Owner and Manager are really President and shareholder.

In my labor case... againts an English Language school for Koreans... I was wrongfully terminated..and lost the case, appealed and lost... and now I have found that the SEC filing for that school has the Owner really listed as a shareholder and the Pinoy Manager is really the President of the incorperation. Claiming wrong titles would avoid liability...so  also the ownership for shareholder was not devide 60/40 per Philip regulations of forgein ownership....does this change my case so I can ask for a motion of recondiceration based on Fraud by the defendants?
By the way, YES I have noted the time limit to submit a motion and I have 6 days remaining.

the ownership of the corporation is not very relevant.

what was the reasoning of the arbiter and the commission? focus on that. after filing the MR, prepare for filing at the Court of Appeals.

Relevant if it was an attempt to escape liability ?

As I know, OMITTING information as to the identiy of a defendant is a called "fradulent misreprensation"

The court papers clearly show the "managers" role as President was omitted. As wel as the "Owners" role as mere "shareholder" having only 24% . When and IF the was decided in the claminant favor, who will hold liability of payment ? if misrepresented as to true and complete titles...they would just claim they are not liable . I really do think it is reletive, sir. Don't you?

If I were the judge, I might say that your claims are irrelevant to the subject matters of your illegal termination case. For you to prosper that different case, you have to file it separately. You only want to find loopholes to revenge against your employer. That's why you inserted the ownership issues in you termination case.

By the way, May I know why you were illegally terminated?

Thanks.

They did not site a reason at time of termination, they did not follow due process, and they added new data to a document I signed on our first interview, they failed to report to the Immigration, and did not offer a contract.... but they later said it was me not getting my AEP, (which they did not supply a contract so I could not  get it.  (a lot of hearsay to with no collaborative evidence) and the court believed EVERYTHING for the defense and nothing from me without collaborative evidence. The court did not try to get Original documents ( a rule of the court)to decide truth on my claim of Document forgery,  just accepted it as fact. The court did not state rules or laws as to their reasoning, just opined that the deference did nothing wrong. and my no action therefore termination with no due process was a "natural
​consequence" (that is not what the AEP rules say, they invoke pentalty as a fine. NOT ternination (in fact I could go back to the USA and teach for them via SKYPE)  so the court is worng in this......How that could be,  without due process, and collaborative documents  amazes me! But I hope that this LIE will expose them as liers about the other facts as well.  The conclusion and statement of fact was NOT accurate....I am filing the motion to reconsider......I need oral argument time I think also.