TodayisSunday,September13,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L69494June10,1986
A.C.RANSOMLABORUNIONCCLU,petitioner,
vs.
NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION,FirstDivision,A.C.RANSOM(PHILS.)CORPORATION,
RUBENHERNANDEZ,MAXIMOC.HERNANDEZ,JR.,PORFIRIOR.VALENCIA,LAURAH.CORNEJO,
FRANCISCOHERNANDEZ,CELESTINOC.HERNANDEZ&MA.ROSARIOHERNANDEZ,respondents.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.:
Thefactsrelevanttothiscasemayberelatedasfollows:
1.RespondentA.C.Ransom(Philippines)Corporation(RANSOM,forshort)wasestablishedin1933byMaximo
C.Hernandez,Sr.Itwasa"family"corporation,thestockholdersofwhichwere/aremembersoftheHernandez
family. It has a compound in Las Pinas Rizal, where it has been engaged in the manufacture mainly of ink and
articlesassociatedwithink.
2.OnJune6,1961,employeesofRANSOM,mostofthembeingmembersofpetitionerLaborUNION,wenton
strikeandestablishedapicketlinewhich,however,wasliftedonJune21stwithmostofthestrikersreturningand
being allowed to resume their work by RANSOM Twentytwo (22) strikers were refused reinstatement by the
Company.
3. During 1969, the same Hernandez family organized another corporation, Rosario Industrial Corporation
(ROSARIO,forshort)whichalsoengaged,intheRANSOMCompound,inthebusinessofmanufactureofinkand
productsassociatedwithink.
4.ThestrikebecamethesubjectofCasesNos.2848ULPand2880ULPoftheCourtofIndustrialRelations
which, on December 19, 1972, ordered RANSOM "its officers and agents to reinstate the 22 strikers with back
wagesfromJuly25,1969.
5. On April 2, 1973, RANSOM filed an application for clearance to close or cease operations effective May 1,
1973,whichwasgrantedbytheMinistryofLaborandEmploymentinitsOrderofJune7,1973,withoutprejudice
totherightofemployeestoseekredressofgrievance,ifany.Althoughithasstoppedoperations,RANSOMhas
continued its personality as a corporation. For practical purposes, reinstatement of the 22 strikers has been
precluded.Asamatteroffact,reinstatementisnotanissueinthiscase.
6.Backwagesofthe22strikersweresubsequentlycomputedatP164,984.00,probablyinearly1974.Theexact
dateisnotreflectedintherecord.
7.UptoSeptember9,1976,petitionerUNIONhadfiledaboutten(10)motionsforexecutionagainstRANSOM
butallofthemcouldnotbeimplemented,presumablyforfailuretofindleviableassetsofRANSOMalthoughit
appears that, in 1975, RANSOM had sold machineries and equipment for P28million to Revelations
ManufacturingCorporation.
8. Directly related to this case is the last Motion for Execution, dated December 18, 1978, filed by petitioner
UNIONwhereinitaskedthatofficersandagentsofRANSOMbeheldpersonallyliableforpaymentoftheback
wages. That Motion was granted by Labor Arbiter, Tito F. Genilo, on March 11, 1980 (The GENILO ORDER),
wherein he expressly authorized a Writ of Execution to be issued for P164,984.00 (the back wages) against
RANSOM and seven officers and directors of the Company who are the named individual respondents herein.
RANSOM took an appeal to NLRC which affirmed the GENILO ORDER, except as modified in the body of its
decisionofJuly31,1984.

9.InRANSOM'sappealtotheNLRC,twoissueswereraised:
(a)Oneoftheissueswas:
THE DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT HAVING BECOME FINAL AND
EXECUTORY IN 1973, IS IT ENFORCEABLE BY A WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED IN 1980 OR
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED?
ThecorrespondingrulingmadebyNLRCwas:
Perforcerespondent'stheorythatexecutionproceedingsmuststopafterthelapseoffive(5)years
and that a motion to revive need be filed, must fail. Suffice it to state also that the statute of
limitationshasbeendevisedtooperateprimarilyagainstthosewhosleepontheirrights,notagainst
those who assert their right but fail for causes beyond their control. The above recital of facts
contradictsrespondent'scontentionthattheCIRdecisionofAugust19,1972hadremaineddormant
torequireamotiontorevive.
(b)Thesecondissueraisedwas:
IS THE JUDGMENT AGAINST A CORPORATION TO REINSTATE ITS DISMISSED EMPLOYEES
WITH BACKWAGES, ENFORCEABLE AGAINST ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL, PRIVATE AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES WHO WERE NOT PARTIES IN THE CASE
WHERETHEJUDGMENTWASRENDERED
TheNLRCrulingwas:
As to the liability of the respondent's officers and agents, we agree with the contention of the
respondentappellant that there is nothing in the Order dated May 11, 1986 that would justify the
holding of the individual officers and agents of respondent in their personal capacity. As a general
rule, officers of the corporation are not liable personally for the official acts unless they have
exceeded the scope of their authority. In the absence of evidence showing that the officers
mentionedintheOrderoftheLaborArbiterdatedMarch11,1980haveexceededtheirauthority,the
writofexecutioncannotbeenforcedagainstthem,especiallysosincetheywerenotgivenachance
tobeheard.
RANSOMandthesevenindividualrespondentsinthiscasehavenotappealedfromtherulingoftheNLRCthat
Section6,Rule39,isnotinvocablebytheminregardstotheexecutionofthedecisionofDecember19,1972.
Hence, the issue can no longer be raised herein. Even if the said section were applicable, the 5year period
thereinmentionedmaynothaveexpiredbyDecember18,1978becausetheperiodshouldbecountedonlyfrom
thetimethebackwagesweredetermined,whichcouldhavebeeninearly1974.
We now come to the NLRC's decision upholding nonpersonal liabilities of the individual respondents herein for
backwagesofthe22strikers.
(a)Article265ofthelaborCode,inpart.expresslyprovides:
Anyworkerwhoseemploymenthasbeenterminatedasaconsequenceofanunlawfullockoutshall
beentitledtoreinstatementwithfillbackwages.
Article273oftheCodeprovidesthat:
AnypersonviolatinganyoftheprovisionsofArticle265ofthisCodeshallbepunishedbyafineof
notexceedingfivehundredpesosand/orimprisonmentfornotlessthanone(1)daynormorethan
six(6)months.
(b)Howcantheforegoingprovisionsbeimplementedwhentheemployerisacorporation?Theanswerisfound
inArticle212(c)oftheLaborCodewhichprovides:
(c)'Employerincludesanypersonactingintheinterestofanemployerdirectlyorindirectly.Theterm
shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as
employer.
The foregoing was culled from Section 2 of RA 602, the Minimum Wage Law. Since RANSOM is an artificial
person,itmusthaveanofficerwhocanbepresumedtobetheemployer,beingthe"personactingintheinterest
of(the)employer"RANSOM.Thecorporation,onlyinthetechnicalsense,istheemployer.
The responsible officer of an employer corporation can be held personally, not to say even criminally, liable for

nonpaymentofbackwages.Thatisthepolicyofthelaw.IntheMinimumWageLaw,Section15(b)provided:
(b) If any violation of his Act is committed by a corporation, trust, partnership or association, the
manager or in his default, the person acting as such when the violation took place, shall be
responsible.Inthecaseofagovernmentcorporation,themanagingheadshallbemaderesponsible,
exceptwhenshownthattheviolationwasduetoanactorcommissionofsomeotherperson,over
whomhehasnocontrol,inwhichcasethelattershallbeheldresponsible.
In PD 525, where a corporation fails to pay the emergency allowance therein provided, the prescribed penalty
"shallbeimposedupontheguiltyofficerorofficers"ofthecorporation.
(c)Ifthepolicyofthelawwereotherwise,thecorporationemployercanhavedeviouswaysforevadingpayment
ofbackwages.intheinstantcase,itwouldappearthatRANSOM,in1969,foreseeingthepossibilityorprobability
of payment of back wages to the 22 strikers, organized ROSARIO to replace RANSOM, with the latter to be
eventuallyphasedoutifthe22strikerswintheircase.RANSOMactuallyceasedoperationonMay1,1973,after
theDecember19,1972DecisionoftheCourtofIndustrialRelationswaspromulgatedagainstRANSOM.
(d)TherecorddoesnotclearlyIdentify"theofficerorofficers"ofRANSOMdirectlyresponsibleforfailuretopay
the back wages of the 22 strikers. In the absence of definite proof in that regard, we believe it should be
presumedthattheresponsibleofficeristhePresidentofthecorporationwhocanbedeemedthechiefoperation
officerthereof.Thus,inRA602,criminalresponsibilityiswiththe"Manager"orinhisdefault,thepersonactingas
such.InRANSOM,thePresidentappearstobetheManager.
(e)Consideringthatnonpaymentofthebackwagesofthe22strikershasbeenacontinuingsituation,itisour
opinionWhatthepersonalliabilityoftheRANSOMPresident,atthetimethebackwageswereorderedtobepaid
shouldalsobeacontinuingjointandseveralpersonalliabilitiesofallwhoxrayhavethereaftersucceededtothe
officeofpresidentotherwise,the22strikersmaybedeprivedoftheirrightsbytheelectionofapresidentwithout
leviableassets.
WHEREFORE,thequestionedDecisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommissionisSETASIDE,andtheOrder
ofLaborArbiterTitoF.GeniloofMarch11,1980isreinstatedwiththemodificationthatpersonalliabilityforthe
back wages due the 22 strikers shall be limited to Ruben Hernandez, who was President of RANSOM in 1974,
jointlyandseverallywithotherPresidentsofthesamecorporationwhohadbeenelectedassuchafter1972orup
tothetimethecorporatelifewasterminated.
SOORDERED.
AbadSantos(Chairman),Yap,CruzandParas,*,JJ.,concur.
Narvasa,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
*JusticeEdgardoL.ParaswasdesignatedtositintheFirstDivisioninhellofJusticeAndresR.
Narvasa,whoinhibitedhimself.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation