VALENTINS.LOZADAv.

MAGTANGGOLMENDOZA
G.R.No.196134,October12,2016
BERSAMIN,J.:

FIRSTDIVISION
NLRC'SJURISDICTION

FACTS: PetitionerMagtanggolMendozawasemployedasatechnicianbyVSLService
Center,asingleproprietorshipownedandmanagedbyValentinLozada.VSLServiceCenter
wasincorporatedandchangeditsbusinessnametoLB&CServicesCorporation.Subsequently,
the petitioner was asked by respondent Lozada to sign a new employment contract. The
petitionerdidnotaccedebecausetherespondentcompanydidnotconsiderthenumberofyears
ofservicethathehadrenderedtoVSLServiceCenter.Fromthenon,thepetitioner'swork
schedulewasreducedtoonetothreedaysaweek.
The petitioner was given his regular working schedule by the respondent
company. However, thereafter, the petitioner was advised by the respondent company's
ExecutiveOfficernottoreportforworkandjustwaitforacallfromtherespondentcompany
regardinghisworkschedule.However,hedidnotreceiveanycallfromit.Consideringthathis
familydependsonhimforsupport,heaskedhiswifetocalltherespondentcompanyandinquire
onwhenhewouldreportbacktowork.Still,thepetitionerwasnotgivenanyworkscheduleby
therespondentcompany.Hence,thepetitionerfiledforillegaldismissal.
ThelaborarbiterruledinfavorofthenpetitionerpromptingLB&Ctoappeal
beforetheNLRC,buttheNLRCdismissedtheappealfornonperfectionthereofduetofailureto
deposittherequiredcashorsuretybond.
Furthermore, the Labor Arbiter directed the sheriff to proceed with further
executionofthepropertiesofthepetitionerforthesatisfactionofthemonetaryawardinfavorof
therespondentwhereinthehereinpetitionerstatedthatLB&CServicesCorporation"hasbeen
closedandnolongerinoperationduetoirreversiblefinanciallosses.

ISSUE:Whetherornotpetitionerisliableforthemonetaryawardsgrantedtotherespondent
despite the absence of a pronouncement of his being solidarity liable with LB&C Services
Corporation

HELD:Theappealismeritorious.Acorporation,asajuridicalentity,mayactonlythroughits
directors,officersandemployees.Obligationsincurredasaresultoftheacts.ofthedirectorsand
officersasthecorporateagentsarenottheirpersonalliabilitybutthedirectresponsibilityofthe
corporationtheyrepresent.Asageneralrule,corporateofficersarenotheldsolidarilyliablewith
thecorporationforseparationpaybecausethecorporationisinvestedbylawwithapersonality
separateanddistinctfromthoseofthepersonscomposingitaswellasfromthatofanyother
legalentitytowhichitmayberelated.Mereownershipbyasinglestockholderorbyanother
corporationofallornearlyallofthecapitalstockofacorporationisnotofitselfsufficient
groundfordisregardingtheseparatecorporatepersonality.