pisonarceo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 117890. September 18, 1997

 PISONARCEO AGRICULTURAL and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. NLRC and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERSFOOD and GENERAL TRADE

G.R. No. 117890. September 18, 1997

FACTS:

1. Private respondents  represented by NSFWFGT filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Hacienda Lanutan/Jose Edmundo Pison.
2. Complainants alleged that they were previously employed as regular sugar farm workers.
3. Jose Edmundo Pison claimed that he was merely the administrator of Hacienda Lanutan which was owned by Pison Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation.
4. The executive labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the workers complainants.
5. The dispositive portion of which reads: judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent Jose Edmundo Pison/Hda. Lanutan, Talisay, Negros Occidental, to PAY. . .
6. In affirming the decision of the executive labor arbiter, public respondent ordered respondent appellant, Jose Edmundo Pison and the respondent PisonArceo Agricultural and Development Corporation to pay jointly and severally the claims for back wages and separation pay of private respondents.

ISSUE:

            Whether NLRC erred when it included motu proprio the Corporation as a party and ordered said corporation liable to pay jointly and severally, with Jose Edmundo Pison

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:    RPC Book 1 by Reyes Codal Set Statutory Construction Introduction to Law Criminal Procedure Law On Property Human Rights Education Civil Law Reviewer Constitutional Law

RULING:

            Jurisdiction was acquired over the petitioner.

            There is no dispute that Hacienda Lanutan, which was owned SOLELY by petitioner, was impleaded and was heard. If at all, the non-inclusion of the corporate name of petitioner in the case before the executive labor arbiter was a mere procedural error which did not at all affect the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals. Petitioner was adequately represented in the proceedings conducted at the regional arbitration branch by no less than Hacienda Lanutans administrator, Jose Edmundo Pison, who verified and signed his/Hacienda Lanutans position paper and other pleadings submitted before the labor arbiter.

            Also, it is undisputed that summons and all notices of hearing were duly served upon Jose Edmundo Pison. Since Pison is the administrator and representative of petitioner in its property and recognized as such by the workers therein, we deem the service of summons upon him as sufficient and substantial compliance with the requirements for service of summons and other notices in respect of Petitioner Corporation. Insofar as the complainants are concerned, Jose Edmundo Pison was their employer and/or their employer’s representative.

Jose Pison’s knowledge of the labor case and effort to resist it can be deemed knowledge and action of the corporation. To apply the normal precepts on corporate fiction and the technical rules on service of summons would be to overturn the bias of the Constitution and the laws in favor of labor. The real party in interest in this case is petitioner, not Hacienda Lanutan which is merely its non-juridical arm. In dealing with private respondents, petitioner represented itself to be Hacienda Lanutan. Hacienda Lanutan is roughly equivalent to its trade name or even nickname or alias. The names may have been different, but the IDENTITY of the petitioner is not in dispute. Thus, it may be sued under the name by which it made itself known to the workers.

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:    RPC Book 1 by Reyes Codal Set Statutory Construction Introduction to Law Criminal Procedure Law On Property Human Rights Education Civil Law Reviewer Constitutional Law