Case Digest (G.R. No. 204868)
Facts:
Toledo Construction Corp. Employees' Association‑ADLO‑KMU v. Toledo Construction Corp., G.R. No. 204868, December 07, 2022, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Toledo Construction Corporation Employees' Association‑ADLO‑KMU (the Union), represented by Danilo Reyes; respondents are Toledo Construction Corporation (Toledo), Dumaguete Builders and Equipment Corporation (Dumaguete), Castelweb Trading and Development Corporation (Castelweb), KJP Resources, Inc., One Trading Corporation, and Januario Rodriguez (Rodriguez), president of the respondent corporations.In 2003 the Union affiliated with ADLO‑KMU; members were allegedly harassed and several were dismissed after union activity. The Union filed a preventive mediation case and later seven consolidated complaints (illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and unpaid benefits) in January 2004 naming Toledo, Dumaguete, and Rodriguez among respondents. On February 24, 2005 the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a decision declaring the strike illegal but awarding separation pay, backwages and other monetary claims to specified dismissed employees; the NLRC modified that decision on February 22, 2006 and it became final and executory on March 16, 2006 (Entry of Judgment March 22, 2006). The Computation Division fixed the monetary awards at P6,430,538.61 (February 8, 2007).
The NLRC issued a Writ of Execution on August 13, 2007. The sheriff garnished only P12,670.00 from Toledo's bank account. In 2007 Toledo executed a series of deeds of sale transferring certain motor vehicles to Dumaguete and Castelweb; although some deeds were dated 2007 the LTO registrations in the new owners’ names were effected only in 2009 — after a Notice of Levy (March 3, 2009) and after Toledo moved to quash the writ (filed February 10, 2009). Dumaguete and Castelweb filed third‑party claims; the LTO later ordered cancellation of the transfers and the NLRC directed sale on execution of the levied vehicles.
During the execution stage the Union sought enforcement also against the other corporations and Rodriguez, alleging that Toledo fraudulently transferred assets to evade execution. The Union filed an Urgent Motion for Clarification (October 20, 2010) and later a Petition for Relief from Judgment (December 20, 2010) asserting extrinsic fraud on the ground that Commissioner Raul T. Aquino (a member of the NLRC) gave unsolicited advice to the Union’s counsel to file a Motion for Clarification instead of a petition for certiorari, thereby depriving the Union of its proper remedy. The NLRC denied relief (February 14, 2011) and denied reconsideration (March 11, 2011).
The Union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 31, 2012 the CA dismissed the petition and, in a December 10, 2012 reso...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Union's Petition for Relief from Judgment properly dismissed on the ground that extrinsic fraud justifying relief must have been committed only by the prevailing party and not by a member of the tribunal?
- Should the Court pierce the corporate veil and hold the five respondent corporations and Rodriguez jointly and severally liable for the NLRC monetary award?
- Does the doctrine of immutability of judgment bar holding respondents not named in the original Writ o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)