DE GUZMAN VS NLRC CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992
ARTURO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER MA. LOURDES A. SALES, AVELINO D. VALLESTEROL, ALEJANDRO Q. FRIAS, LINDA DE LA CRUZ, CORAZON M. DE LA FUENTE, LILIA F. FLORO, and MARIO F. JAYME, respondents.

CORPORATION LAW; DUE PROCESS

FACTS:

  • De Guzman was the general manager of the Manila office of the Affiliated Machineries Agency, Ltd., (AMAL) which was based in Hongkong. He received a telex message from Fialla, managing director of AMAL in its main office, advising him of the closure of the company due to financial reverses.
  • Immediately upon receipt of the advise, De Guzman notified all the personnel of the Manila office. The employees then sent a letter to AMAL accepting its decision to close, subject to the payment to them of their current salaries, severance pay, and other statutory benefits. De Guzman joined them in these representations.
  • These requests were, however, not heeded.
  • The employees, now herein private respondents, lodged a complaint with the NLRC against AMAL, through Fialla and De Guzman, for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages or commissions, separation pay, sick and vacation leave benefits, 13th month pay, and bonus.
  • Petitioner began selling some of AMAL's assets and applied the proceeds thereof, as well as the remaining assets, to the payment of his claims against the company. He also organized Susarco, Inc., with himself as its president and his wife as one of the incorporators and a member of the board of directors. This company is engaged in the same line of business and has the same clients as that of the dissolved AMAL.
  • Petitioner filed his own complaint with the NLRC against AMAL for his remaining unsatisfied claims.
  • Labor Arbiter Magno rendered a decision ordering AMAL to pay the petitioner separation pay, unpaid salary and commissions, after deducting the value of the assets earlier appropriated by the petitioner.
  • Labor Arbiter Sales, who tried the private respondents' complaint, rendered a decision ordering respondents AMAL and De Guzman to pay jointly and severally to each complainant.
  • This decision was on appeal affirmed in toto by the NLRC, which is now faulted for grave abuse of discretion in this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in holding De Guzman jointly and severally liable with AMAL as he was not an employer of the private respondents.

HELD:

  • While the legitimacy of Respondent A. de Guzman's claims against AMAL is not questioned, it must be stated that the manner and the means by which he satisfied such claims are evidently characterized by bad faith on his part. For one, Respondent De Guzman took advantage of his position as General Manager and arrogated to himself the right to retain possession and ownership of all properties owned and left by AMAL in the Philippines, even if he knew that Complainants herein have similar valid claims for unpaid wages and other employee benefits from the Respondent AMAL. 
  • Another strong indication of bad faith on the part of Respondent A. de Guzman is his filing of a separate complaint against AMAL before the NLRC Arbitration Branch about four (4) months after the filing of the instant case without informing this Office about the existence of said case during the proceedings in the instant case. 
  • It is stressed that the petitioner's liability to the private respondents is a direct liability in the form of moral and exemplary damages and not a solidary liability with AMAL for the claims of its employees against the company. He is being held liable not because he is the general manager of AMAL but because he took advantage of his position by applying the properties of AMAL to the payment exclusively of his own claims to the detriment of other employees.
  • It further clarified the A.C. Ransom doctrine not to be applicable to all types of officers, such as the general manager, even if he is the highest ranking officer, when such officers is neither a stockholder or a member of the board of directors. 

Popular Posts