De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 (2001) Digest

De Leon vs.
NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 [2001]
Facts: Petitioners are security guards assigned in the premises of Fortune Tobacco Services, Inc. (FTC) pursuant to
a contract for security services with Fortune Integrated Services Inc. (FISI). Sometime after, FISI stockholders
executed a “Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock” in favor of a group of new stockholders, it also amended its Articles
of Incorporation changing its name to Magnum Integrated Services, Inc. (MISI). FTC terminated the contract with
FISI which resulted in the displacement of some 582 security guards assigned to FTC, including petitioners
herein.
FTC Labor Union which is an affiliate of NAFLU, sent a Notice of Strike which resulted in the picketing of the
premises of FTC, however, RTC of Pasig, issued a writ of injunction to enjoin the picket. Petitioners then filed the
instant case to the Arbitration branch of the NLRC.
Petitioners that they were regular employees of FTC which was also using the corporate names FISI and MISI,
averring that they work under the control and supervision of FTC’s security supervisors, and that, they were
dismissed without just cause and due process. They also claimed that their dismissal was the design of their
employer to bust their newly organized union. Respondent FTC, on the other hand, maintained that there was no
EE-ER relationship, that petitioners were employee of MISI a separate and distinct corporation from FTC.
LA ruled for respondents. NLRC reversed.
Issue: WON respondents are guilty of ULP.
Held: Yes, respondents are guilty of ULP.
Ratio: Respondents were guilty of interfering with the right of petitioners to self-organization which constitutes
unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. Petitioners have been employed with FISI since the
1980s and have since been posted at the premises of FTC (main factory plant, tobacco re-drying plant and
warehouse). FISI, while having its own corporate identity, was a mere instrumentality of FTC, tasked to provide
protection and security in the company premises. The 2 corporations had identical stockholders and the same
business address. FISI also had no other clients except FTC and other companies belonging to the Lucio Tan
group of companies. Moreover, the early payslips of petitioners show that their salaries were initially paid by
FTC. To enforce their rightful benefits under the laws on Labor Standards, petitioners formed a union which was
later certified as bargaining agent of all the security guards. On February 1, 1991, the stockholders of FISI sold all
their participations in the corporation to a new set of stockholders which renamed the corporation Magnum
Integrated Services, Inc. On October 15, 1991, FTC, without any reason, pre-terminated its contract of security
services with MISI and contracted 2 other agencies to provide security services for its premises. This resulted in
the displacement of petitioners. As MISI had no other clients, it failed to give new assignments to petitioners.
Petitioners have remained unemployed since then. All these facts indicate a concerted effort on the part of
respondents to remove petitioners from the company and thus abate the growth of the union and block its
actions to enforce their demands in accordance with the Labor Standards laws.
The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of section (a)
(1) is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the
free exercise of employees’ rights under section 3 of the Act, and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence
that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a
reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization
and collective bargaining.”
A corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it is
connected. However, when the concept of separate legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify
wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in case
of two corporations, merge them into one. The separate juridical personality of a corporation may also be
disregarded when such corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of another person. FISI was a mere
adjunct of FTC. FISI, by virtue of a contract for security services, provided FTC with security guards to safeguard
its premises. However, records show that FISI and FTC have the same owners and business address, and FISI
provided security services only to FTC and other companies belonging to the Lucio Tan group of companies. The
purported sale of the shares of the former stockholders to a new set of stockholders who changed the name of
the corporation to Magnum Integrated Services, Inc. appears to be part of a scheme to terminate the services of
FISI’s security guards posted at the premises of FTC and bust their newly-organized union which was then
beginning to become active in demanding the company’s compliance with Labor Standards laws. Under these
circumstances, the Court cannot allow FTC to use its separate corporate personality to shield itself from liability
for illegal acts committed against its employees.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolutions of the NLRC are SET ASIDE. Respondents are
hereby ordered to pay petitioners their full backwages, and to reinstate them to their former position without
loss of seniority rights and privileges, or to award them separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer
possible

De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 (2001) Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 (2001) Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 (2001) Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Leon vs.

NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 [2001]

LA ruled for respondents. NLRC reversed.

Issue: WON respondents are guilty of ULP.

Held: Yes, respondents are guilty of ULP.

You might also like