Case Summary (G.R. No. 201022)
Factual Antecedents
• April 29, 2003: Abragar files a complaint against Marble Center and Bronio for underpayment of wages, service incentive leave, 13th‐month pay; later amends to include constructive dismissal, separation and retirement pay, damages, attorney’s fees.
• Mandatory conference ends without settlement; Center and Bronio fail to file position paper and waive evidence presentation.
• Position Paper by Abragar describes Center as a corporation at TESDA Compound, alleges work schedule cut and constructive dismissal in December 2002.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision and Execution
• July 30, 2004: Labor Arbiter finds constructive dismissal; orders separation pay (₱28,630), backwages (₱109,174), salary differential (₱17,492.67), service incentive leave pay (₱3,007.50), 13th‐month pay (₱5,746).
• No appeal filed; decision becomes final. Abragar secures writ of execution but is denied entry to TESDA premises for levy.
Post-Judgment Motions
• December 29, 2004: Bronio moves for reconsideration, contending no employer–employee relationship and that Center is a non-juridical TESDA training facility under MOA with DTI, Bulacan gov’t, MAP.
• January 25, 2005: Petition for relief from judgment reiterates Center’s non-juridical status and Bronio’s limited role as MAP employee; petition dismissed June 30, 2006 for lack of appeal against LA decision.
TESDA’s Intervention Before the NLRC
• September 25, 2007: TESDA files Appeal Memorandum in Intervention seeking quashal of writ of execution and break-open order; alleges Center lacks capacity to be sued, real party-in-interest are MOA parties, and due process violation.
• NLRC June 30, 2008 Resolution: Grants intervention, vacates LA decision, quashes writ and break-open order, and remands for impleader of real parties-in-interest under Labor Code Article 221 and Section 218(c).
Court of Appeals’ Review
• Respondent’s petition for certiorari challenges NLRC resolutions.
• March 13, 2012 CA Decision: Nullifies NLRC resolutions, reinstates July 30, 2004 LA decision, holding that TESDA’s intervention was untimely under Revised Rules of Court and that LA decision had become final and executory.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in annulling the NLRC’s grant of TESDA’s intervention given Marble Center’s lack of juridical personality and the mandatory joinder of indispensable parties.
Supreme Court Ruling
• Center is a non-juridical entity without capacity to sue or be sued; only natural or juridical persons may be parties (Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sections 1–2).
• Indispensable parties (DTI, Provincial Government of Bulacan, MAP, TESDA) under Rule 3, Section 7 must be
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 201022)
Procedural History
- The Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in San Fernando City received Abragar’s complaint on April 29, 2003 for underpayment and non-payment of salaries, service incentive leave, and 13th month pay against Marble Center and its supervisor, Philip Bronio.
- An amended complaint added claims for constructive dismissal, separation and retirement pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on July 30, 2004 declaring Abragar’s dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay, backwages, salary differential, service leave pay, and 13th month pay.
- No appeal was filed by Marble Center or Bronio within the reglementary period; Abragar moved for writ of execution.
- Bronio filed a motion for reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment, both denied; an Entry of Judgment followed.
- A writ of execution and break-open order were issued but enforcement was frustrated by denial of entry into the TESDA compound.
- TESDA filed an Appeal Memorandum in Intervention (September 25, 2007) before the NLRC praying to quash the writ and break-open order and to remand for impleading real parties.
- The NLRC granted TESDA’s intervention in a June 30, 2008 Resolution, vacating the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the writ of execution, and the break-open order, and remanding the case.
- Abragar filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals; on March 13, 2012, the CA nullified the NLRC Resolutions and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s July 30, 2004 Decision.
- TESDA sought review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Factual Antecedents
- Ernesto Abragar was hired in September 1997 as a marble operator by the Marble Training Center located within the TESDA compound in Guiguinto, Bulacan.
- In December 2002, the Center reduced Abragar’s working days from six per week to two or three, cutting his weekly wage and reducing his 13th month pay.
- Abragar alleged that these actions amounted to constructive dismissal.
- Summons were served by registered mail; through mandatory conference, Bronio appeared for the Center but no settlement was reached and position papers were ordered.
- Abragar’s position paper described the Center as a corporation organized under Philippine laws; the Center and Bronio failed to submit their position paper and were deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
Labor Arbiter Decision
- On July 30, 2004, the Labor Arbite