Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    56 - Del Rosario v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Rivera
    This case involved a complaint filed by Atienza with the POEA for money claims against Philsa Construction and Trading Co., Inc. and Arieb Enterprises. The NLRC ordered the companies to pay Atienza salary differentials and benefits but the judgment went unsatisfied. Atienza then moved for an alias writ of execution against Del Rosario, the president of Philsa. The Supreme Court held that Del Rosario could not be held personally liable for the unpaid obligations of Philsa. The wrongdoing to pierce the corporate veil was not clearly established as there was no judgment yet when Philsa's license lapsed and it was shown the creation of a related company predated Atienza's claims

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    56 - Del Rosario v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Rivera
    45 views1 page
    This case involved a complaint filed by Atienza with the POEA for money claims against Philsa Construction and Trading Co., Inc. and Arieb Enterprises. The NLRC ordered the companies to pay Atienza salary differentials and benefits but the judgment went unsatisfied. Atienza then moved for an alias writ of execution against Del Rosario, the president of Philsa. The Supreme Court held that Del Rosario could not be held personally liable for the unpaid obligations of Philsa. The wrongdoing to pierce the corporate veil was not clearly established as there was no judgment yet when Philsa's license lapsed and it was shown the creation of a related company predated Atienza's claims

    Original Description:

    Corpo Case Digest

    Original Title

    56_Del Rosario v. NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a complaint filed by Atienza with the POEA for money claims against Philsa Construction and Trading Co., Inc. and Arieb Enterprises. The NLRC ordered the companies to pay Atienza salary differentials and benefits but the judgment went unsatisfied. Atienza then moved for an alias writ of execution against Del Rosario, the president of Philsa. The Supreme Court held that Del Rosario could not be held personally liable for the unpaid obligations of Philsa. The wrongdoing to pierce the corporate veil was not clearly established as there was no judgment yet when Philsa's license lapsed and it was shown the creation of a related company predated Atienza's claims

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views1 page

    56 - Del Rosario v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Rivera
    This case involved a complaint filed by Atienza with the POEA for money claims against Philsa Construction and Trading Co., Inc. and Arieb Enterprises. The NLRC ordered the companies to pay Atienza salary differentials and benefits but the judgment went unsatisfied. Atienza then moved for an alias writ of execution against Del Rosario, the president of Philsa. The Supreme Court held that Del Rosario could not be held personally liable for the unpaid obligations of Philsa. The wrongdoing to pierce the corporate veil was not clearly established as there was no judgment yet when Philsa's license lapsed and it was shown the creation of a related company predated Atienza's claims

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Del Rosario v.

    NLRC (85416, July 24, 1990)

    Facts:

    The POEA dismissed a complaint for money claims for lack of merit. The decision was appealed to the
    NLRC, which reversed the decision and ordered Philsa Construction and Trading Co., Inc. (the recruiter)
    and Arieb Enterprises (the foreign employer) to jointly and severally pay Atienza salary differentials and
    vacation leave benefits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and entry of judgment was made.

    A writ of execution was issued by the POEA but it was returned unsatisfied as Philsa was no longer
    operating and was financially incapable of satisfying the judgment. However, another corporation, Philsa
    International Placement & Services Corp., composed of practically the same set of stockholders, was
    registered as a licensed private employment agency.

    Atienza moved for the issuance of an alias writ against the officers of Philsa. This was opposed by the
    officers, led by Del Rosario, the president and general manager. The POEA ordered that an alias writ of
    execution be issued against the properties of Del Rosario. The NLRC dismissed the appeal.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Del Rosario may be held liable for the unpaid obligation of Philsa

    Held:

    No, Del Rosario could not be held liable. For the separate juridical personality of a corporation to be
    disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed.

    The NLRC's decision is wanting in establishing the wrongdoing. The conclusion that Philsa allowed its
    license to expire to evade payment of private respondent's claim is not supported by facts. At the time
    Philsa allowed its license to lapse in 1985 and even at the time it was delisted in 1986, there was yet no
    judgment in favor of Atienza, which were actually made in 1988. An intent to evade payment of his claims
    cannot therefore be implied from the expiration of its license and its delisting. Neither will the
    organization of Philsa International Placement & Services Corp. imply fraud since it was organized and
    registered in 1981, several years before Atienza filed his complaint with the POEA in 1985. The creation
    of the second corporation could not have been in anticipation of Atienza's money claims.

    Forgoing considered, Philsa's corporate personality remains inviolable. Here, not only has there been a
    failure to establish fraud, but it has also not been shown that Del Rosario is the corporate officer
    responsible for Atienza’s predicament. Thus, the former could not be held liable.

    You might also like