Stronghold Insurance v Cuenca

15 •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

 

STRO STRONG NGHO HOLD LD INS INSURA URANC NCE E COMP COMPA ANY v CUE CUENCA NCA,, TAY TAYACTA CTAC, and and MARA MARANON NON

Maranon filed for collection of a sum of money and damages against the Cuencas. The complaint prayed for a writ of preliminary attachment RTC granted attachment, conditioned upon posting of a P1M bond. The complaint was amended to implead an additional defendant, Tayactac Tayactac Maranon posted the P1M bond issued by Stronghold Insurance.  days later, RTC issued the attachment. The sheriff ser!ed it upon the Cuencas on the same day. Tayact Tayactac ac was also ser!ed. The sheriff hen enf!r"ed he aa"h#en, $ev%in& '(!n he e)'i(#en and #aeria$s *e$!n&in& ! Ar" C'isine ha +ere f!'nd in he $eased "!r(!rae !ffi"e !r i"hen !f he "!r(!rai!n- Sheriff "!r(!rai!n- Sheriff filed a motion to transfer the properties to a safe place, which RTC granted. Cuencas and Tayactac Tayactac filed a Motion to "ismiss and to #uash $rit of %ttachment on the ground that the action in!ol!ed intra&corporate matters within the original and e'clusi!e (urisdiction of S)C RTC denied the motions, stating that the action for reco!ery of a sum of money and damages was well within its (urisdiction Cuencas and Tayactac Tayactac went to C% on certiorari* C% granted the certiorari and remanded to the RTC Cuenca and Tayactac+s Tayactac+s claim for damages sustained from the enforcement of the attachment n the scheduled in!entory of the properties, and to comply with the C% resolution ordering the deli!ery of the attached properties to defendants& Sheriff went with the counsels of Cuenca to the warehouse where Maranon recommended the properties for safeeeping & Said warehouse is now tenanted by a new lessee and the properties were gone RTC. Stronghold and Maranon held (ointly and solidarily liable for damages to the respondents CA.  %ffirmed ISSUE. $hether such attachment of the stocholders+ properties were proper. HELD. NO- There is no dispute that the properties sub(ect to the le!y on attachment belonged to %rc Cuisine, Inc. alone, not to the Cuencas a nd Tayactac Tayactac in their own right. They were only stocholders of %rc Cuisine, Inc., which had a personality distinct and separate from that of any or all of them. The damages occasioned to the properties by the le!y on attachment, wrongful or not, pre(udiced %rc Cuisine, Inc., not them. %s such, only %rc %rc Cuisine, Inc. had the right u nder the substanti!e law to claim and reco!er such damages. This right could not also be asserted by the Cuencas and Tayactac Tayactac unless they did so in the name of the corporation itself. /ut that did not happen herein, because %rc Cuisine was not e!en (oined in the action either as an original party or as an inter!enor. Corporate personality is distinct & separate from the personalities of its stockholders. Hence, its stockholders are not themselves the real parties in interest to claim and recover compensation for damages arising from the wrongful attachment of its assets. Only the corp. is the real party in interest for that purpose. The Cuencas and Tayactac Tayactac were clearly not !ested with any direct interest in the personal properties coming under the le!y on attachment by !irtue alone of their being stocholders in %rc Cuisine, Inc. Their stocholdings represented only their proportionate or al i0uot interest in the properties of the corporation, but did not !est in them any legal right or title to any specific properties of the corporation. $ithout doubt, %rc Cuisine, Inc. remained the owner as a distinct legal person. i!en the separate and distinct legal personality of %rc Cuisine, Inc., the Cuencas and Tayactac Tayactac laced the legal personality to claim the damages sustained from the le!y of the former2 s properties. Court R%3TS the petition for re!iew* and R)4)RS)S and S)TS %SI") %SI") the decision of the C%