Complex Electronics Employees Association (Ceea) Vs NLRC

#98
[G.R. No. 121315. July 19, 1999.]
COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA) represented by its union

president CECILIA TALAVERA, GEORGE ARSOLA, MARIO DIAGO AND SOCORRO
BONCAYAO, Petitioners, v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, COMPLEX
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, IONICS CIRCUIT, INC., LAWRENCE QUA, REMEDIOS DE
JESUS, MANUEL GONZAGA, ROMY DELA ROSA, TERESITA ANDINO, ARMAN CABACUNGAN,
GERRY GABANA, EUSEBIA MARANAN and BERNADETH GACAD, Respondents.
[G.R. No. 122136. July 19, 1999.]
COMPLEX ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION, COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA), represented by
Union President, CECILIA TALAVERA, Respondents.
FACTS:
Complex Electronics Corporation was engaged in the manufacture of electronic products. It was
actually a subcontractor of electronic products where its customers gave their job orders, sent their own
materials and consigned their equipment to it. The rank and file workers of Complex were organized into
a union known as the Complex Electronics Employees Association. Complex received a facsimile message
from Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co., requiring it to lower its price by 10%. Complex informed its Lite-
On personnel that such request of lowering their selling price by 10% was not feasible as they were
already incurring losses at the present prices of their products. Complex regretfully informed the
employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down the operations of the Lite-On Line:
retrenchment will not take place until after 1 month
try to prolong the work for as many people as possible for as long as it can
retrenchment pay as provided for by law i.e. half a month for every year of service in accordance
with Article 283 of the Labor Code of Philippines.
Complex filed a notice of closure of the Lite-On Line with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) and the retrenchment of the ninety-seven (97) affected employees. Union filed a
notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. In the evening of April 6, 1992, the
machinery, equipment and materials being used for production at Complex were pulled-out from the
company premises and transferred to the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. (Ionics) at Cabuyao, Laguna.
Fearful that the machinery, equipment and materials would be rendered inoperative and unproductive
due to the impending strike of the workers, the customers ordered their pull-out and transfer to Ionics.
Complex was compelled to cease operations. Ionics contended that it was an entity separate and distinct
from Complex and had been in existence since July 5, 1984 or eight (8) years before the labor dispute
arose at Complex. Like Complex, it was also engaged in the semi-conductor business where the
machinery, equipment and materials were consigned to them by their customers. President of Complex
was also the President of Ionics, the latter denied having Qua as their owner since he had no recorded
subscription of P1,200,00.00 in Ionics as claimed by the Union. Ionics further argued that the hiring of
some displaced workers of Complex was an exercise of management prerogatives.
Complaint was, thereafter, filed with the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for unfair labor
practice, illegal closure/illegal lockout, money claims for vacation leave, sick leave, unpaid wages, 13th
month pay, damages and attorney's fees. The Union alleged that the pull-out of the machinery,
equipment and materials from the company premises, which resulted to the sudden closure of the
company was in violation of Section 3 and 8, Rule XIII, Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines and
the existing CBA.
Labor Arbiter: reinstate the 531 above-listed employees to their former position; charge of
slowdown strike filed by respondent Complex against the union is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
NLRC: pay 531 complainants equivalent to one month pay in lieu of notice and separation pay
equivalent to one month pay for every year of service and a fraction of six months considered as one
whole year.
ISSUE: W/N there was ULP
HELD:
NO.
· A "runaway shop" is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners from one location to
another to escape union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant
removed to a new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant because of their
union activities.
o It is one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its
business for anti-union purposes
o relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons
o Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. At the time the
labor dispute arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent company.
o The Union failed to show that the primary reason for the closure of the establishment was due to the
union activities of the employees.
o The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by the same or single
stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding separate corporate personalities.
· No illegal lockout/illegal dismissal
o closure, therefore, was not motivated by the union activities of the employees, but rather by
necessity since it can no longer engage in production without the much needed materials, equipment
and machinery.
o The determination to cease operation is a prerogative of management that is usually not interfered
with by the State as no employer can be required to continue operating at a loss simply to maintain the
workers in employment.
· personal liability of Lawrence Qua- absence of malice or bad faith, a stockholder or an officer of a
corporation cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.
· We see no valid and cogent reason why petitioner should not be likewise sanctioned for its failure
to serve the mandatory written notice. Under the attendant facts, we find the amount of P5,000.00, to
be just and reasonable.

Complex Electronics Employees Association (Ceea) Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complex Electronics Employees Association (Ceea) Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complex Electronics Employees Association (Ceea) Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#98

[G.R. No. 121315. July 19, 1999.]

COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA) represented by its union

[G.R. No. 122136. July 19, 1999.]

COMPLEX ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

retrenchment will not take place until after 1 month

ISSUE: W/N there was ULP

o relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons

· No illegal lockout/illegal dismissal

You might also like