Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Mirant Phils Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maine Antonio Guzman
    This case involves a corporation, Mirant (Phils.) Corp., that terminated an employee, Joselito Caro, for failing to submit to a random drug test. The labor arbiter and Court of Appeals found in favor of Caro, but the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that: 1) Only the corporation could be held liable for illegal dismissal, not the corporation's president, since corporations have separate legal personality from officers. 2) There was no evidence the president acted with malice or bad faith in dismissing Caro. 3) Absent such evidence, only the corporation was liable under the doctrine of corporate fiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Mirant Phils Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maine Antonio Guzman
    63 views2 pages
    This case involves a corporation, Mirant (Phils.) Corp., that terminated an employee, Joselito Caro, for failing to submit to a random drug test. The labor arbiter and Court of Appeals found in favor of Caro, but the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that: 1) Only the corporation could be held liable for illegal dismissal, not the corporation's president, since corporations have separate legal personality from officers. 2) There was no evidence the president acted with malice or bad faith in dismissing Caro. 3) Absent such evidence, only the corporation was liable under the doctrine of corporate fiction.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Mirant Phils case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a corporation, Mirant (Phils.) Corp., that terminated an employee, Joselito Caro, for failing to submit to a random drug test. The labor arbiter and Court of Appeals found in favor of Caro, but the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that: 1) Only the corporation could be held liable for illegal dismissal, not the corporation's president, since corporations have separate legal personality from officers. 2) There was no evidence the president acted with malice or bad faith in dismissing Caro. 3) Absent such evidence, only the corporation was liable under the doctrine of corporate fiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views2 pages

    Mirant Phils Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maine Antonio Guzman
    This case involves a corporation, Mirant (Phils.) Corp., that terminated an employee, Joselito Caro, for failing to submit to a random drug test. The labor arbiter and Court of Appeals found in favor of Caro, but the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that: 1) Only the corporation could be held liable for illegal dismissal, not the corporation's president, since corporations have separate legal personality from officers. 2) There was no evidence the president acted with malice or bad faith in dismissing Caro. 3) Absent such evidence, only the corporation was liable under the doctrine of corporate fiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    6. Mirant [Phils.] Corp., et al. v. Joselito A. Caro, G.R. No.

    181490, April 23, 2014

    Doctrine: 
    A corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its officers and board of directors.

    Facts: 

    Petitioner Corporation is organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the
    Philippines. It is a holding company that owns shares in project companies such as Mirant Sual
    Corporation and Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, which operate and maintain power stations in Pangasinan
    and Quezon.
    Edgardo A. Bautista was the President of the petitioner corporation when respondent was terminated from
    employment.

    Respondent was hired by Mirant Pagbilao on January 3, 1994 as its logistics officer. Then he became a
    Supervisor of the Logistics and Purchasing Department of petitioner. By the time of the severance of his
    employment, respondent was the Procurement Supervisor of Mirant Pagbilao.

    Respondent was randomly chosen among the petitioner corporation’s employees to be tested for illegal
    drug use, as a part of the company’s policy. However, respondent failed to submit himself for drug testing
    because he received a phone call from his wife’s colleague in Tel Aviv, Israel, informing him that there
    was a bombing incident near his wife’s work station. That Respondent has to attend to this emergency
    incident.

    The Labor Arbiter found that Respondent’s failure to subject himself to drug testing is not “unjustified
    refusal”, as opposed to the Company’s Investigating Panel that “avoidance” and “refusal” are one and the
    same. Hence, Respondent was terminated.

    The NLRC found that the Respondent was dismissed for cause and with due process.

    The CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution rendered by NLRC, and reinstated
    with modification the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, which ordered  that petitioner corporation and Bautista to
    jointly and severally reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to
    pay him back wages, other benefits, moral and exemplary damages. 

    Issue:

    Should Edgardo A. Bautista, President of Petitioner Corporation be held personally liable for
    respondent’s dismissal?

    Held:

    No. Both the decisions of the labor arbiter and the CA did not discuss the basis of personal liability of
    Petitioner Bautista.

    A corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its officers and board of directors who may
    only be held personally liable for damages if it is proven that they acted with malice or bad faith in the
    dismissal of an employee. Absent any evidence on record that petitioner Bautista acted maliciously or in
    bad faith in effecting the termination of the respondent, plus the apparent lack of allegation in the
    pleadings of respondent that petitioner Baustista acted in such manner, the doctrine of corporate fiction
    dictates that only petitioner corporation should be held liable for illegal dismissal of respondent.

    You might also like