o. *68881, $ul& )*, )((9, ;;7 SCRA )(6, )*6-)*7 4underscorin% supplied for emphasis5. 2173 See -S" dated "o.ember 8, *77*, p. 1. 2;(3 -S" dated "o.ember 8, *77*, p. 1. 2;*3 Biton( v. Court of Appeals 8Fifth *ivision9, D.R. "o. *)';;', $ul& *', *779, )7) SCRA ;(', ;)'. 2;)3 2anuza v. Court of Appeals, D.R. "o. *'*'71, March )9, )((;, 1;1 SCRA ;1, 86. 2;'3 4d#ard A. %eller 3 Co., 2td., v. C&B 5roup 'arketin(, Inc., D.R. "o. L-897(6, $anuar& *8, *798, *1* SCRA 98, 7' citin% .da. *e "alvatierra v. -on. 5arlitos etc, and efuerzo, *(' Phil, 6;6, 68' 4*7;95. 2;13 See 4astern "hippin( 2ines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, D.R. "o. 761*), $ul& *), *771, )'1 SCRA 69. 2;;3 Bun,i v. Factor, D.R. "o. *6);16, $une '(, )((7, ;7* SCRA ';(, '8' : 2apanda, A(ricultural and *evelop$ent Corporation 82A*4C&9 v. An(ala, D.R. "o. *;'(68, $une )*, )((6, ;); SCRA ))7C Pa1u,o v. Court of Appeals, D.R. "o. *18'81, $une ', )((1, 1'( SCRA 17), ;)1.