Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONRADO TAN v. RESTITUTO TIMBAL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 189082 2012-07-11	JOSEPHINE RUIZ v. WENDEL OSAKA REALTY CORP. SERENO, J.
In labor cases, directors and ot1icers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of corporate employees if their termination was committed with malice or bad faith. The ruling applies when a corporate officer acts with malice or bad faith in suspending an employee.[71] Such malice or bad faith is not present in this case.
	GR No. 182729 2010-09-29	KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES VELASCO JR., J.
The court's supervisory control does not, however, extend as to authorize the alteration or amendment of a final and executory decision, save for certain recognized exceptions, among which is the correction of clerical errors. Else, the court violates the principle of finality of judgment and its immutability, concepts which the Court, in Tan v. Timbal,[15] defined: As we held in Industrial Management International Development Corporation vs. NLRC:
	GR No. 170464 2010-07-12	LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS v. HELEN BINAMIRA DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a general rule, only the employer-corporation, partnership or association or any other entity, and not its officers, which may be held liable for illegal dismissal of employees or for other wrongful acts. This is as it should be because a corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it.[27] A corporation, as a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees. Obligations incurred as a result of the directors' and officers' acts as corporate agents, are not their personal liability but the direct responsibility of the corporation they represent.[28] It is settled that in the absence of malice and bad faith, a stockholder or an officer of a corporation cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities. [29] They are only solidarily liable with the corporation for the illegal termination of services of employees if they acted with malice or bad faith. In Philippine American Life and General Insurance v. Gramaje,[30] bad faith is defined as a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.