LIM VS NLRC CASE DIGEST
SAMUEL CASAS LIM, petitioner,
vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and VICTORIA R. CALSADO, respondents.
G.R. No. 79975. March 16, 1989
SWEET LINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; HON. NESTOR C. LIM (In his capacity as Labor Arbiter of the Ministry of Labor and Employment and VICTORIA R. CALSADO, respondents.
CORPORATION LAW; DUE PROCESS
FACTS:
- These two cases have been consolidated because they relate to the same factual antecedents and the same private respondent.
- Private respondent Calsado was hired by Sweet Lines, Inc., as Senior Branch Officer
- After tendering her resignation to accept another offer of employment, she was persuaded to remain with an offer of her promotion to Manager of the Department with corresponding increase in compensation, which she accepted.
- Relations began to sour later, however, when she repeatedly asked for payment of her commissions, which had accumulated and were long overdue. She also complained of the inordinate demands on her time even when she was sick and in the hospital. Finally, she was served with a letter from Lim, informing her that "employment with Sweet Lines" would terminate.
- Efforts were also taken by Sweet Lines to forcibly take the car from her, culminating in an action for replevin against her.
- Calsado filed a complaint against both petitioners for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, and unpaid wages and commissions damages.
- The respondents' defenses were based mainly on the claim that Calsado was not an employee of Sweet Lines but an independent contractor
- Decision was rendered against the two petitioners
- NLRC affirmed
Whether or not Lim could be held solidarity liable with Sweet Lines, Inc. to the private respondent
HELD:
- NO. Petitioner Lim cannot be held personally liable with Sweet Lines for merely having signed the letter informing Calsado of her separation. There is no evidence that he acted with malice or bad faith. The letter, in fact, informed her not only of her separation but also of the benefits due her as a result of the termination of her services.
It is true that Lim has raised this matter rather tardily and also that he belongs to a closed corporation controlled by the members of one family only. But these circumstances should not be allowed to operate against him if he is to be accorded substantial justice in the resolution of the private respondent's claim. The mere fact that Lim is part of the family corporation does not mean that all its acts are imputable to him directly and personally. His acts were official acts, done in his capacity as Vice President of Sweet Lines and on its behalf. There is no showing that he acted without or in excess of his authority or was motivated by personal ill-will toward Calsado
The Solicitor General, invoking equity rather than law, observes that making Lim solidarity liable with Sweet Lines will ensure payment of Calsado's claim. But this precaution, even assuming it to be valid, is really unnecessary. in fact, as a condition for the issuance of our temporary restraining order of October 14, 1987, Sweet Lines posted as required a bond in the amount of P850,000.00, which should cover the amounts awarded to the private respondent.
The case of Ransom v. NLRC is not in point because there the debtor corporation actually ceased operations after the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations was promulgated against it, making it necessary to enforce it against its former president. Sweet Lines is still existing and able to satisfy the judgment in favor of the private respondent.