Guillermo v. Uson •
Uson: acctg clerk of Royal Class
•
Venture since 3/96; promoted to acctg supervisor (!3"/mo#; dismissed on !$/$%%% &iled complaint for 'llegal ismissal RCV did not make appearance despite
•
summons )* (+ose e Vera#: Vera#: decision in f avor of
•
• •
• •
Uson; reinstatement, -., !3t mo pay, moral and e0emplary damages RCV did not appeal .rit of 10ecution 2as filed unsatisfied *lias .o1 unsatisfied $nd *lis .o14 also unsatisfied o .en seriff 2ent to 5usiness
o
office address of RCV, esta5lisment 2as not in te name of resp 5ut in +1) and 787 CR (family corp o2ned 5y uillermos; +ose uillermo (en gr# rcvd te 2rit saying is name 2as +oey, 5roter of +ose 7ecurity guard told serrif tat
•
+oey and +ose are one and te same *nd tat corp (RCV# ad already 5een dissolved Uson filed a otion for *lias .rit of
•
10ecution and to
e order eld tat officers of a corporation are ?ointly and severally lia5le for te o5ligations of te corporation to te employees and tere is no denial of due process in olding tem so even if te said officers 2ere not parties to te case 2en te ?udgment in favor of te employees 2as rendered rendered !6 >us, te )a5or *r5iter pierced te veil of corporate fiction of Royal Class Venture and eld erein petitioner +ose 1mmanuel uillermo (uillermo#, in is personal capacity, ?ointly and severally lia5le 2it te corporation for te enforcement of te claims ofUson
•
• •
•
uillermo filed R 8ot granted 5y ne2 )* Castigated for is a5sence )*: granted Uson@s motion for *.o1 8)RC: denied @s appeal C*: eld lia5le, also court dismissed Guillermo's allegation that the case is an intra-corporate controversy, stating that jurisdiction is is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought uillenno assails te so4called Apiercing te veilA of corporate fiction 2ic allegedly discriminated against im 2en e alone 2as 5elatedly impleaded despite te e0istence of oter directors and officers in Royal Royal Class Venture B%
! 2ete 2eterr an office officerr of a corpor corporati ation on may may 5e included as ?udgment o5ligor in a la5or case for te first time only only after te decision of te )a5or *r5iter ad 5ecome final and e0ecutory $ 2eter 2eter te t2in doctrine doctrines s of of Apierci Apiercing ng te veil of corporate fictionA and personal lia5ility of company officers in la5or cases apply 1>'>'8 18'1 *s for uillermos assertion tat te case is an intra4corporate controversy, controversy, te Court sustains te finding of te appellate court tat te nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein therein D! *ltoug Uson is also a stockolder and director of Royal Class Venture, it is settled in ?urisprudence tat not all conflicts between a
stocholder and the corporation are intracorporate; an e0amination of te complaint must 5e made on whether the complainant is involved in his capacity as a stocholder or director, or as an employee $% &f the latter is found and the dispute does not meet the test of what ualifies as an intracorporate controversy, then the case is a labor case cogni(able by the )L!" and is not within the jurisdiction of any other tribunal.$* Usons allegation 2as tat e 2as maliciously and illegally dismissed as an *ccounting 7upervisor 5y uillermo, te Company resident and eneral anager, an allegation tat 2as not even disputed 't raised no intra4corporate relationsip issues 5et2een im and te corporation or uillermo; neiter did it raise any issue regarding te regulation of te corporation >us, te matter is clearly a la5or dispute cogniEa5le 5y te la5or tri5unals
Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations, AC Ransom Labor Union v. NLRC, persons 2o 2ere not originally impleaded in te • •
•
case 2ere, even during e0ecution, eld to 5e solidarily lia5le 2it te employer
•
corporation for te latters unpaid o5ligations to complainant4employees
Naguiat v. NLRC president of te corporation 2as found, for te first time on appeal, to 5e • •
•
solidarily lia5le to te dismissed employees
Reynoso v. CA suc corporation ad dominant control of te original party • •
•
corporation, 2ic 2as a smaller company, in suc a manner tat te
•
latters closure 2as done 5y te former in order to defraud its creditors, including a former 2orker
ersonal lia5ility attaces only 2en, as enumerated 5y te said 7ection 3! of te
Corporation Code, tere is a 2ilfull and kno2ing assent to patently unla2ful acts of te corporation, tere is gross negligence or 5ad fait in directing te affairs of te corporation, or tere is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to te corporation te doctrine of piercing te corporate veil is eld to apply only in tree (3# 5asic areas, namely: ( !# defeat of pu5lic convenience as 2en te corporate fiction is used as a veicle for te evasion of an e0isting o5ligation; ($# fraud cases or 2en te corporate entity is used to ?ustify a 2rong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; or (3# alter ego cases, 2ere a corporation is merely a f arce since it is a mere alter ego or 5usiness conduit of a person, or 2ere te corporation is so organiEed and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or ad?unct of anoter corporation 'n te a5sence of malice, 5ad fait, or a specific provision of la2 making ei corporate officer lia5le, suc corporate officer cannot 5e made personally lia5le for corporate lia5ilities only te Aresponsi5le officer,A i.e., te person directly responsi5le for and 2o Aacted in 5ad faitA in committing te illegal dismissal or any act violative of te )a5or Code, is eld solidarily lia5le, a finding of personal and solidary lia5ility against a corporate officer like uillermo must 5e rooted on a satisfactory so2ing of fraud, 5ad fait or malice, or te presence of any of te ?ustifications for disregarding te corporate fiction444 +U) /0&1 >e statement is proof tat uillermo 2as te responsi5le officer in carge of running te company as 2ell as te one 2o dismissed Uson from employment *s tis s2orn allegation is uncontroverted 4 as neiter te company nor uillermo appeared 5efore te )a5or *r5iter despite te service of summons and notices 4 suc stands as a fact of te case, and no2 functions as clear evidence of uillermos 5ad fait
in is dismissal of Uson from employment, 2it te motive apparently 5eing anger at te latters reporting of unla2ful activities uillermos kno2ledge of te cases filing and e0istence and is une0plained refusal to participate in it as te responsi5le official of is company, again is an indicia of is 5ad fait and malicious intent to evade te ?udgment of te la5or tri5unals