FIRST DIVISION
EMMANUEL S. HUGO, LOURENTE V. CRUZ, DIOSDADO
S. DOLORES, RAMON B. DE LOS REYES, ORLANDO B. FLORES, ROGELIO R. MARTIN, JOSE
ROBERTO A. PAMINTUAN, MELVIN R. GOMEZ, REYNALDO P. SOLISA, EMMANUEL A.
PALADO, JR., ANSELMO V. TALAGTAG, JR., ANTHONY C. RONQUILLO, ARTHUR G.
CONCEPCION, ORLANDO MALAYBA, LEANDRO C. PAGURAYAN III, MARVIN L. GABRIEL,
FERNANDO V. DIAZ, ALFREDO CHAN, JUAN G. OBIAS, JR., EMIL P. BELCHEZ, RODELIO
H. LASTIMA, and AUGUSTO LAGOS, Petitioners, – versus – LIGHT RAIL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 181866 Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: March
18, 2010 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Respondent Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), a government-owned and controlled
corporation, constructed a light rail transit system which traverses
from Baclaran
in Parañaque City to Monumento in Kalookan City,
Metro Manila pursuant to its mandate under its charter, Executive Order No. 603, Series of 1980, as
amended.[1]
To effectively
carry out its mandate, LRTA entered into a ten-year Agreement for the
Management and Operation of the Metro Manila Light Rail Transit System (the
Agreement) from
METRO shall be free to employ such employees and officers as it shall deem necessary in order to carry out the requirements of the Agreement. Such employees and officers shall be the employees of METRO and not of LRTA. METRO shall prepare a compensation schedule for the salaries and fringe benefits of its personnel (Article 3, par. 3.05).[3] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
METRO thus
hired its own employees including herein petitioners-members of the Pinag-isang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa METRO,
Inc.-National Federation of Labor, otherwise known as PIGLAS-METRO, INC.-NFL-KMU
(the Union), the certified exclusive collective bargaining representative of METRO’s
rank-and-file employees.
LRTA later
purchased the shares of stocks of METRO via Deed of Sale of
separate juridical personalities such that
when the ten-year Agreement expired on
On
Then
Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma assumed jurisdiction over the
conflict and directed the striking employees including herein petitioners to immediately
return to work and METRO to accept them back under the same terms and
conditions of employment prevailing prior to the strike.
By LRTA’s
claim, the striking employees including petitioners defied the return-to-work
order. Contradicting such claim, petitioners alleged that upon learning of the
order, they attempted to comply with it but the security guards of METRO barred
them from entering their workplace for security reasons, the latter being afraid
that they (the striking employees) might sabotage the vital machineries and
equipment of the light rail transit system.[5]
When the
Agreement expired on
On
In
impleading LRTA in their complaint, petitioners alleged that the “non-renewal
of the [Agreement] is but an ingenious, albeit unlawful, scheme carried out by
the respondents to get rid of personnel they perceived as activists and troublemakers,
thus, terminating the complainants without any just or lawful cause.”[7]
LRTA filed a motion to dismiss[8] the
complaint on the ground that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have no jurisdiction
over it, for, by petitioners’ own admission, there was no employer-employee
relationship between it and petitioners.
By Order[9] of
On
appeal by petitioners, the NLRC, by Resolution[10]
of July 31, 2003, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of petitioners’
complaint and rendered a new one “declaring that the Labor Arbiter and this
Commission can exercise jurisdiction over the person of Respondent LRTA,” LRTA
being considered an “indirect employer” on account of the Agreement; and that
LRTA is a “necessary party” which ought to be joined as party for a complete
determination of petitioners’ claims that the non-renewal of the Agreement by
LRTA and the cessation of business by METRO were carried out with the intent to
cover up the illegal dismissal of petitioners. The NLRC thus ordered the remand of
the records of the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings.[11]
After
the conclusion of the proceedings before his office, Labor Arbiter Pati found for petitioners, by Decision of
LRTA appealed
the decision to the NLRC and filed a motion for leave to
post a property bond in lieu of
cash or surety bond.
By Resolution[12] of
Its motion
for reconsideration[13] having
been denied by Resolution of August 31, 2005, LRTA filed a Petition for Certiorari before the
Court of Appeals which, by the challenged Decision[14]
of February 20, 2008, it granted and accordingly reversed the assailed
issuances of the NLRC.
The
appellate court, holding that “(t)he property bond
offered by LRTA should be deemed substantial compliance with the rules,”[15] directed
the NLRC to give due course to LRTA’s appeal upon filing of the appeal bond
within such reasonable period of time it may set.
Hence,
petitioners’ present Petition for Review on Certiorari alleging that, inter alia, LRTA’s failure to perfect
its appeal by posting a cash or surety bond “renders
the [Labor Arbiter’s] judgment final and executory and the appeal ineffective
and invalid.”[16]
The
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC do not have
jurisdiction over LRTA. Petitioners
themselves admitted in their complaint that LRTA “is a government
agency organized and existing pursuant to an original charter
(Executive Order No. 603),” and that they are
employees of METRO.
Light Rail Transit Authority v.
Venus, Jr.,[17]
which has a similar factual backdrop, holds that LRTA, being a government-owned
or controlled corporation created by an original charter, is beyond the reach
of the Department of Labor and Employment which has jurisdiction over workers
in the private sector, viz:
. . . [E]mployees of petitioner METRO cannot be considered as employees of petitioner LRTA. The employees hired by METRO are covered by the Labor Code and are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment, whereas the employees of petitioner LRTA, a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter, are covered by civil service rules. Herein private respondent workers cannot have the best of two worlds, e.g., be considered government employees of petitioner LRTA, yet allowed to strike as private employees under our labor laws. x x x.
x x x x
. . . [I]t is inappropriate to pierce the corporate veil of petitioner METRO. x x x.
In the instant case, petitioner METRO, formerly Meralco Transit Organization, Inc., was originally owned by the Manila Electric Company and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission more than a decade before the labor dispute. It then entered into a ten-year agreement with petitioner LRTA in 1984. And, even if petitioner LRTA eventually purchased METRO in 1989, both parties maintained their separate and distinct juridical personality and allowed the agreement to proceed. In 1990, this Court, in Light Rail Transit Authority v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 88365, January 9, 1990), even upheld the validity of the said agreement. Consequently, the agreement was extended beyond its ten-year period. In 1995, METRO’s separate juridical identity was again recognized when it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the workers’ union. All these years, METRO’s distinct corporate personality continued quiescently, separate and apart from the juridical personality of petitioner LRTA.
The labor dispute only arose in 2000, after a deadlock occurred during the collective bargaining between petitioner METRO and the workers’ union. This alone is not a justification to pierce the corporate veil of petitioner METRO and make petitioner LRTA liable to private respondent workers. There are no badges of fraud or any wrongdoing to pierce the corporate veil of petitioner METRO.
x x x x
In sum, petitioner LRTA cannot be held liable to the employees of petitioner METRO.[18] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
IN FINE,
the Labor Arbiter’s decision against LRTA was rendered without jurisdiction, hence,
it is void, thus rendering it improper for the remand of the case to the NLRC,
as ordered by the appellate court, for it (NLRC) to give due course to LRTA’s
appeal.
A final word. It bears emphasis
that this Court’s present Decision treats only with respect to the Labor Arbiter’s
decision against respondent LRTA.
WHEREFORE, the
assailed Decision of the Court of the Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners’ complaint in NLRC
Case No. NCR-30-02-01191-02, insofar as herein respondent Light Rail
Transit Authority is concerned, is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Petition, rollo, p. 13.
[2] Ibid.
[3]
[4] Cf. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Venus, Jr., G.R. Nos. 163782 & 163881, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 361, 364-365.
[5] Paragraphs 9-10 of petitioners’ Complaint, rollo, p. 78.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay, with the concurrence of Commissioners Raul T. Aquino and Angelita A. Gacutan, id. at 137-150.
[11]
[12] Penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, id. at 222-227.
[13]
[14] Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Agustin S. Dizon; id. at 60-74.
[15]
[16]
[17] Supra note 4.
[18]