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.