Presumptuousness, not malice

In case of illegal dismissal of an employee by a company, are the officers of said company solidarily liable with the company?  This is the question answered in this case of Ricardo.

Ricardo was the Chief Security Officer of an international hotel owned and operated by ACS. During the 1998 elections, he took leaves of absences to go to his home province. On April 27, 1998, before the expiration of his 12-day vacation leave which was the last for the year, he filed an application for emergency leave for 10 days commencing April 30 up to May 13, 1998. The application was however not approved.  The disapproval was communicated to him by telegram asking him to report back to work on April 30, 1998. When he did not report for work on April 30, 1998, he received another telegram from ACS advising him that he was on unauthorized leave and asking him to provide a written explanation. He was also required to report for work the following day May 1, 1998.

But Ricardo again failed to report for work on May 1, 1998 although on May 2, 1998, ACS received a telegram from Ricardo’s father stating that Ricardo was still recovering from severe stomach illness and would report back for work on May 4. Ricardo indeed reported back for work on May 4, around lunch time bearing a medical certificate stating that he was really treated for such illness. When he presented himself to the resident manager, Mr. Baer, he was asked to submit a written explanation within 24 hours for his absences on April 30 and May 1 and why he came late on May 4.  Ricardo replied that he would be sending his explanation by e-mail as there was a great necessity for him to go home to his province that night for which reason he requested another emergency leave without pay from May 5-9.

After e-mailing his explanation wherein he explained that his absences on April 30 and May 1 were because of his sickness and his lack of knowledge of the disapproval of his request for extension of leave up to May 15, Ricardo left for the province that evening believing that his request for emergency leave without pay would be approved.  But on the same evening Mr. Baer sent an inter-office memo requiring the presence of Ricardo on May 5 for the turn over of the out-going security agency. Having left for the province, Ricardo got hold of said memo on May 8 only, so he was again absent on May 5, prompting Mr. Baer to send a telegram advising Ricardo to report back to work immediately  due to very urgent matters requiring his personal attention.  Ricardo received said telegram on May 7 and therefore rushed back to Manila on May 8 only to be humiliatingly and ignominiously barred by the guard (his subordinate) from entering the premises because of an inter-office memo of Baer dated May 7, terminating his services for willful disobedience or insubordination due to his continuous disregard of advices to report for work.

Ricardo thus sued ACS, its Manager, Baer and its President, Kenney for illegal dismissal with damages and attorney’s fees.  The NLRC and the Court of Appeals found that Ricardo was indeed illegally dismissed since his disobedience was found not to be willful for lack of a wrongful or perverse attitude. Thus ACS was ordered to reinstate Ricardo, pay his back wages, moral damages and attorney’s fees.  Baer and Kenney were made jointly and severally liable "to deter other foreign employers from repeating the inhuman treatment of the Filipino employees who should be treated with equal respect especially in their own land". Were Baer and Kenney jointly and severally liable for damages?

No. Unless they have exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule, not personally liable for their acts because a corporation by legal fiction has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members. In cases of illegal dismissal, corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation where terminations of employment are done with malice or bad fait.

In this case, there was no inhuman treatment of Ricardo. His superiors just happen to be foreigners. Moreover, their malice or bad faith was not proven. Baer, acting in behalf of ACS, was, like Ricardo also too presumptuous in thinking that the telegrams ordering the latter to report for work were all received on time drawing him to hastily conclude that Ricardo intentionally disobeyed the orders contained therein. So the complaint against Baer and Kenney should be dismissed. Only ACS should pay Ricardo his backwages and attorney’s fees plus separation pay of 1 month for every year of service since reinstatement is no longer possible owing to the nature of Ricardo’s position which is one of trust and confidence (Acesite et. al. vs. NLRC G.R. 152308; Gonzales vs. Acesite et. al. G.R. 152321, January 26, 2005).

E-mail at: [email protected]