Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
• Respondents, Elicerio, Ricardo, Eufemia, Fidel, Simeon, and Liberato were employees of Small
and Medium Enterprise Bank, Inc. (SME Bank).
• The principal shareholders and corporate directors of the bank were Eduardo Agustin and
Peregin de Guzman.
• When SME experienced financial difficulties, Agustin and de Guzman offered to sell the bank’s
shares of stock to Abelardo Samson.
• Samson, through letter of agreements demanded as preconditions for sale of SME bank that the
peaceful turnover of management shall include the termination and/or retirement of employees
they will mutually agree upon, and that said employees’ retirement benefits will be waived upon
consummation of the sale.
• Agustin and De Guzman accepted the terms of sale and persuaded the respondents to tender
their resignations, with the promise to rehire them upon reapplication.
• Respondents tendered their resignation but only Simeon was rehired thereafter. Furthermore,
respondents demanded payment of their respective separation pays but such was denied.
ISSUES:
HELD:
2) Agustin and de Guzman are liable but not spouses Samson. Generally, a corporation has
a personality separate and distinct from that of its individual shareholders or members, such that a
change in the composition of its shareholders or members would not affect its corporate liabilities.
Thus, in the case it is SME bank that is the employer of the illegally dismissed employees and is
therefore liable for the satisfaction of their claims.
But, Agustin and de Guzman are also for illegal dismissal because they are corporate directors
or officers of SME bank at the time of the employee’s dismissal. In Bago-Medellin Suagrcane
Planters Association, Inc. v. NLRC, it was held that in cases of illegal dismissal, corporate directors
and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation, where terminations of employment are
done with malice or in bad faith. In the case, Agustin and de Guzman, motivated by their desire to
dispose of their shares of stock to Samson, induced their employees to resign with the promise of
rehiring them after the sale of stocks.
Spouses Samson are not liable because they were not corporate directors or officers at the
time of the illegal dismissal of employees.