Case Digest (G.R. No. 210741)
Facts:
Maria Lea Jane I. Gesolgon and Marie Stephanie N. Santos v. CyberOne PH., Inc., Maciej Mikrut, and Benjamin Juson, G.R. No. 210741, December 26, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Gesolgon and Santos (employees) sought review of the Court of Appeals’ September 2, 2013 Decision and January 10, 2014 Resolution that set aside the NLRC’s November 26, 2012 Decision and January 21, 2013 Resolution which had declared them illegally dismissed.In their May 5, 2011 complaint, Gesolgon and Santos alleged they were hired in March and April 2008 by CyberOne Pty. Ltd. (CyberOne AU) as home‑based Customer Service Representatives, later promoted to supervisors. Around October 2009, Maciej Mikrut, CEO of both CyberOne AU and CyberOne PH., Inc. (CyberOne PH), allegedly asked the petitioners (and Juson) to be nominal incorporators/directors of CyberOne PH; they accepted and received manager titles and apparent salary increases reflected as paid by CyberOne PH. In November 2010 petitioners’ salaries were reduced and split between CyberOne AU and CyberOne PH; in March 2011 they received furlough notices offering options that effectively placed them on indefinite furlough, and in April 2011 they received their last pay.
At the Labor Arbiter (LA), respondent employers denied an employer‑employee relationship with CyberOne PH and argued CyberOne AU was a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines, so the LA (March 30, 2012) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding petitioners were directors/shareholders of CyberOne PH and not its employees and that the LA lacked jurisdiction over CyberOne AU. The NLRC reversed (Nov. 26, 2012), holding petitioners were employees of both CyberOne AU and CyberOne PH, that the furlough notices were dismissals, and that the corporate veil should be pierced to hold CyberOne AU liable; it ordered reinstatement and awarded backwages and benefits. The NLRC denied reconsideration (Jan. 21, 2013).
The Court of Appeals (CA), in the assailed Sept. 2, 2013 Decision, reversed the NLRC and dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding no evidence CyberOne PH hired or controlled petitioners, casting doubt on the pay slips (photocopies, payment...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court acquire jurisdiction over CyberOne AU (a foreign corporation) in this case?
- Were petitioners employees of CyberOne PH and/or CyberOne AU?
- Were petitioners illegally...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)