CASE DIGEST : GUILLERMO VS USON

G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016

JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.

FACTS: On March 11, 1996, respondent Crisanto P. Uson (Uson) began his employment with Royal Class Venture Phils., Inc. (Royal Class Venture) as an accounting clerk. Eventually, he was promoted to the position of accounting supervisor, with a salary of Php13,000.00 a month, 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 : WON the piercing the veil of corporate fiction proper in the case

HELD: 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. 

It is our finding that such evidence exists in the record. In 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 stockl1older. 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.