GR L 17126; (February, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17126 February 27, 1965
ALFONSO HILADO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. and CARLOS L. LOCSIN, defendants; CARLOS L. LOCSIN, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Alfonso Hilado filed a complaint against Victorias Milling Co., Inc. and its President, Carlos L. Locsin, to recover actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. Hilado alleged that in July or August 1956, Locsin, in his capacity as President, offered him the position of Technical Assistant to the President with a monthly salary of P1,500. After initial reluctance due to the required relocation, Hilado accepted upon Locsin’s insistence and an offer of a loan. Consequently, Hilado resigned from his position as chief of the legal department of Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., Inc. and gave up his teaching assignments. He assumed the new position on September 1, 1956, but his employment was unjustly terminated on June 30, 1959, causing him damages. Locsin moved to dismiss the complaint against him, arguing he acted in an official capacity and that the corporation, having a separate juridical personality, was the proper party. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Locsin for lack of cause of action.
ISSUE
Whether the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a sufficient cause of action against appellee Carlos L. Locsin.
RULING
No, the complaint as drafted did not sufficiently state a cause of action against Locsin. The Court noted that paragraph 3 of the complaint specifically alleged Locsin made the job offer “in his capacity as President,” and paragraph 9 did not specify whether the termination notice was signed by Locsin or in what capacity. These allegations rendered the cause of action against Locsin personally doubtful, as they suggested he was acting within his official corporate capacity. However, the Court held this deficiency was curable by amendment. Instead of outright dismissal, the trial court should have given Hilado a reasonable opportunity to amend his complaint. The order of dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to allow such amendment.