ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D.

FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T. YABUT-MISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN

G. ALMAZAR, Petitioners, vs. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, Respondent.
[G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013, Perlas-Bernabe, J.]
Facts:
Petitioner Abbott caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper of its need for a Medical
and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Alcaraz showed interest and submitted her application.
Consequently, Abbott formally offered Alcaraz the abovementioned position which was an item
under the company’s Hospira Affiliate Local Surveillance Unit (ALSU). In Abbott’s offer sheet,
it was stated that Alcaraz was to be employed on a probationary basis for a period of six months
beginning February 15, 2005. During Alcaraz’s pre-employment orientation, petitioner Almazar,
Hospira’s Country Transition Manager, briefed her on her duties and responsibilities as Regulatory
Affairs Manager.
Petitioner Yabut-Misa, Abbott’s HR Director, sent Alcaraz an e-mail which contained an
explanation of the procedure for evaluating the performance of probationary employees and further
indicated that Abbott had only one evaluation system for all of its employees. Alcaraz was also
given copies of Abbott’s Code of Conduct, Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation
(PPSE), and Performance Modules which she had to apply in line with her task of evaluating the
Hospira ALSU staff. Abbott’s PPSE procedure mandates that the job performance of a
probationary employee should be formally reviewed and discussed with the employee at least
twice. It was equally required that a signed copy of the PPSE form must be submitted to Abbott’s
HR Department and shall serve as documentation of the employee’s performance during his/her
probationary period. This shall form the basis for recommending the confirmation or termination
of the probationary employment.
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, Alcaraz’s
method of management was considered by Walsh to be "too strict."
April 20, 2005 – Alcaraz had a meeting with petitioner Terrible, Abbott’s former HR Director, to
discuss certain issues regarding staff performance standards. In the course thereof, Alcaraz
accidentally saw a printed copy of an e-mail sent by Walsh to some staff members which
essentially contained queries regarding the former’s job performance. Terrible said that Walsh’s
action was not the normal process of evaluation; May 16, 2005 – Alcaraz was called to a meeting
with Walsh and Terrible where she was informed that she failed to meet the regularization
standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs Manager. Thereafter, Walsh and Terrible
requested Alcaraz to tender her resignation, else they be forced to terminate her services. She was
also told that she should no longer report for work and was asked to surrender her office IDs. She
requested to be given one week to decide on the same, but to no avail; May 17, 2005 – Alcaraz
told her administrative assistant, Claude Gonzales that she would be on leave for that day.
However, Gonzales told her that Walsh and Terrible already announced to the whole Hospira
ALSU staff that Alcaraz already resigned due to health reasons; May 23, 2005 – Walsh, Almazar,
and Bernardo personally handed to Alcaraz a letter stating that her services had been terminated
effective May 19, 2005. The letter detailed the reasons for Alcaraz’s termination – particularly,
that Alcaraz: (a) did not manage her time effectively; (b) failed to gain the trust of her staff and to
build an effective rapport with them; (c) failed to train her staff effectively; and (d) was not able
to obtain the knowledge and ability to make sound judgments on case processing and article review
which were necessary for the proper performance of her duties.
Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus, filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers, namely, Misa, Bernardo, Almazar,
Walsh, Terrible, and Feist. She claimed that she should have already been considered as a regular
and not a probationary employee given Abbott’s failure to inform her of the reasonable standards
for her regularization upon her engagement. She contended that while her employment contract
stated that she was to be engaged on a probationary status, the same did not indicate the standards
on which her regularization would be based. She further averred that the individual petitioners
maliciously connived to illegally dismiss her when: (a) they threatened her with termination; (b)
she was ordered not to enter company premises even if she was still an employee thereof; and (c)
they publicly announced that she already resigned in order to humiliate her. On the contrary,
petitioners maintained that Alcaraz was validly terminated from her probationary employment
given her failure to satisfy the prescribed standards for her regularization.
Issue:
Whether or not the individual petitioners herein can be held liable
Ruling:
NO. While Alcaraz alleges that the individual petitioners acted in bad faith with regard to the
supposed crude manner by which her probationary employment was terminated and thus, should
be held liable together with Abbott, a judicious perusal of the records show that other than her
unfounded assertions on the matter, there is no evidence to support the fact that the individual
petitioners herein, in their capacity as Abbott’s officers and employees, acted in bad faith or were
motivated by ill will in terminating Alcaraz’s services. The fact that Alcaraz was made to resign
and not allowed to enter the workplace does not necessarily indicate bad faith on Abbott’s part
since a sufficient ground existed for the latter to actually proceed with her termination.
Moreover, records are bereft of any showing that the loss of some of Alcaraz’s remaining
belongings could be attributed to Abbott or any of its officers. 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.
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.