FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 153193 December 6, 2006 PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPAN , petitioner, vs. RAMON ACOSTA, GR!

GORIA ARA"!, R#FINO "AC#"AC, $OS!P% "AR"A, VIRGINIA "ARR!RA, MAR ANN "!LLO, LANDO "ALORON, !L"!RTO "#&#IRAN, ANTONIO CANOLAS, %!RMINIGILDO CANOLAS, ROMAN CAS#SI, G!OFFR! D!NLAOSO, NOLI D!NLAOSO, P!DRO D!NLAOSO, DANN DINGLASA, ROS!NDO D#RON, MARIA !MP!RADO, MARIO !MP!RADO, M!L!CIO !MP!RADO, P!DRO !MP!RADO, P!T!R !SPAR'A, MAN#!L GARCIA, SAM#!L GARCIA, DAR'IN GARNICA, $#ANITA GIMOL, ANACL!TA G#AN, L#IS G#AN, FLORO G#!VARRA, LA#R!ANO LOP!(, LOR!TO L#(ON, PA&#ITO NAPAO, NILO ORT!GA, !MILIANO PANANGGANAN, FR!D!RICO PANANGGANAN, $OS!LO PANANGGANAN, SIM!ON PANANGGANAN, PA"LO PAO. ANTONIO &#IL!STINO, !#F!MIA RA"OTIN, L#ISA R!GALA, ROM!O R!GALA, SALOM! RAGALA, N!RIO R! !S, C!LSO R#FA, A"#NDIO SA"ION, ROLANDO SALASA O, $IMM SALIN, PILARIO SALIN, SOFRONIO SOLAMILLO, $OS!LITO TING%IL, ROM TING%IL, A"!LLO TORO , AD!LAIDA TORO , CR!S!NCIO TORO , !LPIDIA TORO , $ONAT%AN TORO , !RN!STO TORR!S, F!LI) TORR!S, G#ILL!RMO TORR!S, NARCISO TORR!S, N!LSON TORR!S, ROSALIO TORR!S, 'ILFR!DO TORR!S, CRISTOP%!R "ANA , LOR!TO "ANA *+, R! NALDO "IAS, respondents. D!CISION A#STRIA-MARTIN!(, J.. There were originally 66 complainants in the case before the Labor Arbiter for underpayment, overtime pay, premium pay for rest day and holiday, service incentive leave pay, damages, attorney's fees, and 13th month pay. The complainants claimed that they were regular ran and file employees of the !amplona !lantation "o., #nc. $petitioner% with different hiring periods, wor designations, and salary rates. !etitioner, however, denied this, alleging that some of the complainants are seasonal employees, some are contractors, others were hired under the pakyaw system, while the rest were hired by the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation, which has a separate and distinct entity from it. #n a &ecision dated 'eptember 3(, 1))*, the Labor Arbiter $LA% held petitioner and its manager, +ose Luis ,ondoc, liable for underpayment as complainants were regular employees of petitioner. They were also held guilty of illegal dismissal with regard to complainants +oselito Tinghil and !edro -mperado. .n appeal to the /ational Labor 0elations "ommission $/L0"%, the LA's &ecision was reversed and another one was entered dismissing all the complaints per &ecision dated +une 3(, 1(((. #t was the /L0"'s finding that the complaint should have been directed against the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation since complainants' individual affidavits contained the allegations that their tas s pertained to their wor 2in the golf course.2 The "ourt of Appeals $"A%, 1 in turn, vacated and set aside the /L0"'s dismissal in its &ecision dated /ovember 16, 1((1, and reinstated the LA's &ecision with the modification that the award of wage differentials was limited to the following twenty3two $11% persons, namely4 0olando ,aloron, 'amuel 5arcia, &arwin 5arnica, 'imeon !anangganan, !ablo !ao, 6eli7 Torres, 8anuel 5arcia, !a9uito /apao, "elso 0ufa, +oselito Tinghil, -lpidia Toroy, -rnesto Torres, Laureano Lope:, +oseph ,arba, ;ermenigildo "a<olas, 'alome 0egala, 5uillermo Torres, /arcisa Torres, /elson Torres, Loreto =banay, Luis 5uan, and "hristopher =banay $respondents%, while the finding of illegal dismissal with regard to !edro -mparado and the award of attorney's fees were deleted. ;ence, the present petition for review under 0ule >? of the 0ules of "ourt based on the following grounds4 # T;- ".@0T .6 A!!-AL' ;A' &-"#&-& #/ A AA= /.T #/ A"".0& A#T; LAA A/& -'TA,L#';-& +@0#'!0@&-/"-, "./T0A0= T. T;- A&8#''#./ .6 !A0T#-' A/& A#T; 50AB- A,@'- .6 &#'"0-T#./ #/ T;- A!!0-"#AT#./ .6 6A"T'4 1. #n holding petitioner liable for the wage differentials of 11 respondents who themselves admit and allege in their own Affidavits that their employees was another entity C !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation, and not herein !etitioner "ompany. 1. #n affirming that respondent +oselito Tinghil was illegally dismissed by !etitioner, when in fact, +oselito Tinghil, as narrated by him in his own Affidavit, was wor ing with !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation, and not herein !etitioner. 3. #n even finding that +oselito Tinghil was illegally dismissed in the first place, when there is no evidence to support his allegation. ## T;- &-"#'#./ .6 T;- ".@0T .6 A!!-AL' ;.L&#/5 !-T#T#./-0'' 8A/A5-0 !-0'./ALL= L#A,L- 6.0 ".0!.0AT- A"T' #' /.T #/ A"".0& A#T; LAA.1 At the outset, it should be stated that under 0ule >? of the 0ules of "ourt, only 9uestions of law may be raised, the reason being that this "ourt is not a trier of facts, and it is not for this "ourt to ree7amine and reevaluate the evidence on record. 3 "onsidering, however, that the "A and the Labor Arbiter came up with an opinion different from that of the /L0", the "ourt is now constrained to review the evidence on record.>

!etitioner contests the "A's conclusion that the 11 respondents were its employees. !etitioner insists that based on their affidavits, respondents admitted that they were employees of the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation, hence, their complaint for illegal dismissal should have been directed against it. The "ourt disagrees. !etitioner is estopped from denying that respondents wor ed for it. #n the first place, it never raised this defense in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. /otably, the defense it raised pertained to the nature of respondents' employment, i.e., whether they are seasonal employees, contractors, or wor ed under the pakyawsystem. Thus, in its !osition !aper, petitioner alleged that some of the respondents are coconut filers and copra hoo ers or sakadorsD some are seasonal employees who wor ed as scoopers or lugiterosD some are contractorsD and some wor ed under the pakyaw system.? #n support of these allegations, petitioner even presented the company's payroll,6 which will allegedly prove its allegations. ,y setting forth these defenses, petitioner, in effect, admitted that respondents wor ed for it, albeit in different capacities. 'uch allegations are negative pregnants C denials pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not s9uarely denied,E and amounts to an ac nowledgement that respondents were indeed employed by petitioner. .n this score, the "ourt adopts the findings in Pamplona Plantation Company, Inc. v. Tinghil ,* which involves the same petitioner in this case and some of its wor ers. #n that case, petitioner contended that the case should have been dismissed because of the respondents' failure to implead the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation, #nc. as an indispensable party, since as admitted in their respective affidavits, it was their true and real employer. The "ourt, however, reFected petitioner's contention and concluded that by piercing the veil of corporate fiction, the two corporations C the !amplona !lantation "orporation, #nc. and the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation C are one and the same. Thus, the "ourt ruled4 An e7amination of the facts reveals that, for both the coconut plantation and the golf course, there is only one management which the laborers deal with regarding their wor . A portion of the plantation $also called ;acienda !amplona% had actually been converted into a golf course and other recreational facilities. The wee ly payrolls issued by petitioner3company bore the name 2!amplona !lantation "o., #nc.2 #t is also a fact that respondents all received their pay from the same person, !etitioner ,ondoc 33 the managing director of the company. 'ince the wor ers were wor ing for a firm nown as !amplona !lantation "o., #nc., the reason they sued their employer through that name was natural and understandable. True, the !etitioner !amplona !lantation "o., #nc., and the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation appear to be separate corporate entities. ,ut it is settled that this fiction of law cannot be invo ed to further an end subversive of Fustice. 7777 #n the present case, the corporations have basically the same incorporators and directors and are headed by the same official. ,oth use only one office and one payroll and are under one management. #n their individual Affidavits, respondents allege that they wor ed under the supervision and control of !etitioner ,ondoc 33 the common managing director of both the petitioner3 company and the leisure corporation. 'ome of the laborers of the plantation also wor in the golf course. T/01, 2/e *22em32 2o m*4e 2/e 25o cor3or*26o+1 *33e*r *1 25o 1e3*r*2e e+2626e1, insofar as the workers are concerned , 1/o07, be 86e5e, *1 * ,e86o01 b02 ob86o01 me*+1 2o ,e9e*2 2/e e+,1 o9 2/e 7*5. S0c/ * 37o: 1/o07, +o2 be 3erm622e, 2o c7o0, 2/e 2r02/ *+, 3er3e2r*2e *+ 6+;0126ce. Ae note that this defense of separate corporate identity was not raised during the proceedings before the labor arbiter. The main argument therein raised by petitioners was their alleged lac of employer3employee relationship with, and power of control over, the means and methods of wor of respondents because of the seasonal nature of the latter's wor . 7777 #ndeed, it was only after this /L0" &ecision was issued that the petitioners harped on the separate personality of the !amplona !lantation "o., #nc., vis3G3vis the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation. As cited above, the /L0" dismissed the "omplaints because of the alleged admission of respondents in their Affidavits that they had been wor ing at the golf course. ;owever, it failed to appreciate the rest of their averments. +ust because they wor ed at the golf course did not necessarily mean that they were not employed to do other tas s, especially since the golf course was merely a portion of the coconut plantation. -ven petitioners admitted that respondents had been hired as coconut filers, coconut scoopers or charcoal ma ers. Co+1e<0e+27:, NLRC=1 co+c7016o+ ,er68e, 9rom 2/e A996,*8621 o9 re13o+,e+21 12*26+> 2/*2 2/e: 5ere em37o:ee1 o9 2/e P*m37o+* P7*+2*26o+ Le610re Cor3or*26o+ alone 5*1 2/e re1072 o9 *+ 6m3ro3er 1e7ec268e *33rec6*26o+ o9 2/e e+26re e86,e+ce. 6urthermore, we note that, contrary to the /L0"'s findings, some respondents indicated that their employer was the !amplona !lantation Leisure "orporation, while others said that it was the !amplona !lantation "o., #nc. ,ut in all these Affidavits, both the leisure corporation and petitioner3company were identified or described as entities engaged in the development and operation of sugar and coconut plantations, as well as recreational facilities such as a golf course. These allegations reveal that petitioner successfully confused the wor ers as to who their true and real employer was. All things considered, their faulty belief that the plantation company and the leisure corporation were one and the same can be attributed solely to petitioners. #t would certainly be unFust to preFudice the claims of the wor ers because of the misleading actions of their employer. ) "onse9uently, petitioner cannot now deny that respondents are its employees. !etitioner also disputes the "A's finding that respondent +oselito Tinghil was illegally dismissed. According to the "A, petitioner did not at all controvert or dispute Tinghil's allegation that he was not told not to report for wor anymore due to his involvement in union activities.1( The "A's finding finds sufficient basis from the records of this case. #n his Affidavit e7ecuted on .ctober ), 1))E, Tinghil stated that some time in 8ay 3, 1))E, he, together with other union officers and company employees, were called personally by the proFect

manager, Lito ,undo ,11 who e7pressed his 2disgust2 with their union activities. They were then informed that they will not be allowed to report for wor anymore.11 !etitioner did not at all contest Tinghil's allegations. #nstead, it merely countered that Tinghil's narration in his affidavit are vague.13 #t is well3settled that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid and Fust cause. 6ailure to discharge this burden of proof substantially means that the dismissal was not Fustified and therefore, illegal. 1> 5iven petitioner's failure to discharge this burden, the "ourt sustains the finding of illegal dismissal vis3G3vis respondent +oselito Tinghil. Lastly, petitioner believes that its manager, +ose Luis ,ondoc, should not have been held solidarily liable with the company for the wage differentials awarded to respondents. !etitioner argues that ,ondoc is merely an employee of the company and not a corporate director or officer who can be held personally liable therefor. The rule is that officers of a corporation are not personally liable for their official acts unless it is shown that they have e7ceeded their authority. ;owever, the legal fiction that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from stoc holders and members may be disregarded if it is used as a means to perpetuate fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an e7isting obligation, the circumvention of statutes, or to confuse legitimate issues. 1? 8oreover, a corporate officer is not personally liable for the money claims of discharged corporate employees unless he acted with evident malice and bad faith in terminating their employment. 16 @nder 'ection 1? of the "orporation "ode, three officers are specifically provided for which a corporation must have4 president, secretary, and treasurer. The law, however, does not limit corporate officers to these three. 'ection 1? gives corporations the widest latitude to provide for such other offices, as they may deem necessary. The by3laws may and usually do provide for such other officers, e.g., vice3president, cashier, auditor, and general manager. 1E #n this case, there is no basis from which it may be deduced that ,ondoc, as manager of petitioner, is also a corporate officer such that he may be held liable for the money claims awarded in favor of respondents. -ven assuming that he is a corporate officer, still, there is no showing that he acted with evident malice and bad faith. ,ondoc may have signed and approved the payrollsD nevertheless, it does not follow that he had a direct hand in determining the amount of respondents' corresponding salaries and other benefits. ,ondoc, therefore, should not have been held liable together with petitioner. '%!R!FOR!, the petition is PARTIALL GRANT!D. The "ourt of Appeals &ecision dated /ovember 16, 1((1 is hereby MODIFI!D in that +ose Luis ,ondoc is absolved of any personal liability as regards the money claims awarded to respondents. #n all other respects, the &ecision is AFFIRM!D. SO ORD!R!D. Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson), nares!"antiago, Calle#o, "r., and Chico!$a%ario, JJ., concur. Foo2+o2e1
1 1 3

!enned by Associate +ustice 0enato ". &acudao, with Associate +ustices 0uben T. 0eyes and 8ariano ". &el "astillo, concurring. 0ollo, p. 1?. ,ecton &ic inson !hilippines, #nc. v. /ational Labor 0elations "ommission, 5.0. /o. 1?))6) H 16(116, /ovember 1?, 1((?, >E? '"0A 113, 1>>. > 8endo:a v. /ational Labor 0elations "ommission, 36) !hil. 1113, 1111 $1)))%D -9uitable !"#ban v. "aguioa, 5.0. /o. 1?)1E(, August 11, 1((?, >66 '"0A 6*6, 6)3. ? 0ecords, pp. 163316?. 6 #d. at 1E(31(1. E 0epublic v. 'andiganbayan, >?3 !hil. 1(?), 11(E $1((3%. * 5.0. /o. 1?)111, 6ebruary 3, 1((?, >?( '"0A >11. ) 'upra note * at >1)3>33. 1( "A &ecision, p. *. 11 Also spelled as ,ondoc in some other parts of the records. 11 0ollo, p. 6>. 13 #d. at 1E>. 1> ' ippers !acific, #nc. v. 8ira, >>( !hil. )(6, )1* $1((1%D !ascua v. /ational Labor 0elations "ommission, 3?1 !hil. >*, 61 $1))*%. 1? /icario v. /ational Labor 0elations "ommission, 3?6 !hil. )36, )>) $1))*%. 16 8idas Touch 6ood "orporation v. /ational Labor 0elations "ommission, 31* !hil. 1(33, 1(>? $1))6%. 1E @nion 8otors "orporation v. /ational Labor 0elations "ommission, 3E3 !hil. 31(, 31)331( $1)))%.