Case Digest (G.R. No. 163786)
Facts:
Times Transportation Company, Inc. v. Santos Sotelo, et al., G.R. No. 163786, February 16, 2005, First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Times Transportation Company, Inc. (Times) was a land‑transportation corporation whose employees organized the Times Employees Union (TEU) prior to Times' closure in 1997. Times challenged TEU’s legitimacy and, after a certification election on July 1, 1997, TEU was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent; TEU then demanded collective bargaining while Times contended the med‑arbiter’s decision was not yet final. TEU held strikes on March 3–12, 1997 and again beginning October 17, 1997; DOLE issued return‑to‑work orders (including one certifying the dispute to the NLRC on November 17, 1997). Times implemented a retrenchment program and sent retrenchment notices dated September 16, 1997, then terminated 123 striking employees by notices dated October 26 and November 24, 1997.
By December 12, 1997, several of Times’ certificates of public convenience and bus units had been sold to Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc. (Mencorp), a company controlled and operated by Virginia Mendoza, daughter of Times’ majority stockholder Santiago Rondaris. The DOLE‑certified cases were referred to the NLRC (docketed NLRC NCR CC‑000134‑97), and on May 21, 1998 the NLRC issued a decision declaring the first strike legal but the second illegal and holding that 23 persons who participated in the illegal strike lost employment status; the NLRC denied respondents’ motion to implead Mencorp and Mendoza.
Times and TEU both appealed that NLRC decision to the Court of Appeals; the CA affirmed on November 17, 2000 and Times filed a petition for review to this Court (G.R. Nos. 148500‑01, pending with the Third Division). Meanwhile, after Times’ closure, the retrenched employees (including most respondents here) filed illegal dismissal, money claims and unfair labor practice cases before the Regional Arbitration Branch in San Fernando; those cases were archived pending resolution of G.R. Nos. 148500‑01. The employees withdrew and refiled in the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, this time impleading Mencorp and the Spouses Reynaldo and Virginia Mendoza.
On January 31, 2002, Labor Arbiter Renaldo O. Hernandez rendered a decision finding Times’ dismissals (except expunged ones) to be unfair labor practices and ordering reinstatement or separation pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees; the monetary award totaled P43,347,341.69. Times, Mencorp and the Mendozas filed memoranda of appeal to the NLRC and sought reduction of the appeal bond. The NLRC initially denied reduction and ordered appellants to post the bond equivalent to the award within ten days (April 30, 2002). Mencorp posted a P5 million bond; later an additional P10 million bond was posted and, on August 7, 2002, the NLRC granted the motion for reduction and approved the P10 million additional bond.
On September 17, 2002, however, the NLRC vacated the Labor Arbiter’s decision and remanded the consolidated cases to the arbitration branch for further proceedings; reconsideration was denied October 30, 2002. The dismissed employees petitioned the Court of Appeals by certiorari, alleging grave abuse by the NLRC for (inter alia) failing to dismiss appeals for non‑posting of a proper appeal bond, improperly remanding the case, and failing to sustain the Labor Arbiter’s findings. On January 30, 2004 the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the NLRC decision and resolution, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s January 31, 2002 decision; its denial of motions for reconsideration was rendered Ma...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is dismissal on the ground of litis pendencia warranted because of pending proceedings in G.R. Nos. 148500‑01?
- Did Times (and co‑appellants) fail to perfect their appeal to the NLRC for not posting the required appeal bond, and did the NLRC commit grave abuse in its handling of the bond motions?
- Was it proper to pierce the corporate veil and hold Mencorp, the Mendozas and Rondar...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)