Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    Corpo Yu v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Charm Pedrozo
    1) Private respondents were employees of Tanduay Distillery Inc. (TDI) who were terminated due to retrenchment. They filed a case against TDI. 2) TDI's assets were later purchased by Twin Ace Holdings Inc., which took over business operations under the name Tanduay Distillers. 3) The court ruled that TDI and Tanduay Distillers were separate corporations, as there was no evidence they shared ownership or management. It was therefore incorrect to include Tanduay Distillers in the case initially filed against TDI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Corpo Yu v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Charm Pedrozo
    119 views2 pages
    1) Private respondents were employees of Tanduay Distillery Inc. (TDI) who were terminated due to retrenchment. They filed a case against TDI. 2) TDI's assets were later purchased by Twin Ace Holdings Inc., which took over business operations under the name Tanduay Distillers. 3) The court ruled that TDI and Tanduay Distillers were separate corporations, as there was no evidence they shared ownership or management. It was therefore incorrect to include Tanduay Distillers in the case initially filed against TDI.

    Original Description:

    Corpo Digest, Yu v. NLRC

    Original Title

    Corpo Yu v. Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Private respondents were employees of Tanduay Distillery Inc. (TDI) who were terminated due to retrenchment. They filed a case against TDI. 2) TDI's assets were later purchased by Twin Ace Holdings Inc., which took over business operations under the name Tanduay Distillers. 3) The court ruled that TDI and Tanduay Distillers were separate corporations, as there was no evidence they shared ownership or management. It was therefore incorrect to include Tanduay Distillers in the case initially filed against TDI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    119 views2 pages

    Corpo Yu v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Charm Pedrozo
    1) Private respondents were employees of Tanduay Distillery Inc. (TDI) who were terminated due to retrenchment. They filed a case against TDI. 2) TDI's assets were later purchased by Twin Ace Holdings Inc., which took over business operations under the name Tanduay Distillers. 3) The court ruled that TDI and Tanduay Distillers were separate corporations, as there was no evidence they shared ownership or management. It was therefore incorrect to include Tanduay Distillers in the case initially filed against TDI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE #22 Yu v NLRC

    JAMES YU and WILSON YOUNG, petitioners,


    vs.
    THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR
    ARBITER DANIEL C. CUETO, TANDUAY DISTILLERY INC.,
    FERNANDO DURAN, EDUARDO PALIWAN, ROQUE ESTOCE AND
    RODRIGO SANTOS,
    Facts:
    Private respondents-employees Fernando Duran, Eduardo
    Paliwan, Roque Estoce, and Rodrigo Santos were employees of
    respondent corporation Tanduay Distillery, Inc, (TDI).
    Employees of TDI, including private respondents employees,
    received a memorandum from TDI terminating their services. for
    reasons of retrenchment.
    All 22 employees of TDI filed an application for the issuance of a
    temporary restraining order against their retrenchment. They were still
    retrenched due to the limited effectivity of the TRO.
    On June 1, 1988, or after respondents-employees had ceased as
    such employees, a new buyer of TDI's assets, Twin Ace Holdings,
    Inc. took over the business. Twin Ace assumed the business
    name Tanduay Distillers.
    The employees filed a motion to implead herein petitioners
    James Yu and Wilson Young, doing business under the name and style
    of Tanduay Distillers, as party respondents in said cases.
    Petitioners filed an opposition thereto, asserting that they are
    representatives of Tanduay Distillers an entity distinct and separate
    from TDI, the previous owner, and that there is no employer-employee
    relationship between Tanduay Distillers and private respondents.
    Issue: WON it may be said that petitioners and Tanduay Distillers are
    one and the same as TDI
    Held:
    NO. Twin Ace or Tanduay Distillers, on one hand, and
    Tanduay Distillery Inc. (TDI), on the other, are distinct and
    separate corporations. There is nothing to suggest that the owners
    of TDI, have any common relationship as to identify it with Allied Bank
    Group which runs Tanduay Distillers.
    It is basic that a corporation is invested by law with a
    personality separate and distinct from those of the persons
    composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it
    may be related.
    Respondents-employees have not presented any proof as to
    communality of ownership and management to support their
    contention that the two companies are one firm or closely related.

    The doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity


    This applies when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public
    convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime or where a
    corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person.
    To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation,
    the wrong-doing must be clearly and convincingly established. It
    cannot be presumed.
    The complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal lay off, and
    separation benefits was filed against TDI. Only later when the
    manufacture and sale of Tanduay products was taken over by
    Twin Ace or Tanduay Distillers were James Yu and Wilson Young
    impleaded. The corporation itself Twin Ace or Tanduay Distillers
    was never made a party to the case.
    TDI as a corporation or its shares of stock were not
    purchased by Twin Ace. The buyer limited itself to purchasing most
    of the assets, equipment, and machinery of TDI. The trade name
    "Tanduay" went with the sale because the new firm does business as
    Tanduay Distillers and its main product of rum is sold as Tanduay Rum.
    There is no showing, however, that TDI itself was absorbed by Twin Ace
    or that it ceased to exist as a separate corporation, In point
    whom the business and assets of TDI were sold."
    Since TDI and Twin Ace or Tanduay Distillers are two separate
    and distinct entities, the order to reinstate respondentsemployees is obviously without legal and factual basis.

    You might also like