Indino v. NLRC

Indino v. NLRC

G.R. No. 80352, Sept. 29, 1989

Facts:

1.   The petitioner, Benjamin Indino, joined the Phil. National Construction Corp. (PNCC) as a project personnel officer on December 12, 1974.

2.   On January 6, 1981, he was transferred to private respondent Dasmarinas Industrial Steelworks Corp. (DISC), a sister corporation of PNCC.

3.   On July 27, 1983, while the petitioner was on a paid vacation leave, he received a “letter memorandum” from Roman Lopez, DISC personnel manager, informing him that his services were no longer needed at the Philphos Project in Leyte.

4.   Immediately after receipt of the “letter-memorandum” the petitioner filed with NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent.

5.   But before judgment could be rendered by NLRC, petitioner Indino and private respondent DISC have reach an agreement to settle their differences and for the petitioner to return to work with 50% payment of back wages, salaries and other allowances.

6.   On the basis of that agreement, the petitioner was reinstated on Oct. 1, 1983. But barely two months after his reinstatement, the petitioner received another “better-memorandum” from respondent DISC, again terminating his services.

7.   Petitioner refused to accept his termination, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against respondent DISC. Later, he amended his complaint and impleaded PNCC as additional respondent.

8.   The Labor Arbiter, to whom the case was assigned, dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit.

9.   The petitioner appealed to the respondent NLRC. The latter, however, finding no error in the appealed judgment, affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter dismissing the case. A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied. Hence, he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the SC, alleging inter alia, that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether the PNCC, a sister corporation of DISC, with a separate and distinct personality should also be held liable for the illegal dismissal case.

Ruling:

Yes. Considering that the petitioner stated his employment originally with the PNCC, and the amount of his separation benefits only corresponds to the period of employment with DISC and not with PNCC, the inclusion of PNCC as respondent in their action is justified and proper.

The so-called separate and distinct personality of PNCC could be validly ignored inasmuch as it would unjustly prejudice the petitioner vis-à-vis whatever benefits he may receive by reason of his illegal dismissal.

It should always be borne in mind that the fiction of law that a corporation, as a juridical entity, has a distinct and separate personality, was designed for convenience and to serve justice; therefore, it should not be used as a subterfuge to commit injustice and circumvent labor laws.