CASE 1:

Roberto C. Sicam and Agencia de R.C. Sicam Inc

vs. Lulu Jorge and Cesar Jorge

G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007

Facts: Lulu Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R.C. Sicam to secure a loan in the total amount of P59,500.00 on different dates from September to October 1987. The pawnshop receipts issued to Lulu Jorge bear the words "Agencia de R. C. Sicam," thus indicating that the pawnshop was owned by Roberto C. Sicam. On October 19 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took whatever cash and jewelry that were found in the pawnshop vault being informed of the loss of the jewelry, Lulu V. Jorge requested Roberto Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal the former failed to return the jewelry. Thus, Lulu Jorge and her husband Cesar filed a complaint against Sicam seeking, among other reliefs, indemnification for the loss of the pawned jewelry In his answer, Sicam alleged, among other defenses, that he was not the real-party-in-interest, as the pawnshop was incorporated on April 20, 1987, and that being so, he was not liable as the corporation had a separate personality of its own. Is Roberto C. Sicam correct?Explain why or why not

CASE 2:

ABC Factory Corporation (ABC), owned by Mr. SS, owed its workers. Then, it ceased operations. The following day, ABC was succeeded by, and its assets were turned over to, DEF Factory Corporation (DEF), 90% of the subscribed shares were also owned by Mr. SS. The workers of ABC sue DEF for the payment of claims.DEF raises the defense has a personality separate and distinct from ABC.

Decide if DEF is liable. Explain why or why not