tgavila 2015

POLYMER RUBBER CORP V SALAMUDING (2013)

FACTS: Bayolo Salamuding, Mariano Gulanan and Rodolfo
Raif were employees of Polymer Rubber Corporation
dismissed after allegedly committing certain irregularities
against Polymer.
Salamuding et al filed a complaint for ULP and ID, nonpayment of overtime and 13 th month against Polymer and its
director Joseph Ang, highest ranking officer.

judgment, or in excess of its terms. As to the extent of the

computation of the backwages, the same must only cover the
period during which the company was in actual operation.
Moreover, the motion to execute was already barred by the
statute of limitations.
NLRC affirmed the findings but modified the decision stating
that the Salamuding et al are not barred by the statute of
limitations.
Salamuding et al filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.

LA: NO ULP but there was ID. Ordered the reinstatement

and back wages, 13 th month, OT pay, moral and exemplary
damages and attys fees.
A writ of execution was subsequently issued to implement
said judgment.
Polymer appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the decision
with modifications. The NLRC deleted the award of moral
and exemplary damages, SIL pay, and modified the
computation of 13 th month pay. A writ of execution was
subsequently issued based on the NLRC decision.
The case was elevated to the SC. On September 29, 1993,
the SC affirmed the disposition of the NLRC but modified by
deleting the overtime pay.

CA found merit with the petition, stating that there has to be a

responsible person working in the interest of Polymer who
may also be considered as the employer. Since Ang as the
director of Polymer was considered the highest ranking
officer, he was therefore properly impleaded and may be held
solidarily liable for the obligations of Polymer to its dismissed
employees. CA imputed bad faith when Polymer ceased its
operations the day after the promulgation of the SC
resolution, allegedly to evade liability. CA found it necessary
to pierce the corporate fiction and make Ang liable. CA
ordered the reinstatement of the writ of execution and the
notice of levy on the shares of stocks owned by Ang.
Polymer and Ang filed a petition claiming that:
1.

On September 30, Polymer ceased its operations.

2.
In 1994, the LA issued a writ of execution based on the SC
resolution. It was returned unsatisfied. Another alias writ of
execution was issued in 1997.

3.
4.

In the latter part of 2004, Polymer with all its improvements in

the premises was gutted by fire.
On December 2004, Salamuding et al filed a Motion for
th
Recomputation and Issuance of 5 Alias Writ of Execution.
The Research and Computation Unit of NLRC came up with
the total amount of P2.9M Due to the failure of Polymer to
comment or oppose despite notice, the LA approved said
amount.
On April 2005, the LA issued the 5 th Alias Writ of Execution,
commanding the sheriff to collect the amount. In its
implementation, the shares of stock of Joseph Ang at USA
Resources Corporation was levied.
Polymer and Ang moved to quash the writ and to lift the
notice of garnishment. They alleged that:
a)

b)
c)

Ang should not be held solidarily liable with Polymer

since it was only the latter which was held liable in
the decision of the LA, NLRC and the SC.
The computation of monetary award in favor of the
complainants amounting to P2.9M was erroneous
The decision sought to be enforced by mere motion
is already barred by the statute of limitations.

LA granted the motion, and ordered the quashal and recall of

the writ of execution, as well as lifting the notice of levy on
Angs shares of stock. It ruled that the previous decision did
not contain any pronouncement that Ang was also liable. To
hold him liable at this stage when the decision had lon g
become final and executory will vary the tenor of the

Upon finality of decision, the same can no longer be

altered or modified;
Officer cannot be personally held liable and be
made to pay the liability of the corporation
Polymer cannot be made to pay salaries beyond the
existence of the company
Separation pay is only half month salary for every
year of service.

ISSUE: W/N Ang may be made liable

HELD: NO.GR: Obligations incurred as a result of the
directors or officers acts as corpo agents are not their
personal liability but that of the corpo. They are only held
solidarily liable with the corpo for the illegal termination of
services of EEs if they acted with malice or bad faith.
2 Requisites: (1) it must be alleged in the complaint that the
officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2)
there must be proof that the officer acted in BF. In the
present case, aside from the assertion that the closure was
meant to evade liability, there was no evidence showing that
Ang was responsible for the acts complained of. Moreover, it
was highly improbable that the corporation would cease its
operations if only to evade the payment of the monetary
awards in favor of 3 EEs.
Ang is merely one of the incorporators and to single him out
and require him to personally answer for the liabilities is
without basis. In the absence of a finding that he acted with
malice or BF, it was error for the CA to hold him responsible.
Moreover, the judgment of LA, affirmed by the NLRC and
later the SC which had no pronouncement as to the liability of
Ang, became final and executory and can no longer be
altered even if it was meant to correct what is perceived to be
an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.
Computation of separation pay is only until the time Polymer
ceased operations.

tgavila 2015
Petition granted. Case remanded for proper computation.