Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Liability of corporate officers in labor cases - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/152642.pdf

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/152642.pdf

" x x x.


The key issue that Gumabay, et al. present is whether or not the 2nd paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042, which holds the corporate directors, officers, and partners of recruitment and placement agencies jointly and solidarily liable for money claims  and damages that may be adjudged against the latter agencies, is unconstitutional.
 
 In G.R. 167590 (the PASEI case), the Quezon City RTC
unconstitutional the last sentence of the 2nd
 paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. 8042.  It pointed out that, absent sufficient proof that the corporate officers
and directors of the erring company had knowledge of and allowed the illegal recruitment, making them automatically liable would violate their right to due process of law.  

The pertinent portion of Section 10 provides:

SEC. 10.  Money Claims. – x x x
 
 The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any  and all claims under this section shall be joint and several.  This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval.  The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for
all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers.  If the recruitment/placement agency is a  juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. (Emphasis supplied)

 But the Court has already held, pending adjudication of this case, that the liability of corporate directors and  officers is not automatic.  To make them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct of illegal activities.

  In the case of Becmen and White Falcon, while there is evidence that these companies were at fault in not investigating the cause of Jasmin’s death, there is no
mention of any evidence in the case against them that intervenors Gumabay, et al., Becmen’s corporate officers and directors, were personally involved in their company’s particular actions or omissions in Jasmin’s case.  

x x x."