Stonehill v.

Diokno Digest
Stonehill v. Diokno
20 SCRA 283 (1967)
Concepcion, CJ

Facts:
1. Respondent (porsecution) made possible the issuance of 42 search warrants against the petitioner and
the corporation to search persons and premises of several personal properties due to an alleged violation
of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Custom Laws, Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines. As a results, search and seizures were conducted in the both the residence of the petitioner
and in the corporation's premises.

2.The petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and void as their issuance violated the
Constitution and the Rules of Court for being general warrants. Thus,he filed a petition with the Supreme
Court for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction to prevent the seized effects from being
introduced as evidence in the deportation cases against the petitioner. The court issued the writ only for
those effects found in the petitioner's residence.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can validly assail the legality of the search and seizure
in both premises

RULING: No, he can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the
corporation's premises. The petitioner has no cause of action in the second situation since a corporation
has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its officers or herein petitioner regardless of
the amount of shares of stock or interest of each in the said corporation, and whatever office they hold
therein. Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a purely
personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party. The right to object belongs to the corporation (
for the 1st group of documents, papers, and things seized from the offices and the premises).