Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cruz v. Dalisay Digest
Cruz v. Dalisay Digest
R-181-P July 31, 1987 Fernan, J: Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. Malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and serious irregularities. Doctrine: A corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. Facts:
1. In a sworn complaint dated July 23, 1984, Adelio Cruz (complainant) charged Quiterio Dalisay (respondent),
Senior Deputy Sheriff of Manila, with malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and serious irregularities allegedly committed as follows:
a. Respondent attached and/or levied the money belonging to complainant Cruz when he was not
b. himself the judgment debtor in the final judgment of an NLRC case sought to be enforced but rather the company known as Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.. Respondent also caused the service of the alias writ of execution upon complainant who is a resident of Pasay City, despite knowledge that his territorial jurisdiction covers Manila only and does not extend to Pasay City.
2. In his Comment, respondent explained that when he garnished complainants cash deposit at the Philtrust
bank he was merely performing a ministerial duty. And that while it is true that said writ was addressed to Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., it is also a fact that complainant had executed an affidavit before the Pasay City assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/ president of Qualitrans. Because of that declaration, the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor case advised him to serve notice of garnishment on the Philtrust bank. 3. On November 12, 1984 this case was referred to the executive judge of the RTC of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation. However, prior to the termination of the proceedings, complainant executed an affidavit of desistance stating that he is no longer interested in prosecuting the case and that there was just a misunderstanding between complainant and respondent. 4. On May 29, 1986, acting on respondents motion the executive judge issued an order recommending the dismissal of the case. Issue: WON the complaint should be dismissed based on complainants motion of desistance. Held: NO Reason: 1. It has been held that desistance of complainant does not preclude the taking of disciplinary action against respondent. 2. Respondents actuation in enforcing a judgment against complainant who is not a judgment debtor in the case calls for disciplinary action. What is incumbent upon respondent is to ensure that only the portion of a decision ordained or decreed in the dispositive part should be the subject of the execution.
3. The tenor of the NLRC judgment and the implementing writ is clear enough. It directed Qualitrans Limousine
Service, inc., to reinstate the discharged employees and pay them full backwages. Respondent, however, choose to pierce the veil of corporate entity usurping a power belonging to the court and assumed improvidently that since the complainant is the owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., they are one and the same. It is a well settled doctrine both in law and equity that as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members.
4. The mere fact that one is president of the corporation does not render the property he owns or possesses
the property of the corporation, since that president, as an individual, and the corporation are separate entities. Decision: ACCORDINGLY, we find Respondent Deputy Sheriff Quiterio l. Dalisay NEGLIGENT in the enforcement of the writ of execution in NLRC Case No. 8-12389-91, and a fine equivalent to 3 months salary is hereby imposed with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future will merit a heavier penalty. Let a copy of the Resolution be filed in the personal record of the respondent.