Title
Naguiat vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 116123
Decision Date
Mar 13, 1997
Taxi drivers employed by CFTI sought higher separation pay after Clark Air Base closure. NLRC ruled US$120/year separation pay, holding CFTI and its president liable, absolving Naguiat Enterprises and vice president.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116123)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Operation and employment
    • Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFTI) held an AAFES concession at Clark Air Base; Sergio F. Naguiat was president and Antolin T. Naguiat vice-president.
    • Taxi drivers paid a daily “boundary fee” (US$26.50–27.00), bore vehicle expenses, and earned at least US$15.00/day; excess earnings were deposited bi-monthly.
  • Closure and negotiated separation benefits
    • Clark Air Base closed November 26, 1991, due to U.S. base phase-out; AAFES dissolved and drivers’ services terminated.
    • AAFES Taxi Drivers Association negotiated P500/year of service severance; most drivers accepted, but some disaffiliated, joined NOWM, and refused the amount.
  • Administrative and judicial proceedings
    • Individual respondents (through NOWM) filed complaints for separation pay against CFTI, Naguiat Enterprises, AAFES and the drivers’ union.
    • Labor Arbiter awarded P1,200/year of service “for humanitarian consideration,” rejecting CFTI’s force-majeure defense.
    • NLRC modified: granted separation pay at US$120/year of service (peso equivalent) and held Sergio F. and Antolin Naguiat Enterprises jointly and severally liable with CFTI.
    • Petitioners sought certiorari under Rule 65, arguing jurisdictional excess, invalid representation, improper corporate/officer liability, and denial of due process.

Issues:

  • Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion or act without jurisdiction by increasing separation pay?
  • Can NOWM validly represent the individual respondents?
  • Is the joint and several liability of Naguiat Enterprises and its officers contrary to law?
  • Were Sergio F. and Antolin Naguiat denied due process for not being impleaded?
  • Did petitioners waive objections to insufficient copies of the respondents’ NLRC appeal?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.