Title
Gagui vs. Dejero
Case
G.R. No. 196036
Decision Date
Oct 23, 2013
Employees sued PRO Agency Manila, Inc. for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. Petitioner, a corporate officer, was later impleaded for execution but SC ruled she cannot be held liable without prior finding of neglect.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196036)

Procedural Background

On December 14, 1993, the respondents filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal against the placement agency PRO Agency Manila, Inc. After hearings, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on May 7, 1997, ordering the agency and Al Mahwes to pay the respondents various claims. Following unsatisfactory attempts at execution, in 2002, the respondents successfully moved to implead Gagui as a judgment debtor, despite her being neither a party to the original complaint nor named in the decision.

Implementing Liability Claims

The Executive Labor Arbiter granted the motion to implead Gagui and subsequently issued various alias writs of execution to collect on the judgment, leading to the garnishment of Gagui’s bank deposit and the levying of her properties. Gagui contested her liability by arguing that the 1997 decision did not name her as liable and claimed that implementing her liability violated the final and executory nature of the decision.

Labor Arbiter's Orders and NLRC Ruling

The Labor Arbiter denied Gagui’s motions to quash the writs and affirmed that corporate officers could be held jointly and severally liable under R.A. 8042. Gagui appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s orders and clarified that individual corporate officers do not need to be impleaded for liability to attach if they are found liable under the law.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, indicating that Gagui was solidarily liable under the provisions of R.A. 8042 without being explicitly named in the original decision. The CA reinforced the interpretation that corporate officers can be held liable under the Act without specific prior mention in the judgment to enforce a claim against them.

Rule on Timeliness of the Petition

Gagui subsequently filed a petition for review, which was questioned by the respondents on timeliness. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Gagui had a fresh 15-day period to file her petition after receiving the CA's resolution denying her motions for reconsideration, as established in previous jurisprudence, specifically the Neypes rule.

Ruling on Joint and Several Liability

The Supreme Court further evaluated the merits of Gagui's claimed liability under R.A. 8042. The Court emphasized that while the Act allows for liability of corporate officers for the actions of their corporation, this liability is not automatic. The Court determined that there was no evidence presented that in

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.