Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Gagui VS Dejero

    Uploaded by

    Jessy Francis
    This case involves a petition filed by Gagui challenging a ruling that held her jointly and severally liable for a judgment against her former company, PRO Agency Manila, Inc. The Labor Arbiter had found the company liable for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages to two employees. When the employees were unable to collect from the unsatisfied writ of execution against the company, they moved to implead the company's directors and officers as judgment debtors. Gagui contested this as she had not been a party to the original case. The Supreme Court ruled in Gagui's favor, finding that for a director or officer to be jointly liable, there must be a separate finding that they were negligent in over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gagui VS Dejero

    Uploaded by

    Jessy Francis
    72 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by Gagui challenging a ruling that held her jointly and severally liable for a judgment against her former company, PRO Agency Manila, Inc. The Labor Arbiter had found the company liable for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages to two employees. When the employees were unable to collect from the unsatisfied writ of execution against the company, they moved to implead the company's directors and officers as judgment debtors. Gagui contested this as she had not been a party to the original case. The Supreme Court ruled in Gagui's favor, finding that for a director or officer to be jointly liable, there must be a separate finding that they were negligent in over

    Original Title

    GAGUI VS DEJERO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by Gagui challenging a ruling that held her jointly and severally liable for a judgment against her former company, PRO Agency Manila, Inc. The Labor Arbiter had found the company liable for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages to two employees. When the employees were unable to collect from the unsatisfied writ of execution against the company, they moved to implead the company's directors and officers as judgment debtors. Gagui contested this as she had not been a party to the original case. The Supreme Court ruled in Gagui's favor, finding that for a director or officer to be jointly liable, there must be a separate finding that they were negligent in over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views2 pages

    Gagui VS Dejero

    Uploaded by

    Jessy Francis
    This case involves a petition filed by Gagui challenging a ruling that held her jointly and severally liable for a judgment against her former company, PRO Agency Manila, Inc. The Labor Arbiter had found the company liable for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages to two employees. When the employees were unable to collect from the unsatisfied writ of execution against the company, they moved to implead the company's directors and officers as judgment debtors. Gagui contested this as she had not been a party to the original case. The Supreme Court ruled in Gagui's favor, finding that for a director or officer to be jointly liable, there must be a separate finding that they were negligent in over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gagui v.

    Dejero and Permejo


    G.R. No. 196036, 23 October 2013

    Sereno, C.J.;

    FACTS:

    Respondents Simeon Dejero and Teodoro Permejo filed separate


    Complaints for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries and overtime
    pay, refund of transportation expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees
    against PRO Agency Manila, Inc., and Abdul Rahman Al Mahwes.

    Labor Arbiter issued decision finding Pro Agency Manila, Inc., and
    Abdul Rahman Al Mahwes jointly and severally liable to pay in favor
    of the complainants. Pursuant to this Decision, the Labor Arbiter
    issued a Writ of Execution but the same was returned unsatisfied.

    Respondents then filed a Motion to Implead Respondent Pro Agency


    Manila, Inc.’s Corporate Officers and Directors as Judgment Debtors.
    The instant motion was granted with the petitioner included as the
    Vice-President/Stockholder/Director of PRO Agency, Manila, Inc.

    Petitioner, in response filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution.


    Petitioner alleged that apart from not being made aware that she was
    impleaded as one of the parties to the case, the dispositive portion of
    the 7 May 1997 Decision (1997 Decision) did not hold her liable in
    any form whatsoever.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not petitioner may be held jointly and severally liable with
    PRO Agency Manila, Inc. in accordance with Section 10 of R.A. 8042,
    despite not having been impleaded in the Complaint and named in
    the Decision.

    RULING:

    No.Petitioner may not be held jointly and severally liable.


    In Sto. Tomas v. Salac, the key issue that Gumabay, et al. presents 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.

    xxx

    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.

    Hence, for petitioner to be found jointly and solidarily liable, there


    must be a separate finding that she was remiss in directing the affairs
    of the agency, resulting in the illegal dismissal of respondents.
    Examination of the records would reveal that there was no finding of
    neglect on the part of the petitioner in directing the affairs of the
    agency. In fact, respondents made no mention of any instance when
    petitioner allegedly failed to manage the agency in accordance with
    law, thereby contributing to their illegal dismissal.

    You might also like