Case Digest (G.R. No. 239433)
Facts:
Rodel F. Bantogon v. PVC Master Mfg. Corp., G.R. No. 239433, September 16, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Rodel F. Bantogon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent PVC Master Mfg. Corp. In his Position Paper (June 24, 2014) he alleged that he had been employed by Boatwin International Corporation (as a helper, later promoted to machine operator), that Boatwin changed its trade name to PVC in January 2014, and that in March 2014 PVC prevented him from reporting for work because he assisted his brother in an illegal dismissal case against PVC. He claimed that PVC effectively refused to give him further assignment, amounting to constructive dismissal without observance of due process.
Respondent PVC denied that petitioner was ever its employee, asserting it commenced operations only on February 14, 2014 and was a separate corporate entity from Boatwin. PVC submitted corporate documents (mayor’s permit, SEC registration, articles of incorporation, by-laws, application forms and receipts) and argued that these showed it was distinct from Boatwin and not liable for Boatwin’s labor obligations.
The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated August 29, 2014, found petitioner to be PVC’s employee, ruled that PVC had assumed Boatwin’s business and absorbed its employees, and held PVC guilty of illegal dismissal for failing to allow petitioner to report for work and for not affording due process. The Labor Arbiter awarded monetary relief totaling P112,784.21 (backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, unpaid 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees).
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter in its Decision dated November 28, 2014. PVC’s motion for reconsideration to the NLRC was denied by resolution dated January 21, 2015.
PVC sought relief from the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 139685), arguing the NLRC disregarded evidence that PVC was a separate purchaser of Boatwin’s assets and therefore not liable for Boatwin’s labor obligations. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated November 24, 2017 (authored by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring), reversed the NLRC and found that petitioner failed to prove he was PVC’s employee, treating the transaction as an asset sale in which a buyer in good faith need not absorb seller’s employees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration be...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in ruling that petitioner was not an employee of PVC and therefore that PVC was not liable for illegal dism...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)