Case Digest (G.R. No. 238477)
Facts:
Ronnie Adriano R. Amoroso and Vicente R. Constantino, Jr. v. Vantage Drilling International and Group of Companies, et al., G.R. No. 238477, August 08, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ronnie Adriano R. Amoroso and Vicente R. Constantino, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages, overtime and related benefits against several foreign corporate entities: Vantage Drilling International and Group of Companies (formerly Vantage Drilling Company and Group of Companies), Vantage International Payroll Company Pte. Ltd. (Vantage Payroll), Vantage International Management Co. Pte. Ltd. (Vantage Management), and Vantage Driller III Company (Vantage Company). Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. and its Chairman/CEO Louis Paul Heusaff were impleaded as the resident agent of Vantage Company.
The factual backdrop is that petitioners were engaged as administrators to be deployed abroad; Amoroso was hired by Vantage Payroll (April 29, 2010) and Constantino by Vantage Management (July 10, 2011). They alleged prolonged work rotations with unpaid overtime and were later terminated purportedly for redundancy (December 2015), with Amoroso later summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. They filed their complaint on December 13, 2016 seeking, among other things, unpaid wages, separation pay, and damages, and prayed for solidary liability of all Vantage entities.
At the Labor Arbiter level, only Vantage Company had been served through its resident agent, Supply Oilfield; there was no proof that the other Vantage entities had been validly served or were licensed/doing business in the Philippines. In an April 24, 2017 Decision the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over respondents Vantage Payroll, Vantage Management, and Vantage International, concluding it would be futile to rule on the merits without jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter’s dispositive ruling dismissed the complaint.
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a June 27, 2017 Decision the NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in an August 11, 2017 Resolution. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in resolutions rendered November 28, 2017 and March 16, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 153098, likewise dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter rulings.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contesting the lower courts’ refusal to treat the Vantage entities as one (invoking piercing the corporate veil)...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and Court of Appeals acquire personal jurisdiction over respondents Vantage International, Vantage Payroll, and Vantage Management by virtue of service of summons upon the resident agent of Vantage Company?
- Can the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction be invoked to confer jurisdiction over corporate entities that were not validly serve...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)