Lawyerly

GR Nos. 205685-86

2015-06-22

EMMANUEL H. BERALDE v. LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL

PERALTA, J.

In spite of overwhelming support granted by the social justice provisions of our Constitution in favor of labor, the fundamental law itself guarantees, even during the process of tilting the scales of social justice towards workers and employees, "the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of investment and to expansion and growth." To hold otherwise would not only be oppressive and inhuman, but also counter-productive and ultimately subversive of the nation's thrust towards a resurgence in our economy which would ultimately benefit the majority of our people. Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.[40]

GR No. 166282

2013-02-13

HEIRS OF FE TAN UY v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK

MENDOZA, J.

4. When a director, trustee or officer is made, by specific provision of law, personally liable for his corporate action.[26]

GR No. 181503

2009-09-18

BIO QUEST MARKETING INC. v. EDMUND REY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Retrenchment to avoid or minimize business losses is a justified ground to dismiss employees under Article 283 of the Labor Code. The employer, however, bears the burden to prove such ground with clear and satisfactory evidence, failing which the dismissal on such ground is unjustified.[17] In discharging its burden, the employer must satisfy certain established standards, all of which must concur,[18] viz: That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;

GR No. 178505

2008-09-30

CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Finally, unless they have exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule, not personally liable for their official acts, because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members. Although as an exception, corporate directors and officers are solidarily held liable with the corporation, where terminations of employment are done with malice or in bad faith,[33] in the absence of evidence that they acted with malice or bad faith herein, the Court exempts the individual respondents, Leo Rabang and Jane Navarette, from any personal liability for the illegal dismissal of petitioners.

GR No. 163210

2008-08-13

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.[26] Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.[27] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[28] Thus, even though technical rules of evidence are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, their decision must be based on evidence that must, at the very least, be substantial.[29]

GR No. 164624

2008-08-11

SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES v. PIGLAS KAMAO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In the case of Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[80] this Court affirmed the finding of the NLRC as to the kind of evidence needed to prove irreversible loss:We observe that the basis of the Labor Arbiter in sustaining the argument of financial reverses is the Statement of Profit and Losses submitted by respondent employer. The same, however, does not bear the signature of a certified public accountant or audited by an independent auditor. Briefly stated, it has no evidentiary value.[81] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 178083

2008-07-23

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The law recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability.[40] Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.[41]

GR No. 172363

2008-03-07

JUVY M. MANATAD v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The law recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability. In spite of overwhelming support granted by the social justice provisions of our Constitution in favor of labor, the fundamental law itself guarantees, even during the process of tilting the scales of social justice towards workers and employees, "the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of investment and to expansion and growth." To hold otherwise would not only be oppressive and inhuman, but also counter-productive and ultimately subversive of the nation's thrust towards a resurgence in our economy which would ultimately benefit the majority of our people. Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.[28]

GR No. 170735

2007-12-17

IMMACULADA L. GARCIA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION LEGAL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

SEC. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. - Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors, or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons. Basic is the rule that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. A corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it. Following this, the general rule applied is that obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers and employees, are its sole liabilities.[30] A director, officer, and employee of a corporation are generally not held personally liable for obligations incurred by the corporation.

GR NO. 157851

2007-06-29

ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA

NACHURA, J.

Next, settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that a corporation is vested by law with a legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it.[46]

GR NO. 169494

2007-03-14

CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In IBM Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC,[23] this Court clarified that the liberality in administrative procedure "does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative value." And in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[24] it held:x x x It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in the proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR Nos. 164684-85

2005-11-11

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Thus, in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[45] the Court elucidated the extent of the liberality of procedure in administrative actions:... It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. ...[46]

GR No. 162472

2005-07-28

KAY PRODUCTS v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Petitioner Kay Lee, as the president, actively managed the business of KPI. In fact, she was the one who decided the private respondents' transfer to the employment agencies, and signed the memoranda ordering such transfer, in bad faith, as earlier discussed. In labor cases, particularly, corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of corporate employees done with malice or in bad faith.[30] In fact, in Naguiat v. NLRC,[31] the Court held that the president of a corporation, who actively manages the business, falls within the meaning of an "employer" as contemplated by the Labor Code, and may be held jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the corporation to its dismissed employees. Thus, in the present case, petitioners Kay Lee and KPI are jointly and severally liable for the latter's obligations to the private respondents.

	GR Nos. 205685-86 2015-06-22	EMMANUEL H. BERALDE v. LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL PERALTA, J.
In spite of overwhelming support granted by the social justice provisions of our Constitution in favor of labor, the fundamental law itself guarantees, even during the process of tilting the scales of social justice towards workers and employees, "the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of investment and to expansion and growth." To hold otherwise would not only be oppressive and inhuman, but also counter-productive and ultimately subversive of the nation's thrust towards a resurgence in our economy which would ultimately benefit the majority of our people. Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.[40]
	GR No. 166282 2013-02-13	HEIRS OF FE TAN UY v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK MENDOZA, J.
4. When a director, trustee or officer is made, by specific provision of law, personally liable for his corporate action.[26]
	GR No. 181503 2009-09-18	BIO QUEST MARKETING INC. v. EDMUND REY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Retrenchment to avoid or minimize business losses is a justified ground to dismiss employees under Article 283 of the Labor Code. The employer, however, bears the burden to prove such ground with clear and satisfactory evidence, failing which the dismissal on such ground is unjustified.[17] In discharging its burden, the employer must satisfy certain established standards, all of which must concur,[18] viz: That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;
	GR No. 178505 2008-09-30	CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, unless they have exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule, not personally liable for their official acts, because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members. Although as an exception, corporate directors and officers are solidarily held liable with the corporation, where terminations of employment are done with malice or in bad faith,[33] in the absence of evidence that they acted with malice or bad faith herein, the Court exempts the individual respondents, Leo Rabang and Jane Navarette, from any personal liability for the illegal dismissal of petitioners.
	GR No. 163210 2008-08-13	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.[26] Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.[27] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[28] Thus, even though technical rules of evidence are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, their decision must be based on evidence that must, at the very least, be substantial.[29]
	GR No. 164624 2008-08-11	SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES v. PIGLAS KAMAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the case of Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[80] this Court affirmed the finding of the NLRC as to the kind of evidence needed to prove irreversible loss:We observe that the basis of the Labor Arbiter in sustaining the argument of financial reverses is the Statement of Profit and Losses submitted by respondent employer. The same, however, does not bear the signature of a certified public accountant or audited by an independent auditor. Briefly stated, it has no evidentiary value.[81] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 178083 2008-07-23	FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The law recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability.[40] Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.[41]
	GR No. 172363 2008-03-07	JUVY M. MANATAD v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability. In spite of overwhelming support granted by the social justice provisions of our Constitution in favor of labor, the fundamental law itself guarantees, even during the process of tilting the scales of social justice towards workers and employees, "the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of investment and to expansion and growth." To hold otherwise would not only be oppressive and inhuman, but also counter-productive and ultimately subversive of the nation's thrust towards a resurgence in our economy which would ultimately benefit the majority of our people. Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.[28]
	GR No. 170735 2007-12-17	IMMACULADA L. GARCIA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION LEGAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
SEC. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. - Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors, or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons. Basic is the rule that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. A corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it. Following this, the general rule applied is that obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers and employees, are its sole liabilities.[30] A director, officer, and employee of a corporation are generally not held personally liable for obligations incurred by the corporation.
	GR NO. 157851 2007-06-29	ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA NACHURA, J.
Next, settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that a corporation is vested by law with a legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it.[46]
	GR NO. 169494 2007-03-14	CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In IBM Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC,[23] this Court clarified that the liberality in administrative procedure "does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative value." And in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[24] it held:x x x It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in the proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Thus, in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,[45] the Court elucidated the extent of the liberality of procedure in administrative actions:... It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. ...[46]
	GR No. 162472 2005-07-28	KAY PRODUCTS v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner Kay Lee, as the president, actively managed the business of KPI. In fact, she was the one who decided the private respondents' transfer to the employment agencies, and signed the memoranda ordering such transfer, in bad faith, as earlier discussed. In labor cases, particularly, corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of corporate employees done with malice or in bad faith.[30] In fact, in Naguiat v. NLRC,[31] the Court held that the president of a corporation, who actively manages the business, falls within the meaning of an "employer" as contemplated by the Labor Code, and may be held jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the corporation to its dismissed employees. Thus, in the present case, petitioners Kay Lee and KPI are jointly and severally liable for the latter's obligations to the private respondents.

ELENA F. UICHICO v. NLRC