You are on page 1of 7

Today is Monday, D

2017

Republic of the Phili

Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 96490 Feb


INDOPHIL TEXTILE
petitioner,
vs.
VOLUNTARY ARBI
INDOPHIL TEXTILE
Romeo C. Lagman f
Borreta, Gutierrez &
Mills, Inc.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This is a petition fo
award issued by the
P. Calica dated Dec
Article I of the Co
Indophil Textile Mil
Union-PTGWO doe
Acrylic Manufactur
expansion of Indoph
The antecedent fact
Petitioner Indophil
legitimate labor o
Department of Lab
bargaining agent of
Textile Mills, Incorpo
impleaded in his off
the National Con
Department of L
respondent Indophil
in the manufacture,
and kinds and of m
plants at Barrio Lam
In April, 1987, petit
PTGWO and priva
executed a collect
April 1, 1987 to Mar
On November 3,
Corporation was for
Exchange Commis
registration with the
the 1987 Omnibus
approved on a prefe
In 1988, Acrylic b
according to its own
1989, the workers
collective bargaining
In 1990 or a year
unionized and a CB
that the plant facilit
considered as an e
private respondent C
of the CBA, to wit,.
c) This Agreement s
and installations an
(Rollo, p.4)
In other words, it is
part of the Indophil b
The petitioner's cont
which submits that
from Acrylic.
The existing impass
to enter into a subm
The parties jointly r
voluntary arbitrator
dispute pertaining
provision.
After the parties sub
replies, the public re
award on Decembe
provides as follows:
PREMISES CONS
interpretation and a
if we would extend
clause of Indophil T
made to the effe
application of Sec.
extend to the em
expansion of Indoph
Hence, this petition
1. WHETHER OR
ERRED IN INTERP
CBA BETWEEN PE
COMPANY.
2. WHETHER OR N
AND DISTINCT EN
FOR PURPOSES O
3. WHETHER OR
GRAVELY ABUSE
LACK OR IN EXCES
4. WHETHER OR
VIOLATED PETITI
RIGHT TO DUE PR
The central issue su
operations in Indoph
expansion of privat
aforementioned issu
rank-and-file employ
recognized as par
bargaining unit.
Petitioner maintains
erred in interpreting
literal meaning witho
that the creation o
devise of responden
CBA between petitio
Petitioner stresses t
corporations establi
same kind of busine
yarns of various co
kindred character or
Contrary to petitio
through the Solicito
Manufacturing Corp
business conduit o
separate legitimate
General alleges that
is to engage in the b
counts and kinds an
purpose of Indophi
wholesale basis, ba
yarns of various c
respondent, Indophi
private respondent c
Furthermore, petitio
have practically the
In fact, of the tota
P1,749,970.00 whic
total subscription o
respondent Compan
On this point, priva
Labor Federation v.
1980, 10l SCRA 534
be treated as a sing
are related. It subm
bargaining units as
of companies is a p
with a legal person
separate from other
Petitioner notes th
establish that Acry
private respondent,
(a) the two corporat
facilities situated in
Marilao, Bulacan;
(b) many of private
dyeing machines,
were transferred to
the Acrylic plant;
(c) the services of a
of private responden
(d) the employees o
manning and servic
13)
Private respondent
business relationshi
is not a proof of be
services which are
auxiliary services or
the actual productio
essential services
personnel under t
managers and supe
In sum, petitioner in
grave abuse of disc
jurisdiction in errone
in failing to disregard
We find the petition
Time and again, W
arbitrators are to be
measure of finality,
not preclude judicia
grave abuse of disc
substantial justice, o
brought to our atten
Relations Commiss
Division Minute Res
v. Romero, G.R. No
It should be empha
award, the voluntary
the U.P. Asian Lab
Industrial Relation
jurisprudence on
respondent's conte
public respondent ci
the award. Hence
discretion.
Under the doctrine o
valid grounds the
corporation is an e
and distinct from
disregarded. In such
as a mere asso
stockholders of the
corporation, that is
and stockholders. T
fiction is used to d
protect fraud, or def
to confuse the legiti
mere alter ego or b
corporation is so or
so conducted as to
conduit or adjunct o
of Appeals, G.R. No
529, 542)
In the case at ba
corporate entity of
corporation is a de
between petitioner
While we do not di
the businesses of p
we inclined to app
granting the relief
private respondent
employees of the p
manning and provid
Acrylic, and that the
situated in the sam
that these facts are
corporate veil of Acr
In the same case o
We already empha
disregarded only i
stockholders directly
In the instant case,
against the member
Furthermore, We al
Federation Local 11
grave abuse of disc
bargaining unit whe
entities with separat
Hence, the Acrylic
private respondent,
Acrylic should not b
scope of the petitio
private respondent.
All premises conside
respondent Voluntar
discretion in its inte
CBA that the Acry
private respondent.
ACCORDINGLY, th
respondent Voluntar
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz
The Lawphil Project - Arella