Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41615)
Facts:
Central Azucarera del Danao v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Nonelon Bana-ay, and Danao Development Corporation, G.R. Nos. L-41615, L-41616 and L-41617, June 29, 1985, Supreme Court Second Division, Cuevas, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Central Azucarera del Danao (Central Danao) was the owner-operator of a sugar mill whose mill properties and assets were sold by deed of sale dated July 7, 1961 to Danao Development Corporation (Dadeco). Dadeco took over management and operation on July 8, 1961. Three long-service employees of Central Danao — Nonelon Bana-ay, Jose A. Cosculluela, and Gorgonio Palma — alleged they were terminated without notice and later sought termination (separation) pay under the Termination Pay Law, R.A. 1052 as amended by R.A. 1787.
Each employee’s employment history was shown in the pre-trial stipulations: Bana-ay began with Central Danao in 1939 and was promoted to locomotive conductor in 1946; Cosculluela was hired in 1935 as superintendent of the transportation department; Palma was employed as a machinist from 1931. After the July 7 sale, Dadeco hired some former Central Danao employees — Cosculluela was rehired on July 8, 1961, while Bana-ay and Palma were rehired only on August 1, 1961 — and subsequently the three were separated from Dadeco’s service at various later dates (Bana-ay December 15, 1961; Palma July 10, 1966; Cosculluela February 1, 1967).
The three employees filed separate suits for recovery of termination pay and damages against both Dadeco and Central Danao in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Occidental (Civil Case Nos. 8214, 8255, 8353). The parties entered into stipulations of fact and limited issues to (a) entitlement under R.A. 1052, as amended, and (b) which party — Central Danao or Dadeco — was liable to pay. The CFI rendered three separate decisions largely in favor of the plaintiffs: it ordered Central Danao to pay Bana-ay and Palma termination pay and found that Cosculluela had been paid by Dadeco an amount covering his separation under Dadeco’s computations; some claims against Dadeco were dismissed.
Central Danao appealed to the then Court of Appeals, which on June 23, 1975 affirmed the CFI decisions but modified the award for Jose Cosculluela so that it covered only his years of service up to July 7, 1961 (the date of sale). Central Danao’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied, and Central Danao then filed the present petition for review in the Supreme Court seeking reversal ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Central Azucarera del Danao liable to pay termination (separation) pay to the employees for service rendered up to July 7, 1961?
- Did the purchase and takeover by Dadeco operate as a closure/cessation or otherwise terminate the employees’ service such that Central Danao was not liable?
- Were the employees’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)