CASE DIGEST : VICMAR DEV. CORP VS ELACOSA

G.R. No. 202215, December 09, 2015

VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR ROBERT KUA, OWNER, AND ENGR. JUANITO C. PAGCALIWAGAN,¹ MANAGER, Petitioners, v. CAMILO ELARCOSA, MARLON BANDA, DANTE L. BALAMAD, RODRIGO COLANSE,² CHIQUITO PACALDO, ROBINSON PANAGA, JUNIE ABUGHO, SBLVERIO NARISMA, ARMANDO GONZALES, TEOFILO ELBINA, FRANCISCO BAGUIO, GELVEN RHYAN RAMOS, JULITO SIMAN, RECARIDO⁴ PANES, JESUS TINSAY, AGAPITO CANAS, JR., OLIVER LOBAYNON, SIMEON BAGUIO, JOSEPH SALCEDO, DONIL INDINO, WILFREDO GULBEN, JESRILE⁵ TANIO, RENANTE PAMON, RICHIE⁶ GULBEN, DANIEL ELLO, REXY DOFELIZ, RONALD NOVAL, NORBERTO BELARGA, ALLAN BAGUIO, ROBERTO PAGUICAN, ROMEO⁷ PATOY, ROLANDO TACBOBO, WILFREDO LADRA, RUBEN PANES, RUEL CABANDAY, AND JUNARD⁸ABUGHO, Respondent.

FACTS : Respondents alleged that Vicmar, a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing of plywood for export and for local sale. They averred that Vicmar has two branches, Top Forest Developers, Incorporated (TFDI) and Greenwood International Industries, Incorporated (GUI) located in the same compound where Vicmar operated. According to respondents, Vicmar employed some of them as early as 1990 and since their engagement they had been performing the heaviest and dirtiest tasks in the plant operations. Respondents declared that Vicmar paid them minimum wage and a small amount for overtime but it did not give them benefits as required by law, such as Philhealth, Social Security System, 13th month pay, holiday pay, rest day and night shift differential. They added that Vicmar employed more than 200 regular employees and more than 400 "extra" workers. Respondents claimed that they were illegally dismissed after "vicmar learned that they instituted the subject Complaint through the simple expedience of not being scheduled for work. Even those persons associated with them were dismissed. They also asserted that Vicmar did not comply with the twin notice requirement in dismissing employees

Respondents contended that while Vicmar, TFDI and Gin were separately registered with the SEC. they were involved in the same business, located in the same compound, owned by one person, had one resident manager, and one and the same administrative department, personnel and finance sections. They claimed that the employees of these companies were identified as employees of Vicmar even if they were assigned in TFDI or GIII

ISSUE: WON Vicmar TFDI and Gin can be consdiered as one entity

HELD: The Court also gives merit to the finding of the CA that Vicmar is the employer of respondents despite the allegations that a number of them were assigned to the branches of Vicmar. Petitioners failed to refute the contention that Vicmar and its branches have the same owner and management - which included one resident manager, one administrative department, one and the same personnel and finance sections. Notably, all respondents were employed by the same plant manager, who signed their identification cards some of whom were under Vicmar, and the others under TFDI.

Where it appears that business enterprises are owned, conducted and controlled by the same parties, law and equity will disregard the legal fiction that these corporations are distinct entities and shall treat them as one. This is in order to protect the rights of third persons, as in this case, to safeguard the rights of respondents