JOSE EMMANUEL P.
GUILLERMO
vs.
CRISANTO P. USON
G.R. No. 198967
March 07, 2016
FACTS:
On March 11, 1996, respondent Crisanto P. Uson (Uson) began his employment with Royal Class
Venture Phils., Inc. as an accounting clerk. Eventually, he was promoted to the position of accounting
supervisor until he was allegedly dismissed from employment on December 20, 2000.
On March 2, 2001, Uson filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration. Royal Class Venture did not make an
appearance in the case despite its receipt of summons. On October 22, 2001, Labor Arbiter Jose G. De
Vera rendered a Decision in favor of the complainant Uson and ordering therein respondent Royal Class
Venture to reinstate him to his former position and pay his backwages, 13th month pay as well as moral
and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Royal Class Venture, as the losing party, did not file an appeal of the decision. On May 17, 2002, an Alias
Writ of Execution. But with the judgment still unsatisfied, a Second Alias Writ of Execution. Again, it was
reported in the Sheriff's Return that the Second Alias Writ of Execution dated September 11, 2002
remained "unsatisfied." Thus, on November 14, 2002, Uson filed a Motion for Alias Writ of Execution and
to Hold Directors and Officers of Respondent Liable for Satisfaction of the Decision.
On December 26, 2002, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando issued an Order. The order held that officers
of a corporation are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the corporation to the employees.
Guillermo who appears to be the owner of the said corporation which was alleged to be resolved, filed, by
way of special appearance, a Motion for Reconsideration/To Set Aside the Order of December 26, 2002.
The same, however, was not granted as, this time.
On January 5, 2004, Guillermo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order, but the same was
promptly denied by the Labor Arbiter in an Order dated January 7, 2004. Guillermo elevated the matter to
the NLRC by filing a Memorandum of Appeal with Prayer for a (Writ of) Preliminary Injunction dated June
10, 2004. The NLRC dismissed Guillermo's appeal and denied his prayers for injunction.
On August 20, 2010, Guillermo filed a Petition for Certiorari. On June 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals
rendered its assailed Decision which denied Guillermo's petition and upheld all the findings of the NLRC.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE(s):
(1) W/N an officer of a corporation may be included as judgment obligor in a labor case for the
first time only after the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and executory;
(2) whether the twin doctrines of "piercing the veil of corporate fiction" and personal liability of
company officers in labor cases apply.
HELD:
(1) YES. The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate directors and
officers or even a separate but related corporation, may be impleaded and held answerable
solidarily in a labor case, even after final judgment and on execution, so long as it is established
that such persons have deliberately used the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment
obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so. A finding of personal and
solidary liability against a corporate officer like Guillermo must be rooted on a satisfactory showing of
fraud, bad faith or malice, or the presence of any of the justifications for disregarding the corporate
fiction.
(2) YES. The case at bar involves an apparent family corporation. As in those two cases, the records of
the present case bear allegations and evidence that Guillermo, the officer being held liable, is the person
responsible in the actual running of the company and for the malicious and illegal dismissal of the
complainant; he, likewise, was shown to have a role in dissolving the original obligor company in an
obvious "scheme to avoid liability" which jurisprudence has always looked upon with a suspicious eye in
order to protect the rights of labor. Then, it is also clearly reflected in the records that it was Guillermo
himself, as President and General Manager of the company, who received the summons to the case, and
who also subsequently and without justifiable cause refused to receive all notices and orders of the Labor
Arbiter that followed. Finally, the records likewise bear that Guillermo dissolved Royal Class Venture and
helped incorporate a new firm, located in the same address as the former, wherein he is again a
stockholder. The foregoing clearly indicate a pattern or scheme to avoid the obligations to Uson
and frustrate the execution of the judgment award, which this Court, in the interest of justice, will
not countenance.
