Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 178083 2008-07-23	FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
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.[97] We do not see how respondent Patria Chiong may be held personally liable together with PAL, it appearing that she was merely acting in accordance with what her duties required under the circumstances. Being an Assistant Vice President for Cabin Services of PAL, she takes direct orders from superiors, or those who are charged with the formulation of the policies to be implemented.
	GR NO. 157851 2007-06-29	ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA NACHURA, J.
Even assuming that an employer-employee relationship does exist between petitioners and private respondent, the former still cannot be held liable with Countrywide Bank for the illegal dismissal of private respondent. Corporate officers are not personally liable for the money claims of discharged corporate employees, unless they acted with evident malice and bad faith in terminating their employment.[44]
	GR NO. 153193 2006-12-06	PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY v. RAMON ACOSTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, 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.[16]