Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29203)
Facts:
The petitioners are Litonjua Group of Companies, Eddie Litonjua, and Danilo Litonjua, and the respondent is Teresita Vigan; the decision under review was promulgated on June 28, 2001 by the Supreme Court, Third Division. Vigan alleged that she was hired on February 2, 1979 as a telex operator and later assigned as accounting and payroll clerk under Danilo Litonjua, and that beginning in 1995 Danilo subjected her to verbal abuse, physical intimidation and exclusion from the workplace, including incidents in July 1995 when guards barred her entry and a stapler was thrown at her; she wrote letters of complaint and, after further episodes of alleged emotional disturbance in 1996, she was required to undergo psychiatric examination, which she underwent and which produced a certificate showing no psychosis but anxiety related to job difficulties. The petitioners contended that Vigan worked for ACT Theater, Inc., not under a juridical entity called "Litonjua Group of Companies," that sCase Digest (G.R. No. L-29203)
Facts:
Petitioners Litonjua Group of Companies, Eddie Litonjua and Danilo Litonjua employed respondent Terestia Vigan beginning February 2, 1979, first as telex operator and later as accounting and payroll clerk; between 1995 and 1996 petitioner Danilo allegedly berated and barred Vigan from the workplace, and Vigan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (June 10, 1997) found Vigan diseased and awarded separation pay under Article 284 of the Labor Code; the NLRC modified, finding abandonment; the Court of Appeals (March 20, 2000) reversed, ruling illegal dismissal and awarding reinstatement or separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Can Litonjua Group of Companies, lacking juridical personality, be treated as respondent’s employer?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that respondent was illegally dismissed instead of affirming the NLRC’s finding of abandonment or the Labor Arbiter’s application of Art. 284?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering reinstatement or separation pay and awarding full backwages?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)