Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992
ARTURO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR
ARBITER MA. LOURDES A. SALES, AVELINO D.
VALLESTEROL, ALEJANDRO Q. FRIAS, LINDA DE LA
CRUZ, CORAZON M. DE LA FUENTE, LILIA F. FLORO,
and MARIO F. JAYME, respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
It is a fundamental principle of law and human conduct that a
person "must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give every one his due, and observe
honesty and good faith." 1 This is the principle we shall apply in
the case at bar to gauge the petitioner's motives in his dealings
with the private respondents.
Arturo de Guzman was the general manager of the Manila office
of the Affiliated Machineries Agency, Ltd., which was based in
Hongkong. On June 30, 1986, he received a telex message from
Leo A. Fialla, managing director of AMAL in its main office,
advising him of the closure of the company due to financial
reverses. This message triggered the series of events that are the
subject of this litigation.
Immediately upon receipt of the advise, De Guzman notified all
the personnel of the Manila office. The employees then sent a
letter to AMAL accepting its decision to close, subject to the
payment to them of their current salaries, severance pay, and
other statutory benefits. De Guzman joined them in these
representations.
These requests were, however, not heeded. Consequently, the
employees, now herein private respondents, lodged a complaint
with the NLRC against AMAL, through Leo A. Fialla and Arturo
de Guzman, for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages or commissions,
separation pay, sick and vacation leave benefits, 13th month pay,
and bonus.
For his part, the petitioner began selling some of AMAL's assets
and applied the proceeds thereof, as well as the remaining assets,
to the payment of his claims against the company. He also
organized Susarco, Inc., with himself as its president and his wife
as one of the incorporators and a member of the board of
directors. This company is engaged in the same line of business
and has the same clients as that of the dissolved AMAL.
With this development, Susarco and its officers were impleaded
in the amended complaint of the private respondents. Later,
William Quasha and/or Cirilo Asperilla were also included in the
suit as the resident agents of AMAL of the Philippines.
On November 7, 1986, the petitioner filed his own complaint
with the NLRC against AMAL for his remaining unsatisfied
claims.
On May 29, 1987, Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno, to whom
the petitioner's complaint was assigned, rendered a decision