Abbott Laboratories Philippines, et. al. vs. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz

G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013 ( J. Estella M. Perlas-Bernabe)

FACTS:

Abbott caused the publication in a newspaper of its need for a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory Affairs Manager). Alcaraz who was then a Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager of a company like Abbott showed interest and was then employed on a probationary basis for a period of 6 months. During the course of her employment, Alcaraz noticed that some of the staff had disciplinary problems. Thus, she would reprimand them for their unprofessional behavior such as non-observance of the dress code, moonlighting, and disrespect of Abbott officers. However, her method of management was considered to be too strict. Alcaraz was then called to a meeting where she was informed that she failed to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs Manager. Thereafter, she was requested to tender her resignation, else they be forced to terminate her services. She felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Abbott maintained that Alcaraz was validly terminated from her probationary employment given her failure to satisfy the prescribed standards for her regularization which were made known to her at the time of her engagement. The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the findings of the LA and ruled that there was no evidence showing that she had been apprised of her probationary status and the requirements which she should have complied with in order to be a regular employee.

ISSUE:Whether or not the individual petitioners acted in bad faith with regard to the supposed manner by which her probationary employment was terminated and thus, should be held liable together with Abbot.

RULING:Alcarazs contention fails to persuade.

It is hornbook principle that personal liability of corporate directors, trustees or officers attaches only when: (a) they assent to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or when they are guilty of bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or when there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the corporation, its stockholders or other persons; (b) they consent to the issuance of watered down stocks or when, having knowledge of such issuance, do not forthwith file with the corporate secretary their written objection; (c) they agree to hold themselves personally and solidarily liable with the corporation; or (d) they are made by specific provision of law personally answerable for their corporate action.

There is no evidence to support the fact that the individual petitioners herein, in their capacity as Abbotts officers and employees, acted in bad faith or were motivated by ill will in terminating Alcarazs services. It is a well-settled rule that bad faith cannot be presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the onus of proving it. All told, since Alcaraz failed to prove any malicious act on the part of Abbott or any of its officers, the Court finds the award of moral or exemplary damages unwarranted.