Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Acesite vs.

NLRC
Facts: Leo A. Gonzales was hired as Chief of Security of Manila Pavillion Hotel. On January 1 1!!" Acesite Cor#oration too$ over the o#erations of Manila Pavillion and rena%ed it Holiday &nn Manila. Acesite retained Gonzales as Chief of Security of the hotel. Gonzales too$ several days of leaves li$e sic$ leave vacation leave and e%er'ency leave. (ot res#ondin' to the tele'ra% 'iven to Gonzales Acesite contends that Gonzales continuously disre'ard several advices for Gonzales to re#ort )ac$ to wor$ to attend to very ur'ent %atters involvin' Security *e#art%ent+s concerns. Gonzales was ter%inated as Chief of Security. Gonzales thus filed a co%#laint a'ainst Acesite An'er)auer and ,ennedy for ille'al dis%issal. Gonzales however failed to a##ear in - consecutive hearin's des#ite notice %eritin' the dis%issal )y the La)or Ar)iter of his co%#laint. Issue: .hether or not the a##ellate court erred in rulin' that that An'er)auer and ,ennedy are solidarily lia)le with Acesite 'iven that a cor#oration )y le'al fiction has a #ersonality se#arate and distinct fro% its officers stoc$holders and %e%)ers. Held: /he a##ellate court affir%ed the (L0C rulin' that An'er)auer and ,ennedy are solidarily lia)le with Acesite. &n the case of 1o'o2Medellin Su'arcane Planters Association &nc. v. (L0C this Court ruled3 4nless they have e5ceeded their authority cor#orate officers are as a 'eneral rule not #ersonally lia)le for their official acts )ecause a cor#oration )y le'al fiction has a #ersonality se#arate and distinct fro% its officers stoc$holders and %e%)ers. However this fictional veil %ay )e #ierced whenever the cor#orate #ersonality is used as a %eans of #er#etuatin' fraud or an ille'al act evadin' an e5istin' o)li'ation or confusin' a le'iti%ate issue. &n cases of ille'al dis%issal cor#orate directors and officers are solidarily lia)le with the cor#oration where ter%inations of e%#loy%ent are done with %alice or in )ad faith. &n holdin' An'er)auer and ,ennedy solidarily lia)le the (L0C intended 6to deter other forei'n e%#loyer7s8 fro% re#eatin' the inhu%an treat%ent of their 9ili#ino e%#loyees who should )e treated with e:ual res#ect es#ecially in their own land and #revent further violation of their hu%an ri'hts as e%#loyees.; /he records of the case do not however show any inhu%an treat%ent of Gonzales. His su#eriors <ust ha##en to )e forei'ners. Moreover as #reviously discussed )ad faith or %alice was not #roven. An'er)auer actin' on )ehalf of Acesite was li$e Gonzales #erha#s also too #resu%#tuous in thin$in' that the tele'ra%s orderin' the latter to re#ort for wor$ were all received on ti%e drawin' hi% to hastily conclude that Gonzales intentionally diso)eyed the orders contained therein. /he co%#laint a'ainst Johann An'er)auer and Phil ,ennedy is here)y *&SM&SS=*.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai