<![CDATA[The expansion of corporate business activities through branch offices has increased the potential for consumer disputes, particularly when corporate officials abuse their authority in commercial transactions. This condition raises legal issues concerning the limits of corporate civil liability and the legal basis for imposing joint and several liability. This study aims to analyze the legal reasoning of judges in imposing joint and several civil liability on a corporation and its branch manager in the Decision of the Bale Bandung District Court Number 146/Pdt.G/2025/PN.Blb. The analysis employs the Theory of Legal Liability and the Organ Theory as analytical frameworks to evaluate the appropriateness of the court's ratio decidendi. This research is normative legal research using a case approach, a statutory approach, and a conceptual approach. The findings indicate that imposing civil liability on PT. Amarta Sayap Merah was legally justified because the legal relationship with consumers arose through the branch manager acting within the scope of his authority by using the corporation's identity, authority, and facilities. However, the court's ratio decidendi failed to provide sufficient normative and doctrinal justification for imposing joint and several liability on both the corporation and the branch manager. This study concludes that corporate liability is not automatically equivalent to joint and several liability. Therefore, judges should provide more comprehensive legal reasoning to distinguish the basis of corporate liability from the form of liability imposed in order to ensure legal certainty and consistency in judicial decisions.]]>
