Scribd
Upload
51 views

Case 7

The document outlines instructions for a case study on GUILLERMO vs. USON, including a graded recitation and a requirement to fill out a table with key case details. It summarizes the case involving Crisanto P. Uson's illegal dismissal and the subsequent ruling that held corporate officer Jose Emmanuel Guillermo personally liable due to evidence of bad faith. Students are instructed to submit their findings via Google Classroom by May 5.

Uploaded by

21-58179
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views

Case 7

The document outlines instructions for a case study on GUILLERMO vs. USON, including a graded recitation and a requirement to fill out a table with key case details. It summarizes the case involving Crisanto P. Uson's illegal dismissal and the subsequent ruling that held corporate officer Jose Emmanuel Guillermo personally liable due to evidence of bad faith. Students are instructed to submit their findings via Google Classroom by May 5.

Uploaded by

21-58179
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Esguerra, Janna Marie Y.

BSMA – 3213

CASE NO. 7 (FINAL PERIOD)

1. For the next online/face-to-face class session, please refer to the announcement I
made in the Google Classroom or FB Group Chat. Attached there with is the copy of
the PowerPoint (Session 11 Ppt) that we’ll be utilizing for said session. Study the whole
PowerPoint as we’ll have a graded recitation. You can conduct further readings and
researches of the topics to be discussed;

2. Read and study this case, either thru its full text or digest or both.
2.1. GUILLERMO vs. USON, G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016
(https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016marchdecisions.php?id=210 )

3. After reading and analyzing the said case or digest, fill up this Table with your
answers:

Questions Answers
1. Who were the contending parties or JOSE EMMANUEL P.
persons in the case? GUILLERMO, petitioner
CRISANTO P. USON, respondent.
2. What are the important facts in said Respondent Crisanto P. Uson was
cases that are also related to the topics in employed by Royal Class Venture Phils.,
the above-mentioned PowerPoint? Inc. (Royal Class Venture) as an
accounting clerk in 1996 and was later
promoted to the position of accounting
supervisor. Uson was allegedly dismissed
from employment on December 20, 2000.
Uson filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in 2001. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
Uson, ordering Royal Class Venture to
reinstate him and pay his backwages, 13th
month pay, damages, and attorney's fees.
Royal Class Venture did not appeal the
decision, and a writ of execution was
issued.

However, the judgment remained


unsatisfied, and Uson filed a motion to
hold the directors and officers of Royal
Class Venture, including petitioner Jose
Emmanuel Guillermo, personally liable for
the satisfaction of the decision. The Labor
Arbiter granted the motion, piercing the
corporate veil and holding Guillermo
personally liable. Guillermo filed a motion
for reconsideration, but it was denied. He
then appealed to the NLRC, which
dismissed his appeal. Guillermo further
filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
NLRC's decision. Guillermo filed a motion
for reconsideration, but it was also denied.
Hence, he filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the Supreme Court.
3. What is/are the issue/s or dispute/s in 1. Can an officer of a corporation, like
the said cases or why were those parties Guillermo, be included as a judgment
contending with each other? obligor in a labor case for the first time
after the decision of the Labor Arbiter
has become final and executory?
2. Do the doctrines of piercing the veil of
corporate fiction and personal liability
of company officers in labor cases
apply?
4. What were the arguments or standpoint The case involves a labor dispute between
or reasoning of the parties or persons Crisanto P. Uson and Royal Class Venture
contending in said case? Phils., Inc. (Royal Class Venture). Uson
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) and obtained a favorable decision
from the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter
ordered Royal Class Venture to reinstate
Uson and pay his backwages, 13th month
pay, damages, and attorney's fees.
5. Give the brief decision or ruling of the It is said that the corporate veil is treated
Supreme Court and explain briefly why as one or the same as the corporation and
those are related to the topic. stockholders, where is connected to our
topic the "Doctrine of Piercing the Veil of
Corporate Fiction", the officer is solidarily
liable because he used the veil as an
evasion to avoid fulfilling his obligations
to the employee as part of the illegal
dismissal. The Supreme Court emphasized
that personal liability of corporate officers
in labor cases is an exception to the
general doctrine of separate personality of
a corporation and is only imposed when
there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, or
malice.

An officer of a corporation can be held


personally liable in a labor case, even after
the decision has become final and
executory, if there is evidence of fraud,
bad faith, or malice. The doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil and assigning
personal liability to directors, trustees, and
officers in labor cases is not applicable in
every instance of inability to collect from a
corporation. Personal liability only
attaches when there is evidence of fraud,
bad faith, or malice, or when the corporate
entity is used to evade an existing
obligation, protect fraud, or defend a
crime. In this case, there is evidence of
Guillermo's bad faith and malicious intent
to evade the judgment obligation, such as
his role in the dismissal of Uson, his
refusal to participate in the proceedings,
and his involvement in dissolving the
original obligor company. Therefore, the
Court upheld the decision holding
Guillermo personally liable.

4. Make the said Table in a Word document and submit the same to me via GOOGLE
CLASSROOM on or before the class/session on May 5. This will also be one of your
“balas” in the Graded Recitation on May 5.

Stay safe and God bless!

You might also like