Lozada vs Mendoza

In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of law making a corporate officer  liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities. FIRST DIISI!", #.R. "!. $%&$'(, !)T!*+R $, -$&, VALENTIN VALENTIN S. LOZADA, PETITIONER, VS. MAGTANGGOL MENDOZA, RESPONDENT 

Magtang Magtanggol gol Mendoza Mendoza was employe employed d by VSL Service Service Center Center,, a single single proprie proprietors torship hip owned owned by Valentin Lozada; in 2003, VSL was incorporated and changed its bsiness name to L!"C Services Corp Corpora oratio tion, n, and and the latter latter as#ed as#ed Magta Magtang nggo goll to sign sign a new new emplo employm yment ent contra contract, ct, to which which Magtanggol Magtanggol re$sed becase becase it did not consider his hmber o$ years o$ employment employment with VSL% &rom then on, his wor# schedle was redced, ntil in 'anary, 200(, he was advised by the company )*ective +$$icer, ngeline gilar, to not report $or wor# and -st wait $or the call regarding his wor# sched schedle% le% .e waited patiently patiently,, bt the company company did not call him, ths he $iled a complain complaintt $or  constrctive dismissal be$ore the /LC, which the company denied% )ven so, the Labor Labor rbiter rbiter rled in $avor o$ Magtanggol, Magtanggol, and declared declared him illsgally dismissed% dismissed% 1he company appealed, appealed, bt it was dismiss dismissed ed de to nonper$ nonper$ecti ection on o$ the appeal appeal,, and the decisio decision n became became $inal $inal and e*ectory e*ectory%% Magtanggol ths $iled a motion $or issance o$ writ o$ e*ection, bt the petitioner, Valentin, and the company, L!"C Services Corporation, $iled a motion to ash the writ o$ e*ection, alleging that there was no employeremployee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent; and that L!"C L!"C Serv Service ices s Corp Corpora oratio tion n 4has 4has been been clos closed ed and and no longe longerr in opera operati tion on de de to irrev irrevers ersibl ible e $inanciallosses% $inanciallosses%5% 5% 1he Labor rbiter rbiter denied the motion to ash, ths the sheri$$ was able to garnish 67,898% 67,898%88 88 in Valenti alentin:s n:s deposit% deposit% !ecas !ecase e the -dgmen -dgmentt remaine remained d nsatis nsatis$ied $ied,, the Labor Labor rbite rbiter  r  directe directed d the sheri$$ sheri$$ to proceed proceed with $rther $rther e*ection e*ection o$ the properties properties o$ the petitioner petitioner $or the satis$action satis$action o$ the monetary award in $avor o$ the respondent% respondent% +n ecember as City on the levy made on the petitioner:s real property with an area o$ 3