Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Sarona vs nlrc

Facts: petitioner was hired by scepter as security guard, was asked


by Karen tan sceptre’s operation manager to submit a resignation
letter as requirement for applying a position at royale

After several weeks Royale security officer assigned petitioner at


highlight Metal Inc and subsequently assigned to WWWE. 9/17/03
petitioner was informed that his assign. In WWWE had withdrawn
because Royale had allegedly been replaced by another security
agency. However he discovered thereafter that Royale was never
replaced as WWWE, and he learned that his fellow security guard
was not relieved from his post.

He was once again assigned to Highlight Metal for short period but
he was informed that he would no longer be given any assignment
as per instructed by general manager.

LA- decided the case in favor of the Petitioner,

-the allegation that the petitioner abandoned his position because


he has an existing employment in another company was negated
when petitioner filed an illegal dismissal.

NLRC- found that the petitioner had illegally dismissed; modified


the 95k to 15k backwages.

- The petitioner did not appeal, but opted to raise the validity of
LA adverse finding to the computation of his separation pay.
- He cannot overturned the decision by mere reply. Thus, he
waived his right to question the decision of LA when eh failed to
file an appeal within reglementary period.

CA- ruled against the petitioner


ISSUE: WON Royale’s corporate fiction should be pierced for the
purpose of compelling it to recognize the petitioner’s length of
service with Sceptre and for holding it liable for the benefits that
have accrued to him arising from his employment with Sceptre;

HELD: YES It well-settled principle that the corporation mask


may be removed or the corporate veil pierced when the corporation
is just an alter ego of a person or of another corporation. For
reason of public policy and In the interest of justice, the coporate
veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for
fraud, illegality or inequity committed against third person.

In this case the petitioner was ordered to resign by Karen and


Cesar in the scepter security co. and filed an application to Royale
for the continuous employment and subsequently was terminated
by the Aida who has a control over Scepter and Royale security
company. They orchestrated the petitioner resignation and
termination to his job which the court conclude that there was
intent to violate the petitioner’s rights to petitioner particularly his
right to security of tenure. The Sceptre and Royale as a single
company should recognized the petitioner’s length of service with
sceptre.
METRO TRANSIT VS PIGLAS

Facts: Petitioner MTO a government owned and controlled corp.


entered into Management and Operation Agreement MOA with
Light Rail Transit Authority for the operation of LRT.

-For the purpose of CBA petitioner MTO’s rank and file formed
PIGLAS; Petitioner and MTO and PIGLAS entered into CBA.

-Allegedly some rank and file employees who were disgruntled


formed another union which negotiated with management for
certification as the new bargaining agent. The intra-union dispute
was settled through election which PIGLAS won. PIGLAS
renegotiated CBA demanding higher benefits.

On July 25 2000 due to bargaining deadlock, PIGLAS file a notice


of strike. The secretary of the DOLE, issued an order return to
work. Striking PIGLAS members refused to accede to the such
order.

LRTA- issued a resolution: a) the expiration of LRTA MOA with


petitioner; b) LRTA will take over the operations of the LRT line;

-MTO sent notice of termination to its employees including


respondents.

Respondent file complaints before labor arbiter against LRTA.


a)illegal dismissal; b) ULP c) moral and exemplary damages;

LA-decided the case in favor of the respondents.

Petitioner appealed to NLRC- dismissed petitioner appeal for non-


perfection since it failed to post required bond.

CA-( petition for certiorari)- should file a MR to the lower court


before filing a certiorari.; affirmed the decision of the lower court.

-failed to file MR to NLRC which indispensible for it affords the


NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it had committed.

ISSUE: WON the petition for certiorari should be dismiss?

HELD: YES. R.6 sec .6 rules of procedure in case the decision of a


labor arbiter or regional director involves monetary award, an
appeal by the employer may be perfected upon posting of cash or
surety bond.

In this case the petitioner after dismissing their complaint by


NLRC for non-payment of bond, instead to comply to the
requirements they directly went to the nlrc for certiorari without
filing MR to NLRC which found by the CA as an error on part of the
petitioner. As a rule the CA in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
will not take cognizance of a petition for certiorari unless the lower
court had been given an opportunity to correct the error imputed to
it.
-