This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To hold an officer personally liable for the debts of the corporation, and thus pierce the veil of corporate fiction, it is necessary to clearly and convincingly establish the bad faith or wrongdoing of such officer, since bad faith is never presumed.[41] Because the respondents were not able to clearly show the definite participation of Burgos and Rana in their illegal dismissal, we uphold the general rule that corporate officers are not personally liable for the money claims of the discharged employees, unless they acted with evident malice and bad faith in terminating their employment.[42] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Applying the ruling in Businessday Information Systems and Services, Inc. v. NLRC (Businessday),[14] the NLRC ratiocinated that petitioner's refusal to give Nora and Rosemarie the lump sum retirement pay was an act of discrimination, more so because a certain Oscar Diokno, another employee who presumably resigned also prior to January 16, 2003, was given said benefit. | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| To hold a director personally liable for debts of the corporation, and thus pierce the veil of corporate fiction, the bad faith or wrongdoing of the director must be established clearly and convincingly.[24] Bad faith is never presumed.[25] Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence. Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose. Bad faith means breach of a known duty through some ill motive or interest. Bad faith partakes of the nature of fraud.[26] In Businessday Information Systems and Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[27] we held:There is merit in the contention of petitioner Raul Locsin that the complaint against him should be dismissed. A corporate officer is not personally liable for the money claims of discharged corporate employees unless he acted with evident malice and bad faith in terminating their employment. There is no evidence in this case that Locsin acted in bad faith or with malice in carrying out the retrenchment and eventual closure of the company (Garcia vs. NLRC, 153 SCRA 640), hence, he may not be held personally and solidarily liable with the company for the satisfaction of the judgment in favor of the retrenched employees. Neither does bad faith arise automatically just because a corporation fails to comply with the notice requirement of labor laws on company closure or dismissal of employees. The failure to give notice is not an unlawful act because the law does not define such failure as unlawful. Such failure to give notice is a violation of procedural due process but does not amount to an unlawful or criminal act. Such procedural defect is called illegal dismissal because it fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, but it is not illegal in the sense that it constitutes an unlawful or criminal act. | |||||