Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

NAGUIAT V NLRC 2. WON NOWM has authority to represent RESP?

PET ESTOPPED (not seasonably


MAR 13 1997 | PANGANIBAN, J raised)
3. WON NE, CFTI, Sergio and Antolin shall be held liable?
CFTI – Clark Field Taxi Inc Antolin Naguiat – CFTI’s VP NE NOT LIABLE [BECAUSE CFTI = DIRECT EMPLOYER]
AAFES – Army Air Force Exchange UNION – AAFES Taxi Drivers Association RESP: Art 106, 107, 109 LC (indirect employer, labor only contracting)
Services NOWM – National Organization of Workingmen HOWEVER, LA: RESP were regular employees of CFTI who received wages on a
Sergio Naguiat – CFTI’s President boundary or commission basis
COURT: NOT LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING
FACTS: CFTI held a concessionaire’s contract with AAFES for the operation of taxi  ITC, no substantial basis to hold NE as indirect employer of RESP much less labor-
services within Clark Air Base. only contractor
 RESPONDENTS were previously employed by CFTI as taxicab drivers  PET submitted documents such as drivers’ applications for employment with CFTI,
o Earned not less than US$15 daily; required to make cash deposits to the Social Security Remittances and payroll of NE showing none of RESP were its
company which they could withdraw every 15 days employees
 Due to phase out of US military bases in PH, AAFES was dissolved, services of  In contract bet CFTI & AAFES, CFTI as concessionaire agreed to purchase from
RESP were officially terminated AAFES for a certain amount within a specified period a fleet of vehicles to be kept
o UNION, through Pres. Castillo, and CFTI held negotiations re: separation on the road by CFTI pursuant to their concessionaire contract = CFTI became
benefits; AGREEMENT: P500/year of service = severance pay [most owner of taxicabs which became principal investment and asset of company
accepted – RESP refused to accept; disaffiliated with UNION]  RESP could not deny that he received his salary from office of CFTI inside the
RESP through NOWM filed complaint against PET for payment of separation pay due base; NE was trading business while CFTI was in taxi services
to termination/phase-out [amended to include addt’l taxi drivers; and CFTI with Antolin  In constitution of UNION, it states that members are employees of CFTI and ER is
as VP and GM as party respondent] CFTI
 RESP: Alleged they were regular employees of Naguiat Enterprises (NE) although
individual applications for employment were approvedby CFTI – assigned to NE CFTI PRES SERGIO SOLIDARILY LIABLE FOR CORPORATE TORT
after having been hired by CFTI and NE managed, controlled and supervised their AC RANSOM V NLRC – Imposed joint and several liability upon company president –
employment [entitled to separation pay based on latest daily earnings of Art 265 and 273 LC implemented through Art 212 LC
US$15 for working 16 days a month] ITC, SERGIO was the President of CFTI who actively managed the business – falls
 PET: Cessation of business of CFTI – due to great financial losses and lost within meaning of “ER” who may be held jointly and severally liable for obligations of
business opportunity (phase out – Mt. Pinatubo eruption and expiration of RP-US the corporation to its dismissed EEs
military base agreement)  NE & CFTI = close family corporaitons owned by Naguiat family (Sec 100 par 5
o CFTI agreed with UNION through Pres. Castillo who claimed to have had Corporaiton Code = stockholders personally laible for corporate torts)
blanket authority to negotiate with CFTI in behalf of members, to grant its taxi
driver-employees separation pay equivalent to P500/yr of service RE: CORPORATE TORT
LA: Regular workers of CFTI; CFTI to pay P1,200 for every year of service for Tort – violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law; breach of
humanitarian consideration, setting aside the earlier agreement between CFTI & legal duty
UNION (HUMANITARIAN = inhuman to complainants if not awarded; but unfair to ER  ITC, CFTI failed to comply with this law-imposed duty or obligation (Art 283 LC);
if impose monetary obligation whose profitable business was abruptly shot down by its stockholder who was actively engaged in the management of the operation of
force majeure) the business should be held personally liable
 Rejected allegations of CFTI that it was forced to close business due to financial  MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT V NLRC – Director or officer may still be held
losses and lost business opportunities since at the time it ceased operations, CFTI solidary liable with a corporation by specific provisions of law
was profitably earning and cessation was due to untimely closure of Clark Air Base
 In posting surety bond required for TRO, only Sergio in his individual and personal
NLRC: LA modified – granted separation pay = (not in legal tender; exchange rate at
capacity principally bound himself
time of payment should be used – choice left to RESP, they may choose to pay in US$
 Sergio and Antolin should be joined as indispensable party whose liability is joint ANTOLIN NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE
and several Although he was VP and carried “GM” – not shown that he acted in such capacity; no
evidence of extent of participation in management or operation of business
ISSUES:
1. WON NRLC erred in granting RESP their separation pay? NO
Art 283 LC – retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations
WHEREFORE, PETITION PARTLY GRANTED. MODIFIED – CFTI & SERGIO TO
not due to serious business losses or financial reverses PAY (jointly and severally) RESP their separation pay computed at US$120 for every
 Separation pay shall be 1 month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service year of service or its peso equivalent at time of payment; NE & ANTOLIN ABSOLVED
whichever is higher from liability
 ITC, $120 (1/2 of $240 monthly pay) or its peso equivalent for every year of service