Practice question
A worker obtains a judgment against Corporation A, then seeks levy on Corporation B solely through a postjudgment motion. B was never impleaded or properly subjected to jurisdiction and disputes being an alter ego. The worker says piercing can create the missing jurisdiction. Under Kukan, which is correct?
- The doctrine cannot bypass the missing jurisdiction and due process
- A postjudgment allegation always binds every new corporation
- The worker’s judgment necessarily names B retroactively
- B’s property is automatically A’s property
- Disputing levy concedes every liability claim
Legal references
- Maricalum Mining v Florentino GR221813 July23,2018 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/jul2018/gr_221813_2018.html Transaction-specific domination and Nell asset-transfer exceptions.
- Kukan International v Reyes GR182729 September29,2010 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_182729_2010.html Jurisdiction and due process distinct from veil-piercing liability.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.