Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 404 views

    Ac Ransom Digest

    Uploaded by

    kpcsamson
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rosario Industrial Corporation and the officers of AC Ransom should be held jointly liable for back wages owed to union members. [1] Rosario was found to be a "run-away corporation" organized by the same family that owned AC Ransom, engaging in the same business at the same location with the same equipment and personnel. [2] This was done to avoid paying the back wages and reinstating union members, so the court disregarded the separate corporate entity fiction. [3] The officers were also held liable because a corporation can only act through its officers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ac Ransom Digest

    Uploaded by

    kpcsamson
    404 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rosario Industrial Corporation and the officers of AC Ransom should be held jointly liable for back wages owed to union members. [1] Rosario was found to be a "run-away corporation" organized by the same family that owned AC Ransom, engaging in the same business at the same location with the same equipment and personnel. [2] This was done to avoid paying the back wages and reinstating union members, so the court disregarded the separate corporate entity fiction. [3] The officers were also held liable because a corporation can only act through its officers.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Rosario Industrial Corporation and the officers of AC Ransom should be held jointly liable for back wages owed to union members. [1] Rosario was found to be a "run-away corporation" organized by the same family that owned AC Ransom, engaging in the same business at the same location with the same equipment and personnel. [2] This was done to avoid paying the back wages and reinstating union members, so the court disregarded the separate corporate entity fiction. [3] The officers were also held liable because a corporation can only act through its officers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    404 views2 pages

    Ac Ransom Digest

    Uploaded by

    kpcsamson
    The Supreme Court ruled that Rosario Industrial Corporation and the officers of AC Ransom should be held jointly liable for back wages owed to union members. [1] Rosario was found to be a "run-away corporation" organized by the same family that owned AC Ransom, engaging in the same business at the same location with the same equipment and personnel. [2] This was done to avoid paying the back wages and reinstating union members, so the court disregarded the separate corporate entity fiction. [3] The officers were also held liable because a corporation can only act through its officers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AC Ransom Labor Union v.

    NLRC

    Facts: AC Ransom Labor Union is claiming unfair labor practice against AC Ransom. The CIR and the
    Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the labor union stating that the strike was legal and justified thereby
    requiring the company to pay for backwages and to immediately reinstate the members of the union
    which the NLRC reversed the decision. Hence the special civil action of certiorari filed by the Union
    moving for the Officers of AC Ransom and ROSARIO Company to be held liable because although
    RANSOM had assumed a posture of suffering from business reverse, its officers and principal
    stockholders had organized a new corporation, the Rosario Industrial Corporation (thereinafter called
    ROSARIO), using the same equipment, personnel, business stocks and the same place of business. AC
    Ransom used as a defense the clearance given by SEC to cease to operate due to financial difficulties in
    order to lessen the award given by the court. It also declared that ROSARIO is a distinct and separate
    corporation, which was organized long before these instant cases were decided adversely against
    RANSOM.

    Issue #1: Whether or not ROSARIO Company should be held liable for the claims of AC Ransom Labor
    Union?

    Issue #2: Whether or not the officers and directors of AC Ransom should be held liable for backwages?

    Held: The questioned Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is SET ASIDE, and the Order
    of Labor Arbiter Tito F. Genilo of March 11, 1980 is reinstated with the modification that Rosario
    Industrial Corporation and its officers and agents are hereby held jointly and severally liable with the
    surviving private respondents for the payment of the backwages due the 22 union members.

    Rosario Industrial Corporation is hereby ordered to reinstate the 22 union members or, if this is not
    possible, to award them separation pay equivalent at least to one (1) month pay or to one (1) month
    salary for every year of service actually rendered by them with A.C. Ransom (Phils). Corporation,
    whichever is higher.

    Rosario Company is held liable because the organization of a "run-away corporation," ROSARIO,
    in 1969 at the time the unfair labor practice case was pending before the CIR by the same persons who
    were the officers and stockholders of RANSOM, engaged in the same line of business as RANSOM,
    producing the same line of products, occupying the same compound, using the same machineries,
    buildings, laboratory, bodega and sales and accounts departments used by RANSOM, and which is still in
    existence. Both corporations were closed corporations owned and managed by members of the same
    family. Its organization proved to be a convenient instrument to avoid payment of backwages and the
    reinstatement of the 22 workers. This is another instance where the fiction of separate and distinct
    corporate entities should be disregarded.

    It is very obvious that the second corporation seeks the protective shield of a corporate fiction
    whose veil in the present case could, and should, be pierced as it was deliberately and maliciously
    designed to evade its financial obligation to its employees.... When a notion of legal entity is used to.
    defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the
    corporation as an association or persons, or, in the case of two corporations, will merge them into one.

    As to the officers and agents

    The inclusion of the officers and agents was but proper since a corporation, as an artificial being,
    can act only through them.

    You might also like