Alert Security and Investigation Agency V Balmaceda

1
assigned at the Department of Science and Technology. Because they

Alert Security & Investigation were underpaid, they filed a complaint for money claims against
Alert and its president and general manager, Dasig, before LA Santos.
Agency, Inc. and/or Manuel Dasig v As a result, they were relieved from their post and not given new
assignments despite the lapse of 6 months.
Saidali Pasawilan, Wilfredo  Petitioners, on the other hand, deny that the respondents were
dismissed. They claimed that from the DOST, respondents were
Verceles and Melchor Bulusan merely detailed at the Metro Rail Transit, Inc. However, they failed to
September 14, 2011 report therein and instead kept loitering at DOST. Thus, on August 3,
Ponente: Villarama, Jr., J. 1998, Alert filed a “termination report” with the DOLE.
Kitty
 July 28, 2000: LA Del Rosario rendred a Decision finding that the
respondents wre illegally dismissed and ordering that “each
SUMMARY: A complaint for money claims was filed against Alert and complainant should be paid in solidum by [Alert and Dasig].”
its President, Dasig, before LA Santos. As a result, the respondents  Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC.
were relieved from their posts. A complaint for illegal dismissal was
 January 31, 2007: The NLRC dismissed the complaint for illegal
then filed and LA Del Rosario rendered a Decision in favor of the
dismissal.
respondents and holding Dasig liable “in solidum” with Alert Security.
 Respondents went up to the CA. February 1, 2008, the CA rendered a
NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal. CA
Decision reversing and setting aside the NLRC decision and
reinstated the decision of LA Del Rosario. SC found that there was
reinstating the July 28, 2000 Decision of LA Del Rosario.
illegal dismissal but relieved Dasig from liability to the respondents.
 Petitioners filed an MR but it was denied.
DOCTRINE: As has been ruled in McLeod v NLRC and Sps. Santos v
ISSUES/HELD:
NLRC, Art. 212 (e) of the Labor Code, by itself, does not make a
1. Were the respondents illegally dismissed? YES.
corporate officer personally liable for the debts of the corporation. The
2. Should Dasig be liable in solidum with Alert Security? NO.
governing law on personal liability of directors for debts of the
RATIO
corporation is still Sec. 31 of the Corporation Code which states that
 On the illegal dismissal
“Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent
to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross o In the case at bar, respondents were relieved from their
negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or posts because they filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint
acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty against their employer for money claims due to
as such directors, or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all underpayment of wages. This reason is unacceptable and
damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its illegal. Nowhere in the law providing for the just and
stockholders or members and other persons.” authorized causes of termination of employment is there
any direct or indirect reference to filing a legitimate
complaint for money claims against the employer as a valid
FACTS: ground for termination.
o The Labor Code, as amended, enumerates several just and
 Respondents Pasawilan, Verceles and Bulusn were employees of
Alert Security and Investigation as security guards. They were authorized causes for a valid termination of employment. An
2
employee asserting his right and asking for minimum wage using the veil of corporate fiction to defeat public
is not among those causes. convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.
 Dismissing an employee on this ground amounts to o Further, there is no showing that Alert Security has folded
retaliation by management for an employee’s up its business or is reneging in its obligations. In the final
legitimate grievance without due process. Such analysis, it is Alert Security that respondents are after and it
stroke of retribution has no place in Philippine is also Alert Security who should take responsibility for their
Labor Laws. illegal dismissal.
 On Dasig’s liability DISPOSITIVE
o It is a basic rule that a corporation has a separate and  WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
distinct personality apart from its directors, officers or Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 99861 and the
owners. In exceptional cases, courts find it proper to breach Decision dated July 28, 2000 of the Labor Arbiter are MODIFIED.
this corporate personality in order to make directors, Petitioner Manuel Dasig is held not solidarily liable with petitioner
officers, or owners solidarily liable for the companies’ acts. Alert Secuirty and Investigation, Inc. for the payment of monetary
 Sec. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. - awards in favor of respondents. Said Decision of the Court of Appeals
Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly in all other aspects is AFFIRMED. With costs against the petitioners.
vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the SO ORDERED.
corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or
bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation
or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in
conflict with their duty as such directors, or trustees
shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages
resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its
stockholders or members and other persons.
o Jurisprudence has also been consistent in defining the
instances when the separate and distinct personality of a
corporation may be disregarded in order to hold the
directors officers, or owners of the corporation liable for
corporate debts.
 Carag v NLRC: “We have already ruled in McLeod v
NLRC and Sps. Santos v NLRC that Art. 212 (e) of the
Labor Code, by itself, does not make a corporate
officer personally liable for the debts of the
corporation. The governing law on personal liability
of directors for debts of the corporation is still Sec.
31 of the Corporation Code.
o In the present case, there is no evidence to indicate that
Dasig, as president and general manager of Alert Security, is

Alert Security and Investigation Agency V Balmaceda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alert Security and Investigation Agency V Balmaceda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

assigned at the Department of Science and Technology. Because they

You might also like