Pamplona Plantation Co. v.

Tinghil
G.R. No. 159121; February 3, 2005; Panganiban, J.

I. Facts
1. 1993: Pamplona Plantations COMPANY was organized to take over the operations of Hacienda
Pamplona, a coconut and sugar plantation in Negros Oriental
2. 1995: Pamplona Plantation LEISURE CORP. was established to operate tourist resorts, hotels,
and inns (with complementary facilities such as restaurants and golf courses). Part of the
Hacienda was converted to these purposes.
3. 1996: Pamplona Plantation Labor Independent UNION conducted an organizational meeting;
respondents, who are either union members or officers, participated. These workers worked in
the golf course and recreational facilities of LEISURE CORP.
4. Upon learning of the meeting, Jose Luis BONDOC, manager of the COMPANY, did not allow the
[respondents] to work anymore.

5. Aggrieved, [respondents] filed complaints against the COMPANY before the Labor Arbiter for
unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, underpayment, overtime pay, etc.
6. One of the complainants, CARLITO Tinghil, amended his complaint to implead LEISURE CORP.
7. The LABOR ARBITER found the complainants [except for three who also filed another case]
entitled to separation pay.
8. The NLRC reversed, holding that except for CARLITO, the complainants failed to implead
LEISURE CORP, which was indispensable party; and that there was no employer-employee
relationship. It denied the MR of the complainants.
9. The CA reversed the NLRC [on the same grounds held by the Court.]

II. Issues
1. WON Court can review the facts. – YES.
2. WON the case should be dismissed for the non-joinder of LEISURE CORP. – NO.
3. WON there is an employer-employee relationship. – YES.

III. Held – Decision of the CA affirmed.

IV. Ratio

1. The Court can review the facts. The factual findings of the NLRC and the CA conflict on the point of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the COMPANY and the respondent
workers. Such conflict is one of the exceptions to the rule that only questions of law will be reviewed.

2. The case should not be dismissed for non-joinder.

a) It calls for piercing the veil of corporate fiction.

 The workers admit that they worked in the “golf course” and “recreational facilities” of LEISURE
CORP. Hence, the COMPANY claims that the CA should have dismissed the case for the
respondent workers’ failure to implead LEISURE CORP., which is their true and real employer.
 But, (1) for both the coconut plantation and the golf course, there is only one management
which the laborers deal with regarding their work; (2) the golf course was merely a portion of
the coconut plantation; (3) the workers received their pay from the same person, BONDOC; (4)

1
 both the COMPANY and LEISURE CORP. use the same office; (5) both basically have the same
incorporators and directors.
 The separate corporate character of both companies remains for legitimate objectives, but it
may be pierced, as in this case, to promote substantial justice. The corporate veil may be
pierced when a corporation is the mere alter ego of another.
 The fiction of law cannot be invoked to further an end subversive of justice.

b) Petitioners admit that the respondents had been hired as coconut filers, coconut scoopers, or
charcoal makers, which are functions of the COMPANY (and not LEISURE CORP.). Petitioner successfully
confused the workers as to who their true and real employee was, hence, any mistake as to the
impleaded party is actually the fault of the petitioners.

c) Assuming arguendo that LEISURE CORP. is an indispensable party, the non-joinder of indispensable
parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be
indispensable. The controlling principle in the interpretation of procedural rules is liberality, and when
the rules are applied to labor cases, the liberal interpretation must be upheld with greater vigor.

3. There is an employer-employee relationship.

 Under the “control test,” the respondents were hired to perform tasks assigned by their
respective officers-in-charge, who were all under direct supervision and control of BONDOC.
 To operate against an employer, the power of control need not have been actually exercised.
Proof of the existence of such power is enough.
 Several facts show that respondents were not independent contractors: (1) they do not carry
their own business; (2) they do not have substantial capital or investment; (3) they have been
working exclusively for the petitioners for several years; respondents performed usual, regular
and necessary services for petitioner’s business.