You are on page 1of 7

1.

GRATUITY PAY ISSUE

Sta. Catalina College vs NLRC1

HELD:

This Court is not unmindful of Hilaria's rendition of a total of thirty years of
teaching in petitioner school and should be accorded ample support in her
twilight years. Petitioner school in fact acknowledges her dedicated service to
its students. She can, however, only be awarded with what she is rightfully
entitled to under the law. So Sosito v. Aguinaldo Development Corporation
dictates: [26] chan robles virtual law library
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the
protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor
dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has
its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the
interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privilege in
life, this Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld
his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not
blinded us to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to
be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable
law and doctrine. chan robles virtual law library
As for the ruling of the CA affirming that of the NLRC that the P12,000.00
gratuity pay earlier awarded to Hilaria should not be deducted from
the retirement benefits due her, the same is in order. Gratuity pay is
separate and distinct from retirement benefits. It is paid purely out of
generosity. So Republic Planters Bank v. NLRC [27] holds: chan robles
virtual law library
Gratuity pay x x x is paid to the beneficiary for the past services or favor
rendered purely out of the generosity of the giver or grantor. Gratuity,
therefore, is not intended to pay a worker for actual services rendered
or for actual performance. It is a money benefit or bounty given to the
worker, the purpose of which is to reward employees who have
rendered satisfactory service to the company. (Emphasis supplied.)

Retirement benefits, on the other hand, are intended to help the employee
enjoy the remaining years of his life, releasing him from the burden of
worrying for his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty to
the employer. [28] chan robles virtual law library

1 http://www.chanrobles.com/cralawgrno144483november192003.html#.XEfqa2aB1sM

lawphil. and the nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom with which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. this Court awards the entire amount of the retirement benefits to which she is rightfully entitled under the law.html .853. salaries and allowances. P28. Since the computed amount of her retirement pay is much lower than that provided under the law.09 of which had already been given to her under the PERAA.038. or an intracorporate controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation.72.CORPORATE CONTROVERSY AND NOT UNDER LA Weslayan University vs Maglaya2 Held: The alleged "appointment" of Maglaya instead of "election" as provided by the by-laws neither convert the president of university as a mere employee. Although she did not appeal from the NLRC decision awarding her P85. is not a simple labor problem but a matter 2 https://www.287. nor amend its nature as a corporate officer. [29] The application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice. the NLRC erred in taking cognizance of the case. and considering the Identification Card. not a mere employee. A corporate officer's dismissal is always a corporate act.35.59 The issue of the alleged termination involving a corporate officer. Technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. [30] chan robles virtual law library 2. and in concluding that Maglaya was a mere employee and subordinate official because of the manner of his appointment. and the check disbursement as pieces of evidence supporting such finding.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_212774_2017. With the office specifically mentioned in the by-laws.In Hilaria's case. she is entitled to receive the difference between the actual amount of her retirement benefits as required by law and that provided for under the PERAA. her retirement pay as computed by petitioners amounts to P59. INTRA. PRESIDENT AS CORPORATE OFFICER HENCE. the Administration and Personnel Policy Manual which specified the retirement of the university president. his duties and responsibilities.

the trial court had indeed 3 http://sc. Hence. Court of Appeals. as well as the corresponding liability of a corporation. officers or managers of corporations. they cannot be held solidarily liable together with the corporation for services performed by the latter’s agent to secure possession of the Pasay property. if any.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/145817.that comes within the area of corporate affairs and management and is a corporate controversy in contemplation of the Corporation Code. the determination of the rights of a corporate officer dismissed from his employment.gov. is an intra-corporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts.64 a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. Absent any proof that individual petitioners as bank officers acted in bad faith or with gross negligence or assented to a patently unlawful act. The obligation to pay Peña’s compensation.61 Perforce. partnerships or associations. which provides that the regional trial courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies in the election or appointment of directors.62 To emphasize. Section 5 of Republic Act No. falls solely on Urban Bank.judiciary. trustees.60 The long-established rule is that the jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law. DIRECTORS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE WITH CORPORATION Urban Bank vs Pena3 Held: II The corporate officers and directors of Urban Bank are not solidarily or personally liable with their properties for the corporate liability of Urban Bank to Atty. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. however. 8799.htm . as amended by Subsection 5. Thus. applies in the case at bar. it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. 65 3. Section 5 (c) of PD 902-A.63 As held in Leonor v. Peña. All acts perfonned pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.2.

Contrary to his claim. the Complaint[290] in the lower court never alleged that individual defendants acquiesced to an unlawful act or were grossly negligent or acted in bad faith.[286] Obligations incurred as a result of the acts of the directors and officers as corporate agents are not their personal liabilities but those of the corporation they represent. Bejasa and Manuel . thus. In any event. no specific acts were alleged and proved to warrant a finding of solidary liability. petitioners Borlongan. pierce the veil of corporate fiction.committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued a ruling against the eight individual defendant bank directors and officers and its Decision should be absolutely reversed and set aside. two requisites must concur: (1) the complainant must allege in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation. trustee or officer in directing the corporate affairs must be established clearly and convincingly. officers and employees.[291] Neither is there any specific allegation of gross negligence or action in bad faith that is attributable to the individual defendants in performance of their official duties. and (2) the complainant must clearly and convincingly prove such unlawful acts. A corporation.”[289] Peña failed to allege and convincingly show that individual defendant bank directors and officers assented to patently unlawful acts of the bank. a trustee or an officer personally liable for the debts of the corporation and. or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith. At most. may act only through its directors. Peña did not adduce any proof that the eight individual defendants performed unlawful acts or were grossly negligent or in bad faith. negligence or bad faith. bad faith or gross negligence by the director. or that they were guilty of gross negligence or bad faith.[288] “To hold a director. Aside from the general allegation that they were corporate officers or members of the board of directors of Urban Bank. as a juridical entity.[287] To hold a director or an officer personally liable for corporate obligations.

ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/182622. 2004. Article 1150 of the Civil Code states: 4 http://sc. In the case at bench. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF MONEY CLAIMS PLDT vs Pingol4 Held: With regard to the prescriptive period for money claims.gov. 4. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued. Article 291 of the Labor Code states: Article 291. Thus. the general law on prescription applies. The Labor Code has no specific provision on when a claim for illegal dismissal or a monetary claim accrues.were identified as those who had processed the agency agreement with Peña through their telephone conversations with him and/or written authorization letter.judiciary. Pingol himself alleged the date January 1. the petitioner correctly relied on such allegation in the complaint to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription.htm . Thus. 2000 as the date of his dismissal in his complaint[20] filed on March 29. otherwise they shall be barred forever. exactly four (4) years and three (3) months later. Money Claims. Respondent never denied making such admission or raised palpable mistake as the reason therefor.

January 1. the prescription of an action is interrupted by (a) the filing of an action. when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors. and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. Article 1150.As. This. shall be counted from the day they may be brought. to wit: ART. (Emphasis supplied) The day the action may be brought is the day a claim starts as a legal possibility. the prescriptive period for money claims is subject to interruption. thus. 1155. tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Article 1155 of the Civil Code may be applied. he made follow-ups with PLDT management regarding his benefits. correctly ruled by the LA. Panganiban[22] where it was written: Like other causes of action. the complaint filed had already prescribed. Respondent Pingol cited the same date of dismissal in his complaint before the LA. and in the absence of an equivalent Labor Code provision for determining whether the said period may be interrupted. when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise. (b) a written extrajudicial demand by the . Its applicability in labor cases was upheld in the case of International Broadcasting Corporation v. The rule in this regard is covered by Article 1155 of the Civil Code. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions.[21] In the present case. to his mind. Thus. Respondent claims that between 2001 and 2003. 2000 was the date that respondent Pingol was not allowed to perform his usual and regular job as a maintenance technician. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court.

respondent Pingol has no one but himself to blame for his own predicament. It is worthy to note that respondent never presented any proof to substantiate his allegation of follow-ups. Although the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class. this Court. By his own allegations in his complaint. has more often than not inclined. and (c) a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. the claimed follow-ups could not have validly tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Thus. does not blind the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving. Such leaning. Unfortunately. The management also has its own rights. respondent Pingol never made any written extrajudicial demand. he has barred his remedy and extinguished his right of action. to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine. it does not necessary follow that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor.[23] . Neither did petitioner make any written acknowledgment of its alleged obligation. however. Out of Its concern for the less privileged in life. creditor. In this case. to uphold the cause of the worker in his conflict with the employer.