power over an employment contract executed in a foreign country. If Santos were an overseas contract worker, a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him.[39] He is not an overseas contract worker a fact which he admits with conviction.[40] Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum, even on the merits, the NLRCs decision cannot be sustained. II. MHC Not Liable Even if we assume two things: (1) that the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case, and (2) that MHICL was liable for Santos retrenchment, still MHC, as a separate and distinct juridical entity cannot be held liable. True, MHC is an incorporator of MHICL and owns fifty percent (50%) of its capital stock. However, this is not enough to pierce the veil of corporate fiction between MHICL and MHC. Piercing the veil of corporate entity is an equitable remedy. It is resorted to when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend a crime.[41] It is done only when a corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or another corporation. In Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals,[42] we held that the mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities. The tests in determining whether the corporate veil may be pierced are: First, the defendant must have control or complete domination of the other corporations finances, policy and business practices with regard to the transaction attacked. There must be proof that the other corporation had no separate mind, will or existence with respect the act complained of. Second, control must be used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong. Third, the aforesaid control or breach of duty must be the proximate cause of the injury or loss complained of. The absence of any of the elements prevents the piercing of the corporate veil.[43] It is basic that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related.[44] Clear and convincing evidence is needed to pierce the veil of corporate fiction.[45] In this case, we find no evidence to show that MHICL and MHC are one and the same entity. III. MHICL not Liable Respondent Santos predicates MHICLs liability on the fact that MHICL signed his employment contract with the Palace Hotel. This fact fails to persuade us. First, we note that the Vice President (Operations and Development) of MHICL, Miguel D. Cergueda signed the employment contract as a mere witness. He merely signed under the word noted.