Title
Supreme Court
Times Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Sotelo
Case
G.R. No. 163786
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2005
Times and Mencorp failed to perfect appeal; corporate veil pierced due to fraudulent asset transfer to evade labor dispute liabilities.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163786)

Factual and Procedural Background

Times employed members of TEU and challenged TEU’s registration. TEU struck twice in 1997 over alleged unfair labor practices and attempted rival union formation. The first strike was ended by a DOLE return-to-work order and compulsory arbitration; TEU was certified as bargaining agent. During negotiations, Times implemented a retrenchment program and later terminated strikers for participating in what it deemed an illegal strike.

Transfer of Assets to Mencorp

In December 1997, Mencorp (controlled by Times’ majority shareholder’s family) acquired Times’ Certificates of Public Convenience and bus units. Respondents alleged the sale was simulated to evade labor liabilities.

NLRC’s Initial Decisions and Appeals

The NLRC (May 21, 1998) held the first strike legal and the second illegal, dismissing 23 strikers. Both Times and TEU appealed; CA affirmed the NLRC on November 17, 2000. Times elevated its appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 148500-01), now pending.

Subsequent Labor Cases and Labor Arbiter Decision

After Times’ closure, retrenched employees filed illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice cases. Times’ motion to dismiss led to archival of the complaints, which respondents then refiled before the NCR Arbitration Branch, impleading Mencorp and the Mend​ozas. On January 31, 2002, Labor Arbiter Hernandez found unfair labor practices, simulated sale, and ordered reinstatement, back wages (totaling over ₱43 million), separation pay, moral/exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Appeal Bond Dispute at NLRC

Times, Mencorp, and the Mend​ozas appealed and sought bond reduction. The NLRC initially denied the motion and required full bond within ten days, which was not complied with; a subsequent reconsideration was granted only after undue delay and partial bond posting, leading to a remand of the cases back to the arbitration branch on September 17, 2002.

Court of Appeals Decision

On January 30, 2004, the CA granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, finding the NLRC committed grave abuse by (1) not dismissing for litis pendens, (2) allowing imperfect appeals to proceed, (3) remanding despite sufficient evidence, (4) denying illegal dismissal findings, and (5) piercing the corporate veil to hold Mencorp and the Mend​ozas liable. The CA reinstated the Arbiter’s January 2002 decision.

Supreme Court on Litis Pendens

The Court held there was no litis pendens: the case concerned retrenchment validity and dismissals, distinct from the pending appeal on the legality of the second strike and its general employment consequences in G.R. Nos. 148500-01.

Supreme Court on Appeal Bond Requirements

Under Labor Code Art. 223 and NLRC Rules VI, strict compliance with bond posting is jurisdictional. The NLRC’s protracted handling of bond reduction motions constituted grave abuse. D

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.