Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doctrines 2 Hanah
Doctrines 2 Hanah
1
Gr. No. 191902 , July , 2019
1. The law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less
compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent
him from demanding benefits to which he is entitled.2
1
Mariano B. Daang v Skippers United Pacific Inc. and Commercial S.A, Gr. No. 191902, July, 2019
2
Ibid.
3
ibid
4
Ibid citing Hernandez v Crossworld Marine Services, Inc
number of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume
of business, dropping of a particular product line previously
manufactured by the company or phasing out of service activity
formerly undertaken by the enterprise.5
5
Lowe, Inc v CA, 612 Phil. 1, 1056 (2009)
6 Elpidio T. Que v Asia Brewer, Inc and/or Michael G. Tan, Gr. No. 202388, April 10, 2019
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid citing Raymundo v Central Azucarera Dela Carlota
10
Ibid citing Morales v Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc, 68 Phil 112, 120 (2012)
unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any
choice by him except to forego his continued employment.”11
11
ibid
12
Dominic Inocentes, Jeffrey Inocentes, Joseph Cornelio and Reymark Catangui v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc
(RSCI/Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco G.r no. 237020, July 29,2019
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid citing Dacuital v L.m Camus Engineering Corp. Phil. 158, 169 (2010)
15
Article 295 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
16
ibid
4. While the lack of a written contract does not necessarily make one a
regular employee, a written contract serves as proof that employees
were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their
statues as project employee at the commencement of their
engagement. There being none that was adduced here, the
presumption that the employees are regular employees prevails.17
1. The Doctrine of Piercing the veil applies only in three basic areas,
namely: 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction
is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; 2) fraud
cases or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong protect
fraud, or defend a crime; or 3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is
merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a
person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and
its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality,
agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation. In the absence of
malice, bad faith or a specific provision of law making a corporate
officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable
for corporate liabilities.19
2. The general rule is corporate officers are not held solidarily liable with
the corporation for separation pay because the corporation is
invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those
persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to
which it may be related. To hold a director or officer personally liable
for corporate obligation is the exception and it only occurs when the
following requisite are present: 1) the complaint must allege that the
17
ibid
18
Jaime Montealegre Chamon’te, Inc v Spouses Abraham and Remedios de vera, G.r no. 208920, July 10, 2019
19
ibid
director or officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and 2)
there must be proof that the director or officer acted in bad faith. 20
20
Ibid citing Lozada v Mendoza