Robledo v. NLRC

Robledo v. NLRC (G.R. No. 110358, Nov. 9,1994)

Mendoza, J.:

Facts:

1.   Robledo et. al. filed a Petition for Review of the Decision of NLRC, setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter, which held private respondents jointly and severally liable to the petitioners for overtime and legal holiday pay.

2.   Petitioners were former employees of Bacani Security and Protective Agency (BPSA). They were employed as security guards at different times during the period 1969 to December 1989 when BPSA ceased to operate.

3.   BPSA was a single proprietorship owned, managed, and operated by the late Felipe Bacani.

4.   On December 31, 1989, Felipe Bacani retired the business name and BSPA ceased to operate effective on that day.

5.   On Jan. 15, 1990 Felipe Bacani died. An intestate proceeding was instituted for the settlement of his estate before Pasig-RTC.

6.   Earlier, on Oct. 26, 1989, respondent Bacani Security and Allied Services Co., Inc. (BASEC) had been organized and registered as a corporation with SEC. Several of the incorporator (3) surnamed Bacani, and that includes the daughter of the late Felipe Bacani.

7.   On July 5, 1990, the petitioners filed a complaint with the DOLE for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of overtime pay and other accrued benefits, and for the return of their cash bond, which they posted, with BPSA. Made respondents were BSPA and BASEC.

8.   On March 1, 1992, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision upholding the right of petitioners, finding the complainants entitled to their money claims to be paid by all the respondents solidarily.

9.   On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision declaring that the Labor Arbiter is without jurisdiction and instead suggested that petitioners file their claims with Pasig-RTC where an intestate proceeding of Bacani’s estate was pending.

10.                 Petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied for lack of merit.

11.                 The case was elevated to the SC and was treated as a special civil action of certiorari to determine whether the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Issue:

Whether Bacani Security and Allied Services, Inc. (BASEC) can be held liable for claims of petitioners against Bacani Security and Protective Agency (BSPA).

Ruling:

No. Petitioners contend that public respondent, NLRC, erred in setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s judgment on the ground that BASEC is the same entity as BSPA the latter being owned and controlled by one and the same family, the Bacani family. For this reason they urge that corporate fiction should be disregarded and BASEC should be held liable for the obligations of the defunct BSPA.

As correctly found by the NLRC, BASEC is an entity separate and distinct from that of BSPA. BSPA is a single proprietorship owned and operated by Felipe Bacani. Hence, its debts and obligations were the personal obligations of its owner. Petitioner’s claims, which are based on these debts and personal obligations, did not survive the death of Felipe Bacani on Jan. 15, 1990 and should have been filed instead in the intestate proceedings involving his estate.