13. Which of the following statements is true in applying the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction?

a. Corporate insiders (stockholders, directors, officers) can invoke the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction to pierce the veil of the corporation where they are insiders.

b. Even a single circumstance can be the basis for piercing the veil of corporate fiction in the case purely alter-ego piercing.

c. The doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction cannot be used under any circumstances to hold a corporation liable for the obligations of the stockholders, directors and officers.

d. If the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is not applied, the officers of the corporation cannot be held personally liable for their acts as such officers.

14. Which of the following statements is true in applying the trust fund doctrine?

a. The trust fund doctrine only applies if a corporation has corporate creditors; otherwise, it has no application whatsoever.

b. The trust fund doctrine only reserves an amount corresponding to the outstanding capital stock of a corporation.

c. The trust fund doctrine applies whether or not a corporation is insolvent

d. The trust fund doctrine does not apply if a corporation is not yet incorporated or is already

dissolved

15. Which of the following statements is true in applying the corporation by estoppel doctrine?

a. Corporate insiders (would be stockholders, directors, officers) cannot invoke corporation by estoppel doctrine with respect to dealings they have with the ostensible corporation.

b. Notwithstanding that a corporation is eventually incorporated; the acts performed by the incorporators while the application for incorporation is pending will be governed by the corporation by estoppel doctrine.

c. All persons who are associated with the ostensible corporation shall be liable as general partners under the corporation by estoppel doctrine.

d. Only persons who actively represent themselves and act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do shall shall be liable as general partners under the corporation by estoppel doctrine.

16. Iglesia ng Dios Kay CristoJesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan is a non-stock religious corporation registered in 1936. A group headed by Eliseo Soriano disassociated themselves from such society and succeeded in registering in March 1977, a new religious corporation named Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan. When the first corporation filed a protest with teh SEC against the use of a similar name by the second corporation, the Soriano group caused the registration in April 1980 of a new corporation named Ang Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K., sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc. Can the second corporation keep its registered name against the protest of the first corporation?

a. No, since the SEC has the authority to de-register at all times corporate names to spawn confusion.

b. Yes, since the second corporation was already registered with the SEC. A vested right was created.

c. Yes, since a corporate personality was created distinct from the first corporation having different incorporators.

d. NO, since it registered another corporation under a different name to avoid confusion.

17. Francisco, a government employee, borrowed money from GSIS, secured by a mortgage on her house. Upon failure to pay the instalments due, GSIS threatened to foreclose the security. Francisco answered that she could not keep up with the installments and she submitted a proposal whereby shoe could liquidate the debt. Said proposal was rejected by the GSIS Board. However, the Corporate Secretary erroneously sent her a wire that the proposal was accepted. Subsequently, when she received summons for foreclosure, she brought action for damages. Is the Corporate Secretary's act binding upon GSIS?

a.Yes, since the Corporate Secretary is clothed with apparent authority.

b. No, since there was no Bard Resolution authorizing the Corporate Secretary to perform such act.

c. No, since the Board rejected the proposal.

d. Yes, since the Corporate Secretary is a member of the Board.

18. In the event a search warrant be issued for purposes of searching the premises of X Hospital which is owned and operated by XYZ Corporation, what ground can the latter raise to quash or cancel the search warrant?

a. XYZ Corporation, as a corporation, is entitled as a matter of Constitutional right to be free from any and all unreasonable searches and seizures.

b. XYZ Corporation, as a corporation, is entitled to invoke its constitutional right against self-incrimination.

c. XYZ Corporation cannot be guilty of a crime and cannot therefore be subject of a search warrant.

d. None, since XYZ Corporation has a separate and distinct personality from X Hospital.