G.R. No. 100776 - Co vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners Pedrito R. Parayday and Jaime Reboso alleged they were employed as fitters/welders by Oceanview/VRC Lighterage Co., Inc. and VRC/Oceanview Shipbuilders Co., Inc. starting October 1996 and March 1997, respectively.
Their duties involved assembling, welding, fitting, installing materials or components using electrical welding equipment, repairing, and securing parts of Oceanview barges.
Petitioners presented evidence including an Oceanview Identification Card and a Certificate of Employment dated 2001.

Petitioners claimed Oceanview changed its corporate name to Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. (“Shogun Ships”) in 2003, maintaining the same business line and retaining Oceanview’s employees.
They worked seven days a week, paid a daily wage of P350.00, and were issued handwritten payslips or Time Keeper’s Reports indicating hours worked and compensation received.
Petitioners alleged non-payment of overtime, holiday pay, premium pay, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and night shift differential.

In May 2006, while assigned to welding work on Shogun Ships’ barge M/T Daniela Natividad, an explosion caused the petitioners third-degree burns.
Hospitalized from May 11 to June 6, 2006; medical expenses were covered by Shogun Ships, but salary payments stopped during confinement and resumed only after discharge.
Financial assistance for medical expenses was discontinued after early August 2006.

Petitioners claimed they were verbally dismissed effective May 1, 2008 due to lack of work.
Respondent denied employer-employee relationship, stating Shogun Ships was incorporated only in 2002, separate from Oceanview.
Shogun Ships asserted petitioners were merely helpers occasionally called by regular employees, compensated only for temporary work during barge repairs; no continuous employment existed.

Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them regular employees illegally dismissed, entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, noting petitioners rendered services for more than a year and their services were necessary to the business.
The NLRC rejected respondent’s affidavits as biased and held no evidence of just cause or due process in dismissal.

CA granted respondent’s Petition for Certiorari, setting aside the NLRC Decision and dismissing the complaint, concluding petitioners failed to prove employer-employee relationship with Shogun Ships.
CA found Time Keeper’s Reports inadmissible due to lack of evidence on genuineness and execution.
CA emphasized the corporate separateness of Oceanview and Shogun Ships, declining to pierce the corporate veil without a full-blown trial.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

Whether petitioners proved continuous employment with Shogun Ships through their Time Keeper’s Reports.
Whether the CA erred in accepting respondent’s bare assertion that petitioners were only occasionally engaged helpers.
Whether the CA wrongly refused to pierce the corporate veil to treat Oceanview and Shogun Ships as one entity.
Whether the CA erred in entertaining and granting the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
Whether the CA committed error by recognizing petitioners’ former counsel despite a notice of change of counsel.

Simplified main issues: