Alert Security and Investigation Agency V Balmaceda
Alert Security and Investigation Agency V Balmaceda
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