Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

37.

) National Federation of Labor Union v Ople  It is obvious from the above findings that Libra seeks the protective shield
G.R. No. L-68661 | July 22, 1986 of corporate fiction to achieve an illegal purpose. This veil should be
JDG pierced as it was deliberately and maliciously designed to evade Lawman’s
Topic: The corporate entity; Disregarding the separate corporate entity financial obligations to its employees.
Petitioners: National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU) and Teresita Lorenzo, et al.  When the veil of corporate fiction is made as a shield to perpetrate a fraud
Respondents: Hon. Minister Blas Ople and Lawman Industrial/Libra or to confuse legitimate issues (here, the relation of employer-employee),
Garments/Dolphin Enterprises the same should be pierced.
Ponente: Gutierrez Jr., J.

FACTS

 NAFLU was the designated exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of
LAWMAN Industrial
 Collective bargaining negotiations between NAFLU and Lawman happened
between October 1981 and January 1982.
 NAFLU declared a strike after Lawman refused to grant substantial economic
demands to its workers. The strike was ended in the same month through
efforts of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
 Lawman agreed to increase wages by one peso for 3 consecutive years; grant
vacation leave, sick leave, and other fringe benefits. This CBA was supposed to
take effect in September 1982.
 August 1982 – Lawman commenced a partial shutdown of its operations.
o It hauled its machines out from its factory to a different location in
Malabon, where it operated under the name LIBRA Garments. It also
hired new workers.
o When the Lawman employees discovered this, Libra changed its
name to DOLPHIN Garments.
 NAFLU filed a request for conciliation before the Bureau of Labor Relations,
requesting the Bureau to intervene in their dispute with Lawman over certain
money claims, the non-implementation of the CBA, and the establishment of a
runaway shop to bust the union.
 Lawman unilaterally declared a temporary shutdown but promised its
employees that normal operations will resume in Jan. 1983
 NAFLU filed a notice of strike, after all efforts to mediate the charge of unfair
labor practice and money claims have failed. Lawman offered to pay P200,000
as complete settlement of all claims plus separation pay. NAFLU rejected the
offer as it would be tantamount to accepting the separation of its members
from the company. Conciliation efforts proved futile.
 NAFLU filed before the NLRC an unfair labor practice complaint against
Lawman.

ISSUE
Whether the employees of Lawman should be reinstated to their former positions
(YES)

RULING
 Veil of corporate fiction must be pierced; Libra must reinstate lawman’s
workers

You might also like