Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

QUERUBIN L. ALBA v. ROBERT L. YUPANGCO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197011 2015-01-28	ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Finally, on the solidary liability of respondents Richard Tan and Catherine Rialubin-Tan for the monetary awards. It is basic that a corporation being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees. Obligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate agents are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent. However, in certain exceptional situations, solidary liability may be incurred by corporate officers. In labor cases for instance, this Court has held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of employees done with malice or bad faith.[36]
	GR No. 180144 2014-09-24	LEONARDO BOGNOT v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION BRION, J.
A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.[42] There is solidary liability when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires.[43] Thus, when the obligor undertakes to be "jointly and severally" liable, the obligation is solidary,
	GR No. 185160 2013-07-24	POLYMER RUBBER CORPORATION v. BAYOLO SALAMUDING REYES, J.
To hold Ang personally liable at this stage is quite unfair. The judgment of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC and later by the SC had already long become final and executory. It has been held that a final and executory judgment can no longer be altered. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land.[33] "Since the alias writ of execution did not conform, is different from and thus went beyond or varied the tenor of the judgment which gave it life, it is a nullity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law."[34]
	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Such ruling has been reversed by the Court in Alba v. Yupangco,[52] where the Court ruled: By Order of September 5, 2007, the Labor Arbiter denied respondent's motion to quash the 3rd alias writ. Brushing aside respondent's contention that his liability is merely joint, the Labor Arbiter ruled:
	GR No. 181974 2012-02-01	LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES v. ANDRES G. ARIOLA PEREZ, J.
As to the last issue, this Court has ruled that in labor cases, the corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of employees done with malice or in bad faith.[46] Indeed, moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy.
	GR No. 192416 2011-03-23	GRANDTEQ INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS v. ANNALIZA M. ESTRELLA NACHURA, J.
There is solidary liability when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires.[44] In MAM Realty Development Corporation v. NLRC,[45] the solidary liability of corporate officers in labor disputes was discussed in this wise: A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees. Obligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent. True, solidary liabilities may at times be incurred but only when exceptional circumstances warrant such as, generally, in the following cases: