Case Summary (G.R. No. 194983)
Petitioner
Erson Ang Lee, doing business as Super Lamination Services, claiming distinct corporate identities for each establishment and denying an employer-employee relationship between his businesses and the members of the respective unions.
Respondent
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Super Lamination Services (SMSLSA-NAFLU-KMU), representing rank-and-file workers who sought to include employees of three sister companies in a unified certification election.
Key Dates
• March 7, 2008: Unions A, B, and C filed petitions for certification elections.
• May 21–23, 2008: DOLE Medi-Arbiters denied the petitions for lack of an employer-employee relationship.
• May 8, 2009: DOLE Secretary’s office reversed and set aside Medi-Arbiters’ orders, directing a consolidated election.
• May 24, 2010 & September 21, 2010: CA affirmed the DOLE decision and denied reconsideration.
• November 21, 2016: Supreme Court rendered its final decision under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, protecting the right to self-organization and collective bargaining.
• Labor Code of the Philippines, Book V, Rule XVI, Sections 5–6, and Department Order No. 40-03 (multi-employer bargaining).
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Petition for Review on Certiorari).
• Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in Philippine jurisprudence.
Antecedent Facts
All three establishments offered lamination services under unified management. They shared a single human-resources department that handled hiring, discipline, payroll (including SSS registration), and issued worker identification cards. Employees were regularly rotated among the three entities, performed similar functions, and adhered to the same daily instructions. The companies retained the same legal counsel and filed identical motions disputing their employer-employee relationship with the unions’ members.
Procedural History
The DOLE Regional Office dismissed each union’s petition for certification election on grounds that petitioners were not employers of the listed workers. On consolidated appeal, DOLE Secretary’s office reversed these orders, applied the concept of multi-employer bargaining, and directed a single certification election. The CA affirmed this decision, and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The present petition challenges the application of piercing the corporate veil and the appropriateness of a combined bargaining unit.
Issues
- Whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is appropriately applied to treat three legally separate entities as one employer.
- Whether the combined rank-and-file workforce of the three companies constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
Piercing the Corporate Veil
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that separate juridical personalities may be disregarded when used to defeat public convenience or frustrate workers’ rights. Given the undisputed facts—common management, shared human-resources functions, integrated payroll and discipline, unified legal representation, coordinated filing of dismissal motions, and alternating assignment of employees—the three entities operated as an alter ego of a single enterprise under Ang Lee’s control. Their corporate forms were a subterfuge to obstruct collective bargaining, warranting veil-piercing to protect labor rights.
Multi-Employer Bargaining Concept
Under DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, Sections 5–6, sister establishments may form one bargaining unit if they employ shared policies, joint hiring or rotation schemes, and centralized supe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194983)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner Erson Ang Lee operates Super Lamination Services as a sole proprietorship; Express Lamination Services, Inc. and Express Coat Enterprises, Inc. are separately incorporated entities.
- Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Super Lamination Services (Union A), Express Lamination Workers’ Union (Union B), and Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Express Coat Enterprises, Inc. (Union C) each filed petitions for certification elections on 7 March 2008.
- The three companies, represented by the same counsel, moved to dismiss all petitions for lack of employer-employee relationship, asserting that each union’s members were primarily employed by one of the sister companies.
- DOLE NCR Mediators-Arbiters Michael Angelo Parado and Alma Magdaraog-Alba denied the petitions on 21 and 23 May 2008, respectively, citing absence of an employer-employee relationship.
Procedural History
- The three unions consolidated their appeals before the Office of the DOLE Secretary, arguing the companies were unorganized and under unified management.
- Undersecretary Romeo C. Lagman reversed the DOLE NCR orders, directing immediate certification elections among the rank-and-file employees of all three companies with four choices: the three unions or “No Union.”
- DOLE found the companies to be sister entities sharing a common human resources department, rotating workforce, and single identification system, indicating a work-pooling scheme.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed DOLE’s Decision and Resolution; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether piercing the corporate veil is warranted to treat Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat as a single employer.
- Whether the combined rank-and-file employees of the three companies constitute an appropriate bargaining