Case Summary (G.R. No. 163786)
Factual Background
Times Transportation Company, Inc. operated a land-transport business and, prior to its closure in 1997, the Times Employees Union (TEU) organized and obtained a certificate of union registration. Times sought cancellation of the union’s registration and resisted bargaining after TEU was certified sole and exclusive bargaining agent following a July 1, 1997 certification election. TEU staged a strike on March 3, 1997, and another labor stoppage culminating in a strike vote on October 17, 1997. Times implemented a retrenchment program and issued retrenchment notices dated September 16, 1997 to certain employees, including the respondents, effective thirty days thereafter. Times issued notices of dismissal for alleged participation in the second strike on October 26 and November 24, 1997. By December 12, 1997, Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc. had acquired certain Certificates of Public Convenience and bus units formerly owned by Times; Mencorp was controlled by Virginia Mendoza, daughter of Times majority stockholder Santiago Rondaris.
Proceedings Concerning the Strikes and Initial NLRC Ruling
The Department of Labor and Employment referred the dispute to compulsory arbitration as NLRC NCR CC-000134-97 and issued return-to-work orders in March and November 1997. On May 21, 1998, the NLRC declared the first strike legal and the second strike illegal, and held that twenty-three employees who participated in the illegal strike had lost their employment. The NLRC denied a motion to implead Mencorp and Virginia Mendoza. Both Times and TEU appealed the NLRC decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on November 17, 2000. Times filed a petition for review in G.R. Nos. 148500-01, which remained pending before this Court at the time of the present proceedings.
Subsequent Labor Claims and the Labor Arbiter Decision
After Times’ closure, the retrenched employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal, money claims and unfair labor practices before an arbitration branch in La Union; those cases were archived pending resolution of G.R. Nos. 148500-01. The employees then withdrew with leave and refiled before 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 found that the dismissals constituted prohibited unfair labor practices under Article 248(a) and (e), Labor Code, declared the sale of Times to Mencorp simulated and in bad faith, ordered reinstatement or payment of separation pay, awarded full back wages and moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees, and fixed the monetary award at P43,347,341.69.
NLRC Appeal, Bond Proceedings and Remand
Times, Mencorp and the Spouses Mendoza filed memoranda of appeal on March 4, 2002 and moved for reduction of the appeal bond. Mencorp initially posted a P5,000,000 bond. On April 30, 2002, the NLRC denied the motion and ordered appellants to post a bond equivalent to the monetary award within ten unextendible days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellants sought reconsideration and, on July 26, 2002, Mencorp and the Spouses posted an additional P10,000,000, bringing posted bonds to P15,000,000. On August 7, 2002, the NLRC granted the motion for reduction and approved the P10,000,000 additional bond. Thereafter, on September 17, 2002, the NLRC vacated the labor arbiter’s decision and remanded the consolidated cases to the arbitration branch for further proceedings. Reconsideration of that NLRC order was denied on October 30, 2002.
Petition to the Court of Appeals and Its Ruling
The respondents sought relief in the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC for failing to dismiss the appeals for non-perfection, for remanding despite sufficient evidence, for denying the labor arbiter’s findings, for failing to recognize nonexistence of litis pendencia, and for not treating Times and Mencorp as a single entity. 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. Motions for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals were denied on May 24, 2004.
Issues Presented in the Petition for Review
Times challenged the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the labor arbiter’s decision on three principal grounds: that the case should have been dismissed for litis pendencia because of the related proceedings in G.R. Nos. 148500-01; that the NLRC acted properly in its bond rulings and did not abuse discretion in permitting reduced bond and in entertaining the appeals; and that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to hold Mencorp, the Spouses Mendoza and Rondaris liable for Times’ obligations.
The Supreme Court’s Disposition
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The opinion of the First Division, penned by Justice Ynares‑Santiago, concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly found no litis pendencia, correctly found grave abuse in the NLRC’s bond proceedings and delay, and correctly sustained the labor arbiter’s findings justifying piercing of the corporate veil.
Reasoning on Litis Pendencia
The Court held that litis pendencia did not obtain because the two proceedings raised different causes of action. The pending case in G.R. Nos. 148500-01 questioned the NLRC’s refusal to uphold dismissal of all striking employees for the second strike; by contrast, the proceedings before the arbitration branch concerned the validity of the retrenchment implemented by Times prior to the second strike and the dismissal of respondents who were retrenched and therefore employees at the time of the retrenchment. None of the respondents in the present petition were among those whom the NLRC had deemed terminated in its May 21, 1998 decision. The Court relied on the principle in University Physicians Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals that litis pendencia requires identity of parties, cause of action and relief.
Reasoning on Perfection of Appeal and the Appeal Bond
The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and that requisites for perfection of appeal under Section 3(a), Rule VI, NLRC Rules of Procedure and Article 223, Labor Code must be strictly observed. The Court observed that while it has relaxed bond requirements in exceptional circumstances, motions for reduction must be filed within the reglementary period. The NLRC had initially denied the reduction and ordered full posting within an unextendible ten-day period, but appellants filed a motion for reconsideration instead of complying. Months later the NLRC reversed its earlier denial and reduced the bond, a course the Court characterized as grave abuse because it extended the period of appeal and unduly delayed resolution to the prejudice of workers. The Court found that appellants failed to substantiate alleged computational errors in the monetary award or present credible proof of inability to secure a bond, and that the delay created the impression that appellants sought to circumvent bond requirements. The Court cited precedent that delay in labor cases and in bond rulings cannot be countenanced, including Globe General Services and Security Agency v. NLRC and Santos v. Velarde.
Reasoning on Piercing the Corporate Veil
The Court examined the doctrine permitting disregard of corporate personality only when the separate entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, and articulated the three requisite elements: complete domination of finances, policy and business practice; use of that control to perpetrate a fraud, wrong or breach of legal duty; and proximate causation of injury. The Court noted that the Labor Arbiter found that the sale of Times’ assets was transferred to a corporation controlled by Virginia Mendoza, that the incorporators and stockholders of Mencorp were relatives of Rondaris, that the timing of the sale coincided with union organization and bargaining demands, and tha
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 163786)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Times Transportation Company, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals decision dated January 30, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 75291 and its resolution dated May 24, 2004.
- The respondents are a class of former employees who were retrenched and later terminated and who instituted claims for illegal dismissal, money claims and unfair labor practices.
- The labor cases originated before the Regional Arbitration Branch in San Fernando, La Union and were thereafter prosecuted before the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch and the Labor Arbiter.
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on January 31, 2002 in favor of the complainants and awarded reinstatement, back wages and damages totaling P43,347,341.69.
- The National Labor Relations Commission issued orders and decisions concerning the perfection of appeal bonds and ultimately vacated and remanded the Labor Arbiters decision on September 17, 2002.
- The Court of Appeals granted the respondents' petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiters decision on January 30, 2004, and denied motions for reconsideration on May 24, 2004.
- The present petition to the Supreme Court sought review of the Court of Appeals' reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter decision and its holding on the issues of litis pendens, appeal bond perfection, and piercing the corporate veil.
Key Factual Allegations
- Times was a land transportation corporation that effectively closed in 1997 while the Times Employees Union (TEU) had been organized and certified following a July 1, 1997 certification election.
- TEU conducted strikes on March 3, 1997 and on October 17, 1997, the latter of which the NLRC later declared illegal for those who participated.
- Times implemented a retrenchment program and sent notices of retrenchment dated September 16, 1997 to several employees who were later among the respondents.
- Times issued termination notices dated October 26, 1997 and November 24, 1997 allegedly for participation in the October 17, 1997 strike.
- On December 12, 1997, Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc. acquired Times' Certificates of Public Convenience and a number of bus units by deeds of sale.
- Mencorp was controlled and operated by Virginia Mendoza, who is the daughter of Santiago Rondaris, the majority stockholder of Times.
- The Labor Arbiter found the sale to be simulated and in bad faith and ruled that the dismissals constituted prohibited unfair labor practices under Article 248(a) and (e) of the Labor Code.
- The Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement or, at the option of the employees, separation pay and awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees in addition to substantial back wages.
Procedural History
- The dispute over the strikes and certification was initially referred to the NLRC as NLRC NCR CC-000134-97 and produced a return-to-work order on March 10, 1997.
- The NLRC rendered a decision on May 21, 1998 declaring the first strike legal and the second strike illegal as to certain strikers, and denied a motion to implead Mencorp and others.
- Times and TEU appealed that NLRC decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed on November 17, 2000, and Times filed a petition for review in G.R. Nos. 148500-01 which remains pending with the Third Division.
- After the closure of Times, the retrenched employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices that were archived by the Regional Arbitration Branch pending resolution of G.R. Nos. 148500-01.
- The employees withdrew and refiled their complaints before the National Capital Region branch and the Labor Arbiter issued a favorable decision on January 31, 2002.
- The NLRC initially ordered the posting of a bond equivalent to the monetary award, denied motions to reduce the bond, and later granted reduction after delay and remanded the cases to the arbitration branch on September 17, 2002.
- The respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals by certiorari, which granted the petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter decision on January 30, 2004, and the Supreme Court denied Times' petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues Presented
- Whether litis pendens existed between the case pending as G.R. Nos. 148500-01 and the labor cases filed by the retrenched employees.
- Whether the appeals to the NLRC by Times, Mencorp and the Spouses Mendoza were perfected given the alleged failure to post an adequate appeal bond.
- Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in denying dismissal for non-perfection of appeal and in remanding the matter for further proceedings.
- Whether the corporate veil