Title
Francisco vs. Mallen, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 173169
Decision Date
Sep 22, 2010
A waiter filed for illegal dismissal and wage claims; the Supreme Court ruled the employer’s officer not personally liable, upholding corporate separation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173169)

Factual Background

Numeriano Mallen, Jr. was employed as a waiter at VIPS Coffee Shop and Restaurant. He initiated a series of leaves, including sick leave for tonsillitis and subsequent vacation and paternity leaves. Upon taking sick leave in April 1998, the management awarded him an extended leave of three months citing concerns about his health due to his prior absences. This decision prompted Mallen to file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in May 1998 for underpayment of wages and other claims. Upon returning to work, Mallen was refused employment, leading to a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Mallen, determining that his dismissal was illegal, primarily linked to his prior action of filing a complaint with the DOLE. The Decision mandated Mallen's reinstatement, back wages totaling P88,000.00, and additional damages, leading to a total monetary award of P99,350.90, including moral and exemplary damages.

NLRC's Ruling

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, declaring the complaint for illegal dismissal premature because the three-month leave given to Mallen had not yet expired when he filed his complaint. Nevertheless, the NLRC acknowledged the closure of VIPS Coffee Shop and ordered a financial settlement for Mallen, limiting the relief to separation pay and denying moral and exemplary damages.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, ruling that the extended leave granted to Mallen amounted to constructive dismissal. It emphasized the undue nature of the leave he received compared to his original request, thus justifying the findings of illegal dismissal.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Petitioner's Liability

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Irene Martel Francisco, as Vice-President of VIPS Coffee Shop and Restaurant, was personally liable for the monetary awards due to Mallen’s alleged illegal termination. The Court reiterated the doctrine of corporate entity and personal liability. It identified the need for dual elements: the complainant must allege that the corporate officer acted in bad faith or assented to unlawful acts, and there must be clear evidence of such conduct.

In reference to previous cases, the Court highlighted that mere employment positions do not automatically imbue personal lia

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.