This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The heart of the controversy is the validity of petitioner's dismissal, which hinges on the satisfaction of two substantive requirements, viz: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee was accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[19] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Finally, an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement. If reinstatement is not viable, separation pay is awarded to the employee.[17] In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.[18] Under Republic Act No. 6715, employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement but if reinstatement is no longer possible, the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.[19] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the appellate court, by its affirmatory ruling, effectively recognized the applicability of the doctrine on piercing the veil of the separate corporate identity. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot allow such application. A corporation, upon coming to existence, is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it. Ownership by a single or a small group of stockholders of nearly all of the capital stock of the corporation is not, without more, sufficient to disregard the fiction of separate corporate personality.[23] Thus, obligations incurred by corporate officers, acting as corporate agents, are not theirs but direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent. Solidary liability on the part of corporate officers may at times attach, but only under exceptional circumstances, such as when they act with malice or in bad faith.[24] Also, in appropriate cases, the veil of corporate fiction shall be disregarded when the separate juridical personality of a corporation is abused or used to commit fraud and perpetrate a social injustice, or used as a vehicle to evade obligations.[25] In this case, no act of malice or like dishonest purpose is ascribed on petitioner Roxas-del Castillo as to warrant the lifting of the corporate veil. | |||||