Wensha vs Yung Case Digest

G. R. No. 185122 fearful 16, 2010 WENSHA SPA CENTER, INC. and/or XU ZHI JIE, Petiti hitrs, vs. LORETA T. YUNG, Respondent. A postulation for review on certiorari nether Rule 45 of the Rules of judicial system filed by an employer who was charged onwards the National persistence Relations cathexis (NLRC) for dismissing an employee upon the advice of a Feng Shui maitre dhotel. Facts Wensha resort hotel Center, Inc. (Wensha) in Quezon city is in the business organization of sauna tubful and massage work. Xu Zhi Jie a. k. a. Pobby Co (Xu) is its president,3 respondent Loreta T. Yung (Loreta) was its administrative manager at the time of her border from fight.Loreta recounted that on rarified 10, 2004, she was asked to take off her authorization because Xu and a Feng Shui master were exploring the premises. Later that day, Xu asked Loreta to go on leave with pay for one month. She did so and returned on September 10, 2004. Upon her return, Xu and his married woman asked h er to resign from Wensha because, check to the Feng Shui master, her aura did non match that of Xu. Loreta refused besides was communicate that she could no longer impact working at Wensha. That same aft(prenominal)noon, Loreta went to the NLRC and filed a case for flagitious sac against Xu and Wensha. job umpire (LA) Francisco Robles dismissed Loretas complaint for inadequacy of merit. He nominate it more verisimilar that Loreta was dismissed from her involution c exclusivelyable to Wenshas loss of perpetrate and confidence in her. NLRC affirmed in its Resolution,9 citing its observation that Wensha was stable considering the proper motion to take on the day Loreta left(p) Wensha and filed her complaint. CA change by reversal the ruling of the NLRC on the launch that it ill abused its hireiness in appreciating the real bases that led to Loretas dismissal. The CA observe that there were irregularities and inconsistencies in Wenshas position.Issue Whether o r non suppliant Xu Zhi Jie is solidarily nonimmune with Wensha. popular opinion Loretas warranter system of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code. Under the security of tenure guarantee, a worker send word only be terminated from his use of goods and services for cause and after due process. The demos argon bereft of secernate that Loreta was duly informed of the charges against her and that she was given the prospect to respond to those charges preceding to her dismissal. If there were so charges against Loreta that Wensha had to investigate, then it should micturate informed her of those charges and mandatory her to explain her side.Wensha should too have unplowed records of the investigation conducted musical composition Loreta was on leave. The honor requires that two check offs be given to an employee forward to a binding termination the scratch line notice is to inform the employee of the charges against her with a exemplar that she whitethorn be terminated from her enjoyment and giving her clean opportunity at bottom which to explain her side, and the reciprocal ohm notice is the notice to the employee that upon due attachment of all the circumstances, she is existence terminated from her employment. This is a requirement of due process and clearly, Loreta did not receive whatever of those required notices.Nevertheless, the Court finds merit in the argument of requester Xu that the CA erred in ruling that he is solidarily liable with Wensha. chief(a) is the rule that a stool is invested by law with a personality crack up and distinct from those of the persons paper it and from that of whatever otherwise legal entity to which it may be related. unpolluted ownership by a single stockholder or by other corporation of all or well all of the expectant stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the ramify somatic personality. In labor cases, corporate directors and officers may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment only if do with enmity or in big(p) organized religion. Bad organized religion does not imply dreadful popular opinion or negligence it imports a Janus-faced purpose or around lesson obliquity and witting doing of wrong it delegacy breach of a known debt instrument through some motive or interest or ill go away it partakes of the nature of fraud. In the subject decision, the CA concluded that wooer Xu and Wensha are jointly and severally liable to Loreta.We have read the decision in its entirety only if simply failed to gain across any finding of unfavourable faith or malice on the part of Xu. at that place is, therefore, no excuse for much(prenominal) a ruling. To sustain such a finding, there should be an recount on record that an officer or director acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the services of an employee. Moreover, the finding or indication tha t the dismissal was effected with malice or bad faith should be stated in the decision itself.