You are on page 1of 11

Illegal dismissal and personal liability of corporate officers; law and jurisprudence.

I wish to share to my readers the legal and jurisprudential parts of a recent reply position paper in a labor
case that our law office has prepared under my direct supervision, for legal research purposes.


THE COMPLAINANT x x x, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. The two (2) basic issues in this case are whether X X X was illegally dismissed and whether the respondents should be
held jointly and severally liable for tort and damages.

X x x.

2. Please note that Article 281 of the Labor Code on probationary employment (applicable to X x x) provides that “the
services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he
fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement”. It further provides that “an employee who is allowed to work after a probationary
period shall be considered a regular employee”. In the employment contract of X X X, his probation actually was 3
months. He had completed his first 3 months it without any negative action on the part of respondents. He was allowed to
proceed to another renewable (2nd phase) 3 months of probation. At this time, no formal performance evaluation was
conducted. The respondents simply dismissed him by reason of the above-mentioned two incidents.

3. Further, it must be noted Article 282 of the Labor Code(termination by employer) provides that an “employer may
terminate an employment for:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of
his family or his duly authorized representative; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”

To repeat: None of the foregoing grounds applies to X X X. His subject actuations were not harmful, were without
malicious intent to injure, harm, intimidate, or threaten, or to commit sexual harassment or acts of lasciviousness or, in
any manner, to commit acts of disrespect towards his women colleagues.

4. At this point, it must be repeated, for emphasis, that X X X was not afforded the opportunity: to hire a private lawyer (a
basic human right to counsel) during the rush administrative hearing; to confront the complainants and witnesses against
him by way of cross examination; to study the documents, records, and evidence against him in the possession of the
respondents; to secure formal minutes and transcripts of the said hearing (there being none, it now appears); and at the
least, the fair time to prepare for his own defense. His human right to DUE PROCESS OF LAW was violated. End result: A
family man, with good moral character, good education and work experience, and good name and honor has been
rendered jobless, exposing his helpless wife and young children to hunger, suffering, anxieties, mental pain, anguish, and
public ridicule, all of which deserve the imposition of MORAL and EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P500, 000.o0 each and
ATTORNEY’S FEES of 10% of recoverable amounts, plus COSTS OF SUIT and LITIGATION EXPENSES.

5. X X X reiterates the jurisprudence he had earlier cited in his Position Paper in support of his arguments, to wit:

5.1. Marcial Gu-Miro v. Rolando C. Adorable, et. al., GR No. 160952, 20 August 2004, citing Asuncion v. NLRC, GR No.
129329, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 56, and Dizon v. NLRC, GR No. 79554, 14 December 1989, 180 SCRA 52).
5.2. Solidbank Corporation v. CA, et. al., GR No. 151026, August 25, 2003).

indigence. citizen. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self.1999. 125548. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel.4. No. 215 SCRA 750. Art. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Art. GR No. or from being forced to confess guilt.9. 24. April 15. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. No. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DIOSDADO LAUZ.5.8. ignorance. 23. X x x. 97 (1989)). 32. The Civil Code provides when a person may be held liable for DAMAGES arising from TORT.R.R. or any other means. J. NLRC. 21. and worker.R. 2005 6. November 17. 19. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. In all contractual. Every person who through an act of performance by another.7. tender age or other handicap. act with justice. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground. when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence. Martinez. Art.. mental weakness. 5. Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank v. NLRC. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. March 31. NLRC. it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. 160386. and for other relief. and other unjust. 106947. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. . Every person must. 756 (1992). et al. 2005. willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. 172 SCRA 88. X x x. or any private individual. unfair and abusive acts that injure one’s constitutional and statutory rights as a person. In any of the cases referred to in this article. NLRC. and ANTONIO C. to meet the witnesses face to face. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. 5. shall return the same to him. 20. October 8. respondents. Melody Paulino Lopez V. who directly or indirectly obstructs. Cuenca et al. NLRC and Enrique Gabriel. Any public officer or employee. the courts must be vigilant for his protection. No. Art. 150478. and observe honesty and good faith. 10. petitioners. March 10. GR No. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Art. Art. contrary to law. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. Every person who. 125548. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. X x x. 5. 148256. [G. to wit: Art.3. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. to have a speedy and public trial. Cabrera. 2004 citing Pilipinas Bank v. 1998]. QUASI DELICT. G. September 25. the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. and Quezon Electric Cooperative v. NLRC. Art.6. give everyone his due. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws. PLDT vs. vs. February 11. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. TAM. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant. Felix v. property or other relations. 1999. 2005 5. and 5. CAINGAT vs. 5.5. Hacienda Bino et al v. 22. GR 154308. G. ABUSE OF RIGHT. GR No. SOLVIC INDUSTRIAL CORP. defeats. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: X x x.

X x x. X x x. cannot be recovered. . 2176.Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). laborers and skilled workers. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. Art. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. 2179. The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Such fault or negligence. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. X x x. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. there being fault or negligence. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. 2180. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. is obliged to pay for the damage done. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid. other than judicial costs. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. 2177. Art. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (1902a) Art. X x x. But if his negligence was only contributory. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care. the plaintiff may recover damages. In crimes and quasi-delicts. In the absence of stipulation. Art. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. just and demandable claim. he cannot recover damages. 2208. X x x. (n) Art. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. X x x. (n) Art. Art. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. 2178. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. 2202. Art. 2194. The indemnity shall include moral damages. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. X x x. is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. the Court took the case as an opportunity to make an extensive discussion of the concept of ABUSE OF RIGHT. 7. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Art. Moral damages include physical suffering. moral shock. 19. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: X x x. 34. 26. give everyone his due. 2233. Art. temperate. GR 154259. liquidated or compensatory damages. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. [61] These standards are the following: act with justice. the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral. 2231. act with justice.[63] When Article 19 is violated. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered. and 35. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed.”[60] The object of this article. inter alia. under the circumstances. 27. Every person must. a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. 2220. 32. Art. (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21. which X X X hereby adopts in this case in support of his legal theory. where. (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. we explained that when “a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another. 2217. give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. reckless. 2005. [62] Its antithesis. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. In contracts and quasi-contracts. 2234. the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. Art. an action for damages is proper under . Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code were invoked. social humiliation. (2) which is exercised in bad faith. before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages. oppressive. thus: X x x. nevertheless. Although the hotel was not held liable for damages. 28. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. such damages are justly due. Art. by way of example or correction for the public good. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. vs. Art. serious anxiety. 2229. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. et al. in addition to the moral. and similar injury. In quasi-delicts. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon. 29. Its elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty. or malevolent manner. mental anguish. besmirched reputation. February 28. Article 19. the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral. therefore. fright. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton. known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights. and observe honesty and good faith. temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. necessarily. Article 19 states: Art. fraudulent. ABUSE OF RIGHT as a legal doctrine was dissected in the case of NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN. Art. Art. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. 2219. 30. is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. REYES. [59] is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. 2232. Elsewhere. wounded feelings. In all cases.

Court of Appeals. 212 SCRA 436. No. 02 June 1995. [64] Art. NLRC SHERIFF and CESAR E. 10 August 1992. 20. No. shall indemnify the latter for the same. but it is not applicable in this case. All of the foregoing facts do not apply in the present case. G. 244 SCRA 713. a certain Fernando de Lara filed an application with the petitioner company for electrical services at his residence at Peñafrancia Subdivision. 440. Reyes to leave.R. Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Mr. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Marcos Highway. Fernando de Lara was not billed for more than a year. No. No. 25. [60] Albenson Enterprises Corp. 75723. the services of the latter were terminated on May 18. 1983.000. G. 88. private respondent received from Fernando de Lara the amount of P7. which. pp. while simultaneously placing private respondent on “preventive suspension”. [48] Garciano v. Servicewide Specialists. In 1981. G. (2) but which is contrary to morals. LADISLA. Civil Code.R.1 . [72] Art. He had been with the company for two years and nine months. 1977. Torts and Damages Vol. Thus. However. 1977 he was “apprehended by representatives of Mercury Drug while in the act of pilfering company property consisting of three (3) bottles of Persantin and one (1) bottle of Valoron at 100 tablets per bottle with a total value of P272. the electrical connections to de Lara's residence were installed and made possible. Notes (laws and cases cited above): [47] E. 2234. Signo thereafter filed the application for electric services with the Power Sales Division of the company. v. Again this case is not applicable to X X X. Private respondent Signo facilitated the processing of the said application as well as the required documentation for said application at the Municipality of Antipolo. 176 SCRA 779. because the place was beyond the 30-meter distance from the nearest existing Meralco facilities. Llenado. v. 83-84. He did not make any CONFESSION of criminal guilt. 08 June 1989.[66] A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21. BREACH OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE and the like. made it appear in the application that the sari-sari store at the corner of Marcos Highway. 8. Torts and Damages Annotated. As a result of this scheme. willfully or negligently causes damage to another. GR 78763. Respondents cited the case of MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION vs.[67]and that is. and (3) it is done with intent to injure.00”. [58] Article 2180. the act complained of must be intentional. Intermediate Appellate Court. supra. 175 SCRA 277. 174 SCRA 80. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law [64] which does not obtain herein as Ms. Rizal. contrary to law. . or public policy. In the said case. 75662 September 15. THEFT. It was established that the area where the residence of de Lara was located is not yet within the serviceable point of Meralco. No. in reality is not owned by the latter. G. and separation pay. is applicant de Lara's establishment. In consideration thereof. Respondent cited the case of MERALCO VS.00. [68] X x x. Rizal. the private respondent Cesar E.R. Court of Appeals. [50] Sangco. including respondent Signo. 1989.R. Civil Code. on the other hand. 11 January 1993. 9. Every person who. unpaid wages. 1989. NLRC. v.L. good custom. Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. p. 1983. In order to expedite the electrical connections at de Lara's residence. G. [59] Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. [51] Floro v. Recto Branch. 21. G. 25 August 1989. 88694. due to the fault of the Power Sales Division of petitioner company. Court of Appeals. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. note 61 at 784. Pineda. an entrance to the subdivision. Antipolo. He “admitted his guilt” to the investigating representatives of petitioner company and “executed a handwritten admission”. Article 21[65] refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. On August 15. 96126. Ladisla was employed by petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation as a Stock Analyst at its Claro M. Petitioner company conducted an investigation of the matter and found respondent Signo responsible for the said irregularities in the installation. No. certain employees of the company. 81262. X X X was and is not being charged for DISHONESTY. On August 19. states: Art. 720.R. On August 10 1983.R. public order. 52 (2004 ed). 783. Inc. 217 SCRA 16. Article 21. Said “admission was repeated verbally at the police station” before the arresting officer as shown in the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report which was signed and authenticated by Ladisla. 74553. filed before the Department of Labor an application for the termination of private respondent's employment on grounds of “dishonesty and breach of trust”. JULY 12. petitioner. See Globe Mackay. In the said case the facts were as follows: Private respondent Signo was employed in petitioner company as supervisor-leadman since January 1963 up to the time when his services were terminated on May 18. respondent Signo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. [49] cf.

Among the reasons given for complainant's selection as PMR for the Cagayan territory were: The territory required a veteran and seasoned PMR who could operate immediately with minimum . Cruz. July 30. et al. Inciong.137 SCRA 56. Sampang v.. In complainant's application for employment with respondent company. June 19. Philippine Airlines.R. In fact. this Court ruled: As repeatedly been held by this Court. X x x. it had been its policy and established practice of undertaking employment movements and/or reassignments from one territorial area to another as the exigencies of its operations require and to hire only applicant salesmen. In connection with the respondent company's marketing and sales operations. In view of the foregoing. MERALCO lost in the abovecited case.. in September. and JAIME C.R. 10. an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of breach of trust towards his employer and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to its interest. On 22 July 1983. Nueva Vizcaya and Isabela.. complainant Bobadilla started his employment with respondent company sometime in May 1982.1980. but without the award of backwages. authorized neither oppression nor self. if then employed. No. L-24626. including professional medical representatives (PMRs) who were willing to take provincial assignments. v.152 SCRA 140). 100 SCRA 691. Meracap v. VICTA vs.1985. L-48235-36. 76959 October 12. xxx xxx xxx The ends of social and compassionate justice would therefore be served if private respondent is reinstated but without backwages in view of petitioner's obvious good faith. L. 71812.. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor" (Abella v. . NLRC. Inc. 1974. De Leon v.R.. he agreed to the following: 1) that if employed he win accept assignment in the provinces and/or cities anywhere in the Philippines. such as breach of trust by an employee. Inc. October 30. June 28. G. No. 2) he is willing and can move into and live in the territory assigned to him. NLRC.54280. INC. nevertheless. in carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations. and since he has been under preventive suspension during the pendency of this case. No.R. 11 7 SCRA 528) Further. and (3) that should any answer or statement in his application for employment be found false or incorrect.R. considering the good faith of the employer in dismissing the respondent. In that case. In a similar case.R. the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. competent was designated professional medical representative (PMR) and was assigned to cover the sales territory comprising of Sta. he will be subject to immediate dismissal. that notwithstanding the existence of a valid cause for dismissal. NLRC. dismissal should not be imposed. G. Again the facts of the said case are not applicable to X X X. This Court has held time and again. G. NLRC.1987. et al. July 30. G. (Itogon. of the Metro Manila district. We are of the considered view that his dismissal is a drastic punishment. No. Thus: X x x. Binondo and a part of Quiapo and Divisoria. respondent Victa called complainant to his office and informed the latter that he was being transferred effective 1 August 1983 to the newly opened Cagayan territory comprising the provinces of Cagayan. as it is too severe a penalty if the latter has been employed for a considerable length of time in the service of his employer. et al. Nos. taking into account private respondent's 'twenty-three (23) years of service which undisputedly is unblemished by any previous derogatory record' as found by the respondent Commission itself. 1987. at least insofar as male applicants were concerned. Inc. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISISON and ALBERT BOBADILLA. PALEA. v.1982.. September 30.117 SCRA 523. G. Applying the doctrine of COMPASSIONATE JUSTICE IN LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION. 92 SCRA 412. After undergoing training. No. v.1979. 57 SCRA 489). L-52056. in a number of decisions. It involved the legal issue of UNJUST TRANSFER of a worker which the latter contested as being tantamount to a DEMOTION. 50992. . The transfer order was made formal in a memorandum dated 29 July 1983. However. No. reinstatement of respondent Signo is proper in the instant case. The law in protecting the rights of the laborers. G. respondent company had made reassignments or transfers of sales personnel which included PMRs from one territorial area of responsibility to another on a more or less regular basis. Likewise. 1982.R. Inc. the Court ruled in favor of the worker who was unjustly dismissed.. Respondents cited the case of ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILIPPINES).. in the absence of a showing that the continued employment of private respondent would result in petitioner's oppression or self-destruction.Suyoc Mines. International Ceramics Manufacturing Co.destruction of the employer. (Itogon-Suyoc Mines. G.

he went with the company coaster at four-thirty in the afternoon and then proceeded to TMC to play billiards when the person he wanted to see at Lagundi had already left. On 6 March 1989.). In a letter dated 1 August 1983.R. a PMR who can immediately exploit the vast business potential of the area. No. the Arbiter below ruled for the respondent on the ground that the complainant is guilty of gross insubordination. 107574 December 28. June 5. FRED AUJERO and ROMEO VALENCIA. Pedro Sibal. when they and their agents did not grant X x x the fair opportunity to confront the complainants and witnesses against him. objected to the transfer on the grounds that it was not only a demotion but also personal and punitive in nature without basis legally and factually. which cited the case of EPG Construction Company. On 25 November 1988 he was assigned to its station in Baras. Station Manager Ramon Bisuna required Nuez to explain within seventy-two hours why he should not be administratively dealt with for disobeying an order of their most senior officer on 25 November 1988. On 29 January 1990. when X x x’ termination date was made effective on the very day of receipt by him of the notice of dismissal (February 2. and then from 10 to 13 August 1983. seq. Vice President Nieto then issued a memorandum to Nuez terminating his employment effective 26 December 1988 for insubordination. Meanwhile. AVP for Transport and Maintenance Fredelino Aujero referred the matter to Vice President for Administration Ramon V. et al. Nuez filed this suit for illegal dismissal. Sevilla and Supervisor Sibal as well as the letter of petitioner Nuez. . G. On appeal. When competent failed to report to his new assignment. At two-thirty that same afternoon. et. an extremely serious offense and its first infraction calls for dismissal of the erring employee. Nuez declined saying that he had an important personal appointment right after office hours. when the president X X Xdid not sign the notice of dismissal. Nuez mentioned a personal appointment in justification for his refusal to render "overtime" service and that "ferrying employees . when they relied on flimsy grounds (NOT GROSS OR HABITUAL OR SERIOUS OR GRAVE violations as provided by the Art. X X X submits that. On 8 August 1983. Jeremias Sevilla. thru his lawyer. competent. otherwise his would be dropped from the payroll for having abandoned his job. As to the issue of PERSONAL LIABILITY for damages of CORPORATE OFFICERS in illegal dismissal cases. June 22. 282of the Labor Code) to dismiss him. the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed on 15 June 1992 the decision of the Labor Arbiter but limited the financial assistance to Nuez in an amount equivalent to three months basic pay only. moreover. he also declined a similar order given on the phone by his vehicle supervisor. Engr. which was received by Abbott on 4 August 1983. he was seen playing billiards after office hours. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT). held that the general manager of a corporation should not be made personally answerable for the payment of an illegally dismissed employee's monetary claims arising from the dismissal because the employer corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its officers who merely act as its agents. Court of Appeals. that is.R. warrants (the) charge of disobedience. Nieto for appropriate action and invited his attention to the Code of Disciplinary Action of the company providing that "refusal to obey any lawful order or instruction of a superior is classified as insubordination. 26. 169173. 2009. Likewise. Nuez explained to Vice President Nieto that after failing to get a ride to Lagundi. Again this case is not applicable to X X X. G. Respondents cited the case of FEDERICO NUEZ vs. LABOR ARBITER MANUEL ASUNCION. RAMON NIETO. he filed the present complaint. when they did not give him advance copies of the alleged complaints and other documentary evidence against him before the administrative hearing (Note: The respondents. reasoning that "Ayaw kong magmaneho dahil may bibilhin ako sa Lagundi. Kung gusto mo yong 'loyalist' ang magmaneho. respondents acted on bad faith and with malice when they ABUSED their right to discipline X X X. In his letter for reconsideration dated 1 January 1989. No. In his written reply dated 1 December 1988. and ROLF WILTSCHEK vs. ENRIQUEZ. HONORIO POBLADOR. After due consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties. 12. G. 1994. . 103372. indemnity pay. asked Nuez to drive the employees to the Makati head office to collect their profit shares. RAILROADED and MANIPULATED the sole administrative hearing without informing X x x of his human right to counsel (while two lawyers represented the respondent Company and its prosecuting corporate officers). petitioner Nuez was a driver of private respondent PHILCOMSAT since 1 May 1970.. moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. training and supervision. et al. Asuncion dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but awarded Nuez a "monetary consideration" in an amount equivalent to his one-half month salary for every year of service. when X X Xand X X X did not ." The report of Aujero pointed out that Nuez could have obeyed the directive and still have enough time to attend to his appointment because the order was given him two hours before his tour of duty ended and. INC. v. giving the latter up to 15 August 1983 within which to comply with the transfer order.R. . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. pp. Antipolo. Rizal. TRINIDAD M. And on 18 August 1983. 11.. At one-thirty that afternoon. In the said case. where the official "had acted maliciously or in bad faith. although the case of M+W ZANDER PHILIPPINES. in this case. 1992 (also cited by respondents in their position paper. thru their lawyer." In his memorandum of 28 November 1988. complainant filed applications for vacation leave from 2 to 9 August 1983. from seven-thirty in the morning to three-thirty in the afternoon. contrary to the company’s code of discipline/conduct. . gave copies of the 201 File and the Administrative Case Record of X x x only when this case had been filed with the NLRC and only upon motion in open court and reiterated in writing made by counsel for X x x). Inc. Victa issued another inter-office correspondence to competent. Labor Arbiter Manuel P. it cited a clear EXCEPTION. 2012)." Taking into consideration the reports of Engr. the officer in charge and the highest ranking official of the station. Abbott assigned thereat Fausto Antonio T." in which event he may be made personally liable for his own act. Tibi another PED PMR who was priorly covering the provinces of Nueva Ecija and Tarlac. was not a kind of emergency that . No. when they RUSHED.

174 SCRA 258. CIVIL LAW. The Court finds the award of P90. Thus held the Court. . and persisted in their violation. Antonio Abad Santos vs. that his acts were done in good faith. Pampanga was made for the sole purpose of using it as the site of the Angeles City Sports Center except cockfighting. RESPONDENTS must be made to pay for the MENTAL ANGUISH. and the like. Curio. a worker and a Filipino citizen whose rights are protected by the law or to endanger the very physical subsistence and existence of his helpless family by unjustly dismissing him from his source of livelihood and income. 13. Inc. since he had cleared three employees who. that the performance of duty be done with justice and good faith. as we said. CASE AT BAR. [G. 85464. There can be no other logical conclusion that he was acting unfairly. they may be prominent stockholders and well-paid officers of a huge corporation as X x x Global City.000. attempted to deceive the courts by their pretended change in the use of the Center and making it a mockery of justice. the petitioner owes him a total of actual damages of P90. AND PUBLIC RIDICULE that X x x has suffered and continues to suffer by reason of the abusive act of respondents in unjustly dismissing him from the service. no more.000. et al.H. after all. It held that public officials are not immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith. Branch 42. Rarang. But such officials must be sued in their personal capacity. For emphasis. 209 SCEA 357. as we indicated.R. Instead.00 to be justified by Article 2202 of the Civil Code. attend the sole administrative hearing and thus had no personal knowledge of the facts and exhibits adduced in evidence during such hearing and yet they signed and/or affirmed the notice of dismissal and rejected X X X’ appeal to X x xas if they personally knew the entire case record and proceedings. It is no defense that the petitioner was motivated by no ill-will (a grudge. They are liable in their personal capacities for whatever damages they may cause by their acts done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of their authority or jurisdiction. Hon. EN BANC. In this case the public officials deliberately violated the law. he failed to land a job at the Philippine Cotton Authority and Philippine First Marketing Authority. We believe that the petitioner is liable under Article 19. the Court held that it must be borne by the officials of Angeles City who ordered and directed the construction. or P150.00. October 3. X x x. their clearances were filed for consideration.000. X x x. yet it does not follow. It is no defense either that he was. Curio.[citing Vidad vs. CA. CA. with abuse of right. a donation of a parcel of land to the City of Angeles. with graver abuse of discretion. ET AL. inter alia: X x x. 26. 148 SCRA 498. Wylie vs. RTC Negros Oriental.000. by analogy. SANDIGANBAYAN. pursuant to procedures). which holds the defendant liable for all "natural and probable" damages. It is the essence of Article 19 of the Civil Code. The case of LLORENTE vs. In ordering the demolition of the Center and the reimbursement of the public funds spent for the construction of the Center.R. DAMAGES FOR ACTS DONE IN BAD FAITH. the case of The City of Angeles. l996. or P60. citing Rama vs. a Drug Rehabilitation Center was constructed upon approval and orders of the mayor and the members of the sangguniang panglunsod.500. Syllabus. he was not as strict with respect to the three retiring other employees.. according to the Sandiganbayan). warranting similar official action.00 a month. 213 SCRA 109].. Deducting his probable expenses of reasonably about P1. occupying top positions in their own little kingdoms. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS. COA. "were all similarly circumstanced in that they all had pending obligations when. But that does not give them the dictatorial right to patently and tortuously trample upon the rights of X x x. San Luis vs. The Court held that public officials were held liable personally for damages arising from their illegal acts done in bad faith if said officials were sued both in their official and personal capacities.00 in five years. He also testified that a job in either office would have earned him a salary of P2. to Mr. G. — The acts of the petitioner were legal (that is. is applicable. The Court is convinced that the petitioner had unjustly discriminated against Mr. under which the petitioner was made to pay damages.000. complying merely with legal procedures since. Orocio vs. 97882. Curio. EXTREME ANXIETIES. together with Article 27. since the facts speak for themselves. In that case. he had no valid reason to "go legal" all of a sudden with respect to Mr.. which act has jeopardized his ability to financially support his two young children and his wife and to pay for his financial obligations to his creditors. No. CA. M. Hermenegildo Curio presented evidence that as a consequence of the petitioner's refusal to clear him. SLEEPLESS NIGHTS. No. as the Sandiganbayan found. 14. 227 SCRA 271. as he insists in this petition. Aug. Yes.00 in five years.00 a month. BESMIRCHED REPUTATION. 1991] is applicable by analogy as to the issue of the personal liability of private and public officers for acts done in bad faith. Further on the issue of personal liability of officers. no less.

After due consideration of the circumstances. in lieu of restoration of the complainant to his former position. (The City of Angeles vs. 213 SCRA 109)." Indisputably. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the amount of P500. CA.96. 4/27/85 IBP Lifetime Member No. that I have read its contents. Prevailing jurisprudence Roma vs. 97882. RELIEF WHEREFORE. Otherwise stated. Las Pinas VERIFICATION I. Wylie vs. Star Ave. we believe that the fairest and most equitable solution is to have the City of Angeles. the unquestioned/admitted receivable of the complainant from the respondent company. hence.000. and with postal address at x x x . 8725443 MANUEL J. and COSTS OF SUIT and LITIGATION EXPENSES. Filipino. Las Pinas City. it is respectfully prayed that. G. Roll No. considering the strained relations between the parties at present by reason of this pending case. LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES Counsel for Complainant Unit 15. it is respectfully prayed that the respondents. Further. and ATTORNEY’S FEES equivalent to 10% of recoverable damages. C. San Luis cs. 227 SCRA 271). (See Vidal vs. CA. they could not be held personally liable without first giving them their day in court. MORAL DAMAGES in the amount of P500. 1996). CA. However. that I caused the preparation thereof. Negros Oriental. 1/18/12. 174 SCRA 258) holding that public officials are personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in bad faith are premised on said officials having been sued both in their official and personal capacities. under oath. the petitioners mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles City were sued only in their official capacities. 2/3/11 PTR No. RTC. 209 SCRA 357. said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with evident bad faith. personal knowledge. premises considered. recover the cost thereof from the city officials concerned. be found guilty and liable for the ILLEGAL DISMISSAL of the complainant. married.V. 1907 IBP Leyte Chapter MCLE Exemption No. with the concomitant imposition of civil awards. undertake the demolition and removal of said center. in the amount of P19. donee of the subject open space and. the main beneficiary of the construction and operation of the proposed drug rehabilitation center. Aug. COA. Philamlife Village. R. ostensibly.. going so far as attempting to deceive the courts by their pretended change of purpose and usage for the center.00. SEPARATION PAY as provided by existing jurisprudence. al. the complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. and making a mockery of the judicial system. . of legal age. Finally. jointly and severally. Orocio vs. and that the same are true and correct of my own direct.000. x x x. April 30.. No. et. depose: that I am the complainant in the foregoing Reply Position Paper. 846. In the instant case. as noted by the trial court. Star Arcade. a public official may be liable for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. Rarang. considering the financial difficulties that he and his family are now severely facing by reason of his abrupt termination from the service. penalties and damages against the said respondents. 10288207. Las Pinas City 1743 Tel/Fax 8462539. 33640. be released to him soonest for humanitarian reasons. pendent lite.00. 148 SCRA 496. more specifically: BACKWAGES computed according to existing jurisprudence. the public officials concerned deliberately violated the law and persisted in their violations. 28.This Court has time and again ruled that public officials are not immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith. 2012. IV-1326. LASERNA JR. and if feasible.

In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy. X x x. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses. (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. the separation pay shall . Q: What are the other authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee? A: Under Article 283 of the Labor Code. April 30.blogspot. Affiant SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Quezon City this 30th day of April 2012. affiant showing his Driver’s License No. (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives. redundancy. retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title. X x x) Counsel for Respondents --------------- (Personal Delivery During the Hearing Set On x x x at x x x) Client File http://attylaserna. the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service. x x x expiring on x x x . (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. the employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices.html Points to Remember in Dismissal Cases Q: What are the just causes for the dismissal of an employee? A: Under Article 282 of the Labor Quezon City. whichever is higher. and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. 2012. Administering Labor Arbiter CC: Xxx LAW OFFICES (Atty. an employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work.

the notice shall be served at the worker’s last known address. no separation pay shall be given to the dismissed employee. Q: What are the steps to follow to ensure that the dismissed employee is given due process? A: a. If the dismissal is due to retrenchment to prevent losses or closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. b. a fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. Hearing – The employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. whichever is higher. the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service. Notice of decision – The employer shall immediately notify a worker in writing of a decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons therefor. all dismissals effected by him during the month. Notice of Dismissal – The employer shall furnish the workers a written notice stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for his dismissal. d. In cases of abandonment of work. specifying therein the names of the dismissed workers. the reasons for their dismissal. whichever is higher. the positions last held by them and such other information as may ber required by the Department of labor for policy guidance and statistical purposes. e. the dates of commencement and termination of employment.abogadomo. If there is no valid cause. In dismissal cases falling under Article 283. On the other hand if the dismissal is due to retrenchment to prevent losses or closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking due to serious business losses or financial reverses no separation pay shall be given to the dismissed employee. http://www. If the cause of dismissal falls under any of the five circumstances of Article 282. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. In these two cases. whichever is higher. if he so desires. In all cases. Q: When is a dismissed employee entitled to separation pay? A: The Labor Code requires a valid cause to terminate an employee. . Report on dismissal – The employer shall submit a monthly report to the regional Office having jurisdiction over the place of work. Answer – The worker may answer the allegations stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable period. there is no valid termination and the employer will be held liable for illegal dismissal. separation pay shall only be required if the dismissal is due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy.