Case Digest (G.R. No. 108734)
Facts:
Concept Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Norberto Marabe, et al., G.R. No. 108734, May 29, 1996, the Supreme Court First Division, Hermosisima, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Concept Builders, Inc. is a domestic construction corporation; the private respondents are its former employees (laborers, carpenters and riggers) who received written notices of termination in November 1981 stating their contracts had expired and the project was complete. The Labor Arbiter found otherwise, ruling on December 19, 1984 that the project was unfinished and ordering reinstatement and back wages (one year/300 working days).
The NLRC dismissed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 27, 1985, and an NLRC computation (October 16, 1986) placed the backwages at P199,800.00. A writ of execution issued October 29, 1986 produced partial satisfaction by garnishment of P81,385.34 from petitioner’s debtor. An alias writ followed (February 1, 1989) seeking the balance of the award and reinstatement, but service and levy proved problematic.
The special sheriff reported attempts were resisted: employees on the premises claimed to be employed by Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc. (HPPI), personal properties were levied but security guards prevented removal, and the sheriff recommended a break‑open order. A third‑party claim was filed (November 6, 1989) asserting the levied properties belonged to HPPI. Private respondents moved for a break‑open order (November 23, 1989), submitting General Information Sheets (both dated May 15, 1987) for petitioner and HPPI showing overlapping shareholders, directors/officers and the same principal office at 355 Maysan Road, Valenzuela.
HPPI opposed (February 1, 1990), asserting corporate separateness and distinct businesses. The Labor Arbiter denied the break‑open motion (March 2, 1990). On appeal the NLRC set aside the arbiter’s order, issued the break‑open order and directed the sheriff to auction the levied properties (April 23, 1992), dismissing HPPI’s third‑party claim; the NLR...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a break‑open order to enforce its judgment against property on premises claimed by a third party?
- Was it proper for the NLRC to pierce the corporate veil and treat HPPI as an alter ego or instrumentality of Concept Builders absent an explicit showing that HPPI was created to evad...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)