View full case

GOLD LINE TOURS v. HEIRS OF MARIA CONCEPCION LACSA

FACTS:

The case involves a suit filed by the heirs of Concepcion Lacsa against Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. and its driver, Rene Abania, for damages arising from a bus accident that resulted in Lacsa's death. The collision occurred when the Goldline bus, owned and operated by Travel & Tours Advisers, collided with a passenger jeepney. Upon impact, a metal part of the jeepney struck Concepcion Lacsa in the chest, causing her immediate death.

The plaintiffs alleged that the accident was due to the reckless and imprudent manner of driving by Abania. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the driver of the jeepney and its operator were at fault for the collision. They also brought a third-party complaint against the jeepney's operator.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. to pay damages to the heirs of Concepcion Lacsa. The court found that a contract of carriage had been established between the company and the deceased, placing a duty on the company to safely transport Lacsa to her destination. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but their appeal was dismissed due to their failure to pay the required fees on time.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the RTC's decision. The writ was granted, and a tourist bus owned by Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. was levied by the sheriff. However, petitioner, who claimed to be a separate and distinct corporation from Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc., filed a verified third-party claim to have the bus returned to them.

Petitioner argued that it had not been made a party to the original case and that it was a separate corporation from Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. The respondents opposed the third-party claim, asserting that petitioner's Articles of Incorporation had been amended shortly after the filing of the original case.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the CA rightly find and conclude that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's verified third-party claim?

  2. s Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. and Gold Line Tours, Inc. one and the same entity?

RULING:

  1. The Court finds no reason to reverse the assailed CA decision. The RTC properly denied petitioner's third-party claim based on the evidence presented, which showed that petitioner and Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. were one and the same entity. The RTC's finding was affirmed by the CA, and there is no grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

  2. Yes, Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. and Gold Line Tours, Inc. are considered one and the same entity. The court ruled that a corporation's separate and distinct personality should not be used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. The court relied on evidence presented during the trial, including documents showing that William Cheng, the operator of Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc., was also the President/Manager and an incorporator of Gold Line Tours, Inc. The court also noted that Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. had been known in Sorsogon as Goldline, and that the buses used by Gold Line Tours, Inc. were Goldline buses. Therefore, the court upheld the levy of the bus in question and rejected the petitioner's claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish its identity with Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. The court emphasized that a petition for certiorari must show not just reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court. In this case, the court found that the RTC had not committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the petitioner's third-party claim.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The identity of corporations can be determined by examining the individuals involved and their roles in both entities.

  • A third-party claim may be denied if there is evidence to show that the third party and the defendant corporation are actually the same entity.

  • The doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity can be applied if there is an attempt to defraud or mislead creditors.