'Wensha vs Yung Case Digest\r'

'G. R. No. 185122 fearful 16, 2010 WENSHA resort CENTER, INC. and/or XU ZHI JIE, Petiti championrs, vs. LORETA T. YUNG, Respondent. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of beg filed by an employer who was charged before the National trade union movement Relations Commission (NLRC) for dismissing an employee upon the advice of a Feng Shui master. Facts: Wensha Spa Center, Inc. (Wensha) in Quezon City is in the business of sauna tub and massage services. Xu Zhi Jie a. k. a. Pobby Co (Xu) is its president,3 respondent Loreta T. Yung (Loreta) was its administrative managing director at the time of her termination from employment.Loreta recounted that on August 10, 2004, she was asked to leave her office because Xu and a Feng Shui master were exploring the premises. afterwards that day, Xu asked Loreta to go on leave with pay for one month. She did so and returned on September 10, 2004. Upon her return, Xu and his wife asked her to unsay from Wensha becau se, according to the Feng Shui master, her aura did not match that of Xu. Loreta refused alone was informed that she could no longer continue working at Wensha. That same afternoon, Loreta went to the NLRC and filed a case for black dismissal against Xu and Wensha.Labor Arbiter (LA) Francisco Robles dismissed Loreta’s charge for lack of merit. He found it more presumptive that Loreta was dismissed from her employment due to Wensha’s bolshie of trust and confidence in her. NLRC affirmed in its Resolution,9 citing its observation that Wensha was still considering the proper action to take on the day Loreta left Wensha and filed her complaint. CA transposed the ruling of the NLRC on the ground that it gravely maltreated its discretion in appreciating the factual bases that led to Loreta’s dismissal. The CA noted that thither were irregularities and inconsistencies in Wensha’s position.Issue: Whether or not suitor Xu Zhi Jie is solidarily conceivabl e with Wensha. govern: Loreta’s security of tenure is guaranteed by the physical composition and the Labor Code. Under the security of tenure guarantee, a worker can only be all over from his employment for cause and after due physical process. The records be bereft of evidence that Loreta was duly informed of the charges against her and that she was presumptuousness the opportunity to respond to those charges prior to her dismissal. If there were therefore charges against Loreta that Wensha had to investigate, then it should incur informed her of those charges and required her to rationalize her side.Wensha should also have kept records of the investigation conducted time Loreta was on leave. The honor requires that two receives be given to an employee prior to a valid termination: the start-off notice is to inform the employee of the charges against her with a warning that she may be terminated from her employment and giving her middling opportunity within wh ich to explain her side, and the second notice is the notice to the employee that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, she is organism terminated from her employment. This is a requirement of due process and clearly, Loreta did not receive any of those required notices.Nevertheless, the dally finds merit in the argument of petitioner Xu that the CA erred in ruling that he is solidarily liable with Wensha. unproblematic is the rule that a toilet is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons piece it and from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. â€Å"Mere ownership by a genius stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the outstanding stock of a corporation is not of itself adapted ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality. In labor cases, corporate directors and policemans may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment only if th rough with spitefulness or in bad faith. expectant faith does not connote bad nous or negligence; it imports a dishonest target or some moral obliquity and apprised doing of wrong; it means breach of a cognise duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the personality of fraud. In the subject decision, the CA concluded that petitioner Xu and Wensha are jointly and severally liable to Loreta.We have read the decision in its entirety that simply failed to come across any decision of bad faith or malice on the part of Xu. There is, therefore, no justification for much(prenominal) a ruling. To sustain such a finding, there should be an evidence on record that an officer or director acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the services of an employee. Moreover, the finding or indication that the dismissal was effected with malice or bad faith should be give tongue to in the decision itself.\r\n'