This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Bad faith "means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will."[109] By refusing to honor their solemn obligations under the lease, and instead unduly profiting from these violations, petitioners are guilty of bad faith. Moral damages may be awarded when the breach of contract is attended with bad faith.[110] "Exemplary damages may [also] be awarded when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner x x x. [And] since the award of exemplary damages is proper in this case, attorney's fees and costs of the suit may also be recovered,[111] as stipulated in the lease agreement. | |||||
|
2009-08-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it must be noted that respondents admit the closure of the business of Orata Trading and the immediate takeover by Orizon Trading Corporation. Under Article 283[13] of the Labor Code, the closing or cessation of the operations of Orata Trading renders it liable for the payment of separation pay to the employees.[14] Since petitioner was informed by Orata's personnel manager that no separation pay was forthcoming, the former was constrained to file a claim therefor. Petitioner was afraid to lose all benefits to which he was entitled for the seven years he had worked with Orata Trading. This fear was not unfounded, since he was required to sign a new employment contract and considered as a new employee of Orizon Trading Corporation, and the years of service behind him would amount to nothing.[15] We quote with approval the findings of the NLRC, to wit: As to the finding of illegal dismissal on the part of respondents and propriety of the award of separation pay, we affirm the same. We recall complainant's allegations in his position paper: (1) he was told to sign a new employment contract with Orizon Trading Corporation without payment of any separation pay for the services he rendered for Orata Trading from 1993 to 2000; (2) he refused to sign a new employment contract but was nevertheless employed by Orizon Trading Corporation when it took over Orata Trading's business operation; (3) he was not paid any separation pay. None of these was ever denied by respondents. | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related.[29] Because of this, the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction must be exercised with caution. | |||||