Polymer Rubber Corporation vs. Salamuding
Polymer Rubber Corporation vs. Salamuding
Polymer Rubber Corporation vs. Salamuding
154
154
155
REYES, J.:
The instant petition1 assails the Decision2 dated June
30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No.
98387 directing the recall of the alias writ of execution and
the lifting of the notice of levy on the shares of stocks of
petitioner Joseph Ang (Ang). The Resolution3 dated
November 5, 2008 denied the motion for reconsideration
thereof.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Herein respondent Bayolo Salamuding (Salamuding),
Mariano Gulanan and Rodolfo Raif (referred to as the
complainants) were employees of petitioner Polymer
Rubber Corporation (Polymer), who were dismissed after
allegedly committing certain irregularities against
Polymer.
On July 24, 1990, the three employees filed a complaint
against Polymer and Ang (petitioners) for unfair labor
practice, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime
services, violation of Presidential Decree No. 851, with
prayer for reinstatement and payment of back wages,
attorneys fees, moral and exemplary damages.4
On November 21, 1990, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered
a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing
the complainant unfair labor practice (sic) but directing the
respondent the following:
1. Reinstate complainants to their former position
with full back wages from the time they were illegally
dismissed up to the time of reinstatement.
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 316.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr., with Associate Justices
Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina ArevaloZenarosa, concurring id., at pp. 1731.
3Id., at pp. 3334.
4Id., at p. 18.
156
156
157
158
which was held liable in the decision of the LA, NLRC and
the Supreme Court b) the computation of the monetary
award in favor of the complainants in the amount of
P2,962,737.65 was misleading, anomalous and highly
erroneous and c) the decision sought to be enforced by
mere motion is already barred by the statute of
limitations.17
In an Order18 dated December 16, 2005, the LA granted
the motion. The LA ordered the quashal and recall of the
writ of execution, as well as the lifting of the notice of levy
159
160
corporation[]
c. That the losing party cannot be held liable to pay the
salaries and benefits of the employees beyond the
companies [sic] existence
d. That the separation pay of employees of the company
which has closed its business permanently is only half
month salary for every year of service.28
161
employees.
The dispositive portion of the LA Decision dated
November 21, 1990 which Salamuding attempts to enforce
does not mention that Ang is jointly and severally liable
with Polymer. Ang is merely one of the incorporators of
Polymer and to single him out and require him to
personally answer for the liabilities of Polymer is without
basis. In the absence of a finding that he acted with malice
or bad faith, it was error for the CA to hold him
responsible.
In Aliling v. Feliciano,31 the Court explained to wit:
The CA held the president of WWWEC, Jose B. Feliciano,
San Mateo and Lariosa jointly and severally liable for the
monetary awards of Aliling on the ground that the officers
are considered employers acting in the interest of the
corporation. The CA cited NYK Interna
_______________
30Francisco v. Mallen, Jr., G.R. No. 173169, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA
118, 123124.
31G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 186.
162
162
163
164
165
Castro,
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.