C

COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO

SEPARATION PAY, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES.

5.1 An employee is entitled to separation pay under the following instances:

(1) when the employer terminates an employee for causes enumerated under Article
283 and 284 of the Labor Code,1 which are the installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment, closing or cessation of operation of the establishment, and
disease; and (2) when the termination of the employee is declared illegal and
reinstatement is no longer possible.2 The instant case does not fall under any of the
aforementioned instances, which entitles complainant with separation pay.

5.2 To stress, complainant was validly dismissed due to his excessive

unauthorized absences and disregard of the numerous orders sent by the HRD to return
to work and explain his derelictions, which constitute just causes for his termination.
Clearly, complainant’s termination was not due to authorized causes under the Labor
Code, which entitles the employee to separation pay.

5.3 The Honorable Supreme Court, in Audio Electric Co. Inc. v. NLRC, ruled
that “moral and exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an
employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor,
or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.”3

5.4 In the instant case, the Company validly terminated complainant for just
causes and he was afforded due process. Thus, the Company cannot be attributed with
bad faith or fraud, and the Company did not terminate complainant in a manner
oppressive to labor. Hence, complainant is not entitled to moral and exemplary
damages.

5.5 In the same vein, the Company cannot be made liable for attorney’s fees
since there is no bad faith on its part. In Lopez v. NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled that

1
Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company Incorporated,
G.R. No. 190389, 19 April 2017.
2
Paz v. Northern Tobacco Redrying Co.,Inc, G.R. No. 199554, 18 February 2015.
3
G.R. No. 106648, 17 June 1999.
“attorney’s fees are not recoverable where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith
on the part of private respondent.”4

5.6 The complainant also alleges non-payment of his 13th month pay.
However, complainant’s 13th month pay for 2018 has not yet been released since he
has yet to undergo the proper clearance procedure required by the Company.

5.7 In Milan, et al. v. NLRC5 the Supreme Court upheld the employer’s right
to institute clearance procedure prior to the release of a separated employee’s monetary
claims, to wit:

“Requiring clearance before the release of last payments to the employee is a

standard procedure among employers, whether public or private.

xxx

The preferential treatment given by our law to labor, however, is not a license
for abuse. It is not a signal to commit acts of unfairness that will unreasonably
infringe on the property rights of the company. Both labor and employer have
social utility, and the law is not so biased that it does not find a middle ground
to give each their due.”

5.8 To allow complainant-appellant to secure his money claims without

completing the Company’s clearance procedure would be to perilously put the
Company’s rules into naught and expose it to possible vexation from its employees who
would opt not to undergo the clearance procedure.

5.9 The Company’s clearance procedure was established precisely to protect

it from unscrupulous and distressing claims which employees may initiate despite
having been given what is due them by law and by contract. Corollarily, the clearance
procedure also allows protection to the employees since it would properly document
the absence of any accountability the employee may have to the employer. In sum, the
clearance procedure affords both parties an opportunity to settle once and for all the
disputes arising from the employment relation and close the lid on an impending
litigation which each may have against the other.

4
G.R. No. 124548, 08 October 1998.
5
G.R. No. 202961, 04 February 2015.
 5.10 It bears to emphasize that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
“the law in protecting the rights of laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-
destruction of the employer. While the constitution is committed to the policy of social
justice and protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor
dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own
right, which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple
fair play.”

5.11 To note, during the SENA proceedings in the NLRC, the HRD requested
complainant to avail of the clearance procedure to claim his 13th Month pay. Thus, the
Company has no intention of reneging from its duty to pay what is due to complainant.

5.12 Consequently, complainant’s 13th month pay for 2018 is pending release
subject to complainant’s completion of his clearance requirements.

D
COMPLAINANT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS.

5.13 Complainant has no cause of action against Peter Giovanni Flores, Cherry
Pie Fernandez, William De Guzman, Russel J. Mediano and Rommy Viray. As mere
employees, individual respondents cannot be held liable for the acts of their employer.

5.14 It is a basic principle of law that corporations have a personality separate

and distinct from its officers. Its officers cannot be made liable for acts done in a
representative capacity. The Supreme Court, in MAM Realty Development Corporation v.
NLRC, held that “a corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its
directors, officers, and employees. Obligations incurred by them, acting as such
corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they
represent.”6

5.15 Under the corporate entity doctrine, the liability of a corporation cannot
be extended or imputed to its officers, who only acted on behalf of the corporation.
The Court held that there must be evidence that the corporate officer acted maliciously
and in bad faith to hold such officer personally liable for acts of the corporation.7

6
G.R. No. 114787, 02 June 1995.
7
Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Cooperative v. Cagalawan, G.R. No. 175170, 05 September 2012.
 5.16 The limited liability of a corporation does not extend to its officers, who
only acted upon its behalf. The Company clearly has a separate and distinct personality
from its shareholders, directors and officers. There is also no evidence to prove that the
individual respondents committed acts and/or omissions with malice or bad faith.