Lawyerly

GR No. 214092

2016-01-11

ECHO 2000 COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. OBRERO FILIPINO-ECHO 2000 CHAPTER-CLO

REYES, J.

A dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages. The award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without just or authorized cause.[39]

GR No. 166581

2015-12-07

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. CA

SERENO, C.J.

We have said that while "dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages."[32] We must note that "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."[33] The award of moral and exemplary damages thus cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without authorized cause and due process.[34]

GR No. 175863

2015-02-18

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. LUCMAN M. IBRAHIM

PEREZ, J.

The description of bad faith in Far East Bank and Trust Company then went on to be repeated in subsequent cases such as 1995's Ortega v. Court of Appeals,[57] 1997's Laureano Investment and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[58] 2010's Lambert Pawnbrokers v. Binamira[59] and 2013's California Clothing, Inc., v. Quiñones,[60] to name a few.

GR No. 190566

2013-12-11

MARK JEROME S. MAGLALANG v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Finally, as a rule, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is valid only when the question involved is an error of jurisdiction, or when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions. Hence, courts exercising certiorari jurisdiction should refrain from reviewing factual assessments of the respondent court or agency. Occasionally, however, they are constrained to wade into factual matters when the evidence on record does not support those factual findings; or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts appearing on record.[34] Considering the circumstances and since this Court is not a trier of facts,[35] remand of this case to the CA for its judicious resolution is in order.

GR No. 187214

2013-08-14

SANOH FULTON PHILS. v. EMMANUEL BERNARDO

PEREZ, J.

We held in Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation v. Binamira,[20] that the losses must be supported by sufficient and convincing evidence and the normal method of discharging this is by the submission of financial statements duly audited by independent external auditors.[21] It was aptly observed by the appellate court that no financial statements or documents were presented to substantiate Sanoh's claim of loss of P7 million per month. And a business lull caused by lack of orders which could have justified retrenchment was not shown by petitioner. As observed once more by the Court of Appeals, petitioner failed to present proof of the extent of the reduced order and its contribution to the sustainability of its business.

GR No. 187214

2013-08-14

SANOH FULTON PHILS. v. EMMANUEL BERNARDO

PEREZ, J.

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied said motion in its 16 August 2006 Resolution.[9] Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 184520

2013-03-13

ROLANDO DS. TORRES v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JUAN

REYES, J.

In addition, the lack of a valid cause for the dismissal of an employee does not ipso facto mean that the corporate officers acted with malice or bad faith. There must be an independent proof of malice or bad faith,[52] which is absent in the case at bar.

GR No. 182475

2012-11-21

LENN MORALES v. NLRC

PEREZ, J.

One of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee,[20] redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise.[21] A position is redundant when it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions could be the result of a number of factors, such as the overhiring of workers, a decrease in the volume of business or the dropping of a particular line or service previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[22] Time and again, it has been ruled that an employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[23] For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, however, the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of termination of employment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of service; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.[24]

GR No. 199547

2012-09-24

NEW PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS v. FRANCISCO N. DAKILA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Similarly, the Court finds no basis to hold petitioner Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote, President and General Manager of The New Philippine Skylanders, Inc., jointly and severally liable with the corporation for the payment of the monetary awards. The mere lack of authorized or just cause to terminate one's employment and the failure to observe due process do not ipso facto mean that the corporate officer acted with malice or bad faith.[15] There must be independent proof of malice or bad faith which was not established in this case. Perforce, petitioner Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote cannot be made personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation which, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members. Moreover, for lack of factual and legal bases, the awards of moral and exemplary damages cannot also be sustained.[16]

GR No. 185829

2012-04-25

ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

Similarly, Aliling has failed to overcome such burden to prove bad faith on the part of WWWEC. Aliling has not presented any clear and convincing evidence to show bad faith. The fact that he was illegally dismissed is insufficient to prove bad faith. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that "[t]here was no sufficient showing of bad faith or abuse of management prerogatives in the personal action taken against petitioner."[48] In Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation v. Binamira,[49] the Court ruled: A dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages. The award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without authorized cause and due process.

	GR No. 214092 2016-01-11	ECHO 2000 COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. OBRERO FILIPINO-ECHO 2000 CHAPTER-CLO REYES, J.
A dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages. The award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without just or authorized cause.[39]
	GR No. 166581 2015-12-07	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. CA SERENO, C.J.
We have said that while "dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages."[32] We must note that "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."[33] The award of moral and exemplary damages thus cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without authorized cause and due process.[34]
	GR No. 175863 2015-02-18	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. LUCMAN M. IBRAHIM PEREZ, J.
The description of bad faith in Far East Bank and Trust Company then went on to be repeated in subsequent cases such as 1995's Ortega v. Court of Appeals,[57] 1997's Laureano Investment and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[58] 2010's Lambert Pawnbrokers v. Binamira[59] and 2013's California Clothing, Inc., v. Quiñones,[60] to name a few.
	GR No. 190566 2013-12-11	MARK JEROME S. MAGLALANG v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Finally, as a rule, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is valid only when the question involved is an error of jurisdiction, or when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions. Hence, courts exercising certiorari jurisdiction should refrain from reviewing factual assessments of the respondent court or agency. Occasionally, however, they are constrained to wade into factual matters when the evidence on record does not support those factual findings; or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts appearing on record.[34] Considering the circumstances and since this Court is not a trier of facts,[35] remand of this case to the CA for its judicious resolution is in order.
	GR No. 187214 2013-08-14	SANOH FULTON PHILS. v. EMMANUEL BERNARDO PEREZ, J.
We held in Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation v. Binamira,[20] that the losses must be supported by sufficient and convincing evidence and the normal method of discharging this is by the submission of financial statements duly audited by independent external auditors.[21] It was aptly observed by the appellate court that no financial statements or documents were presented to substantiate Sanoh's claim of loss of P7 million per month. And a business lull caused by lack of orders which could have justified retrenchment was not shown by petitioner. As observed once more by the Court of Appeals, petitioner failed to present proof of the extent of the reduced order and its contribution to the sustainability of its business.
	GR No. 187214 2013-08-14	SANOH FULTON PHILS. v. EMMANUEL BERNARDO PEREZ, J.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied said motion in its 16 August 2006 Resolution.[9] Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 184520 2013-03-13	ROLANDO DS. TORRES v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JUAN REYES, J.
In addition, the lack of a valid cause for the dismissal of an employee does not ipso facto mean that the corporate officers acted with malice or bad faith. There must be an independent proof of malice or bad faith,[52] which is absent in the case at bar.
	GR No. 182475 2012-11-21	LENN MORALES v. NLRC PEREZ, J.
One of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee,[20] redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise.[21] A position is redundant when it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions could be the result of a number of factors, such as the overhiring of workers, a decrease in the volume of business or the dropping of a particular line or service previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[22] Time and again, it has been ruled that an employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[23] For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, however, the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of termination of employment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of service; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.[24]
	GR No. 199547 2012-09-24	NEW PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS v. FRANCISCO N. DAKILA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Similarly, the Court finds no basis to hold petitioner Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote, President and General Manager of The New Philippine Skylanders, Inc., jointly and severally liable with the corporation for the payment of the monetary awards. The mere lack of authorized or just cause to terminate one's employment and the failure to observe due process do not ipso facto mean that the corporate officer acted with malice or bad faith.[15] There must be independent proof of malice or bad faith which was not established in this case. Perforce, petitioner Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote cannot be made personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation which, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members. Moreover, for lack of factual and legal bases, the awards of moral and exemplary damages cannot also be sustained.[16]
	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Similarly, Aliling has failed to overcome such burden to prove bad faith on the part of WWWEC. Aliling has not presented any clear and convincing evidence to show bad faith. The fact that he was illegally dismissed is insufficient to prove bad faith. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that "[t]here was no sufficient showing of bad faith or abuse of management prerogatives in the personal action taken against petitioner."[48] In Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation v. Binamira,[49] the Court ruled: A dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages. The award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without authorized cause and due process.

LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS v. HELEN BINAMIRA