You are on page 1of 3

22) Park Hotel vs.

Soriano
2012-09-10 | G.R. No. 171118

FACTS:
Soriano was initially hired by Park Hotel but was transferred to Burgos Corporation.
Gonzales and Badilla were employees of Burgos Corporation.
Burgos is a sister company of Park Hotel. Harbutt and Percy are the General Manager
and owner, respectively, of Park Hotel. Percy, Harbutt and Atty. Roberto Enriquez are also the
officers and stockholders of Burgos Corporation.
Soriano, Gonzales and Badilla were dismissed from work for allegedly stealing company
properties. As a result, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice,
before the Labor Arbiter (LA). In their complaints, respondents alleged that the real reason for
their dismissal was that they were organizing a union for the company's employees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not corporate officers are solidarily and personally liable in a case for illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice

HELD:
A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and
employees. Obligations incurred by them, while acting as corporate agents, are not their
personal liability but the direct accountability of the corporation they represent. However,
corporate officers may be deemed solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of
employees if they acted with malice or bad faith. In the present case, the lower tribunals
unanimously found that Percy and Harbutt, in their capacity as corporate officers of Burgos,
acted maliciously in terminating the services of respondents without any valid ground and in
order to suppress their right to self-organization.
Section 31 of the Corporation Code makes a director personally liable for corporate
debts if he willfully and knowingly votes for or assents to patently unlawful acts of the
corporation. It also makes a director personally liable if he is guilty of gross negligence or bad
faith in directing the affairs of the corporation. Thus, Percy and Harbutt, having acted in bad
faith in directing the affairs of Burgos, are jointly and severally liable with the latter for
respondents' dismissal.

23) People of the Philippines vs. Beriber
2012-08-29 | G.R. No. 195243

FACTS:
Beriber was hired as helper by the Vergaras in their rice mill. Lourdes Vergara was found
dead and P2,000 was missing from their house. Several residents claimed that they saw Beriber
leaving the scene of the crime with a bag.
Beriber refused to testify and waived his right to present to evidence. The RTC rendered
a Judgment convicting appellant of the crime of Robbery with Homicide based on
circumstantial evidence.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not appellant's silence and refusal to testify, let alone refusal to present
evidence, cannot be construed as evidence of guilt

2) Whether or not circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish that Beriber
committed the robbery with homicide

HELD:
1) Although appellant's silence and refusal to testify, let alone refusal to present evidence,
cannot be construed as evidence of guilt, we have consistently held that the fact that an
accused never testified in his defense even in the face of accusations against him goes against
the principle that "the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of wrongdoing is to
express his innocence at the first opportune time."

2) Admittedly, there was no direct evidence to establish appellant's commission of the
crime charged. However, direct evidence is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may
draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative
since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny
proper protection to the community. Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court on
circumstantial evidence requires the concurrence of the following: (1) there must be more than
one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused. We have ruled that circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an
accused only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person.

We agree with the RTC as affirmed by the CA that the circumstantial evidence proven by
the prosecution sufficiently establishes that appellant committed the offense charged.




24) Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation vs Concepcion
2012-06-13 | G.R. No. 172349

FACTS:
Concepcion filed a case for illegal dismissal case against Polyfoam. He claimed that that
he was hired by Polyfoam as an all-around factory worker and served as such for almost six
years.
Gramaje filed a Motion for Intervention claiming to be the real employer of Concepcion.
Gramaje claimed that P.A. Gramaje Employment Services (PAGES) is a legitimate job contractor
who provided some manpower needs of Polyfoam. It was alleged that respondent was hired as
packer and assigned to Polyfoam, charged with packing the latters finished foam products.
She argued, however, that respondent was not dismissed from employment, rather, he simply
stopped reporting for work. Polyfoam contends that NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case,
because of the absence of employer-employee relationship between Polyfoam and Concepcion.

ISSUE: whether or not Gramaje is an independent job contractor;

HELD:
No. Labor-only contracting, a prohibited act, is an arrangement where the contractor or
subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a
principal.
In labor-only contracting, the following elements are present:
(a) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment to
actually perform the job, work or service under its own account and responsibility; and
(b) The employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are
performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal.
The test of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent
contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being
subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results of the work. In San Miguel
Corporation v. Semillano, the Court laid down the criteria in determining the existence of an
independent and permissible contractor relationship, to wit:
x x x [W]hether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and
extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to
assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to
another; the employers power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the
contractors workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools,
appliances, materials, and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment
Applying the foregoing tests, we agree with the CAs conclusion that Gramaje is not an
independent job contractor, but a labor-only contractor.
First, Gramaje has no substantial capital or investment.
Second, Gramaje did not carry on an independent business or undertake the
performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method, free from the
control and supervision of its principal, Polyfoam, its apparent role having been merely to
recruit persons to work for Polyfoam.

You might also like