This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[49] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in the case at bench, the records do not warrant an application of the exception. The rule, which requires the presence of malice or bad faith, must still prevail. In the recent case of Wensha Spa Center and/or Xu Zhi Jie v. Yung,[30] the Court absolved the corporation's president from liability in the absence of bad faith or malice. In the said case, the Court stated: In labor cases, corporate directors and officers may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment only if done with malice or in bad faith.[31] Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[32] | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the personal liability of Hartmannshenn and Schumacher, this Court has held that corporate directors and officers are only solidarily liable with the corporation for termination of employment of corporate employees if effected with malice or in bad faith. [32] Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of unknown duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[33] To sustain such a finding, there should be evidence on record that an officer or director acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the employee.[34] | |||||