This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-11-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is basic 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. Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality.[61] In labor cases, in particular, the Court has held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of corporate employees done with malice or in bad faith.[62] Bad faith is never presumed.[63] Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence -- it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[64] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos, [30] this Court reiterated the rule that corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employees done with malice or bad faith. It has been held that bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. In this case, it is worth mentioning that the LA in his Decision dated June 10, 1999, expressly absolved Uytengsu from any liability, holding that the latter did not act in bad faith and in excess of his authority. Such finding was not assailed by the private respondents nor did the NLRC in its Decision dated October 24, 2000 overrule the same. The liability of Uytengsu was never discussed in the said NLRC decision which, to the detriment of the private respondents, had lapsed into finality. | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield. v. Ramos,[35] the Court restated the rule that corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employees done with malice or bad faith. Bad faith was defined by the Court thus: "It has been held that bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, 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. The rule is that obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers, and employees, are its sole liabilities.[56] | |||||
|
2003-09-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We find the explanation of respondent too insubstantial to excuse her from administrative liability. We have ruled that failure to transmit the records of a case constitutes negligence and warrants disciplinary action.[13] For judges, undue delay in transmitting the records of a case constitutes a less serious charge.[14] For clerks of court, on the other hand, failure or delay to transmit records of a case has warranted penalties ranging from admonition[15] to a fine of P1,000[16] to P5,000[17] to one-month suspension.[18] The prompt transmittal of the records of appealed cases to the appellate court is required to ensure the speedy disposition of cases.[19] For this reason alone, respondent should already be sanctioned administratively. | |||||