Está en la página 1de 5

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 112661.

May 30, 2001]

SIMEON DE LEON, EFREN ABAD, JAIME ABAD, JESSIE ABAY-ABAY, ROLANDO ABIOLA, ALICIO ABISO, CELEDONIO ABSALON, JEREMIAS ADO, VICENTE ADO, VICENTE AGGABAO, EFRAIN AGUIRRE, ALEXANDER ALATA, ERNESTO ALCALDE, LORENZO ALCOY, ALMARIO ALICIO, CESAR AMADOR, JOSE AMANTE, ESTELITO AMBROSIO, VICENTE ANAPI, ARNEL ANCHETA, ROGELIO ANCHETA, WILFREDO ANONUEVO, DOMINGO ANTIGRO, MARGARITO ANTIGRO, ROGELIO ANZANO, ANTONIO APOSTOL, ORLANDO AQUINO, JUAN ARCALAS, BONIFACIO ARIOLA, EDGAR ARIOLA, BONIFACIO ARMASA, FERNANDO BACCAY, MARIO BACUD, RUPERTO BACUDAN, NILO BALAG, ARGEL BALTAZAR, DEMETRIO BARAYOGA, FELIX BARNEDO, FLORENTINO BARTE, SARRI BASIRUL, MARCELO BATANES, RECTO BAYONA, VICTORIO BERMUNDO, ISMAEL BERNAL, LERIO BERSABE, FIDEL BOSE, MARIANO BOTACION, DANILO BRAZIL, REYNALDO BRUNIO, MARIO BUENAVENTURA, ARSENIO BULATAO, FRANCISCO BULATAO, CARLOS CAJARA, ROSENDO CAMACHO, RUBEN CAMACHO, NESTOR CAPILOS, DOMINGO CASTRO, MAXIMIANO DE CASTO, EDINO CASTUERA, ZALDY CERDON, ANTONIO DERUJANO, VICTOR CIPRIANO, JUANITO CORPUZ, ALFREDO CRUZ, FERNANDO DELA CRUZ, MARIO CUSTOPAY, ROSAURO CUSTODIO, FRANKLIN CUSTODIO, ALFREDO DAPROZA, RENATO DAVAG, NOEL DEMINGOY, GENE DIESTRO, ESTEBAN DIONSON, RAMON DIZA, JEREMIAS DOROMAL, MANUEL EDATO, FERNANDO EDORA, CONRADO ENRIQUEZ, NICOMEDEZ ENRIQUEZ, ROLITO ESPIEL, LAURO ESPANOL, NONITO ESPLANA, ELPIDIO ESPANOL, DIOLITO ESTOPEREZ, ODILON EUSTE, HENRY FACTOR, VIRGILIO FAVORITO, ARISTOTLE FERNANDEZ, RODOFLO FORMALEJO, JUNE FULAY, RUIS FUTOL, JESUS GABA, RODRIGO GABAT, ROSALIA GABAT, CLEMENTE GASPAR, RODRIGO GAVIOLA, ELLEN GODELOSON, SALVADOR GUELA, EDUARDO GUZMAN, BALTAZAR DE GUZMAN, ZOSIMO DE GUZMAN, REYANLDO HAGUIRING, CARLOS GINDAP, BERNARDINO GIPIT, WILFREDO HERNANDEZ, IMMANUEL IBRING, PEPITO IMPERIO, MAGTANGGOL INSORIO, RODELYN JACUNTO, MARIO JARAPAN, MAXIMO JIMENEZ, ALEJANDRO JUDLOMAN, JUAN LAOAGAN, DANTE LARIOSA, ELINO LASAGA, JOSEPH LEGASPINA, ZOSIMO LEPALAM, BENJAMIN LIBAN, EFREN LIGUE, CLETO LINGA, ROMEO LLAGAS, LUCIO LLARENA, ALFREDO LOPEZ, FELIX LOPEZ, SANTOS LOPEZ, RUBEN LORENZO, NILO LUGANA, CANCIO MAATUBANG, ANTONIO MACASIO, ROBERTO MACATUNGGAL, VIRGILIO MACALINAO, RAMON MACOY, JOSE MAGALONA, ALEJO MANAGUELOD, DOMINGO MANALO, EMILIANO MANALO, SULPICIO MANTALABA, EDITO MANUEL, ROMULO MANUEL, FELINO MARANA, CARLITO MARGAJA, ROMARES MARIANO, CERMELO MARTINEZ, MODESTO MASULIT, ALMA MATUSALEM, FLAVIANO MEDEL, DOLCIANO MEDINA, DOLOROSA MEDINA, NORLINDO MEJARITO, PEDRITO MENDOZA, GUARDITO MERANO, ALBERTO DE MESA, CHARLIE MINANO, JOSE MONTEROSO, ROSENDO MORALES, CESAR NARDA, DOMINADOR NAGAL, EDEMIO NARISMA, DINISIO NAVASCA, REGINO NEPICON, JR., JESSIE CRIS NILO, JERWYN ORARIO, EUGENIO ORBEGOZO, IRENEO ORGANISTA, CATALINO OJENDRAS, WILLIAM OLIVARES, JUANITO ORIO, WILLIAM ORTIZO, ROQUE PAL-PALLATOC, ROGELIO PAEL, LORENZO PAMINTUAN, VIRGILIO PANTALEON, ANTONIO PAPA, EMMANUEL PASCUAL, FRANCISCO PECUNDO, RUFINO PELICER, LEONARDO PEPITO, PABLITO PERALTA, EDILBERTO PEREZ, LOLITO PEREZ, PELAGIO PEREZ, JR., FERNANDO PINEDA, CARMEN PIO, ALEJANDRO QUIAMCO, VIRGILIO QUILALANG, JEREMEAS QUINES, ZENAIDA RAQUINE, DOMINGO RANOLA, SABINO RANULO, EDDIE RAZONABE, ALBERTO REBAULA, BENIGNO REGIS, PERFECTO REBOYO, VITALIANO REYES, ZOSIMO REYES, EDWIN ROBERTS, ROBERT ROJO, GODOFREDO ROLIO, ANATALIA ROSANTO, DOMINADOR ROSANTO, RAMON ROSANTO, SR., RODRIGO ROSANTO, JULIO RUBIO, DANTE RUZOL, VENUS RUZOL, ROMULO SABINO, CIPRIANO SACUILLES, SR., PRIMO SALAZAR, GASPAR SAMUYA, ANTONIO SANCHEZ, CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, YOLANDA SAN LUIS, ROBERTO SANTOS, BENITO SEGUDIENTE, EDGAR SIBAL, GREGORIO SIBAL, VALENTINO SIBAL, SONNY SINGH, ROMEO SOMERA, EDGAR TABAQUE, BENITO TACATA, MATILDE TACATA, ANDRESITO TALAM, ANTOLIN TALISIC, PABLO TAMAYO, JULIE TAMIEZA, ROGELIO TAYO, CELSO TE, ENRIQUE TRIPULCA, ARMANDO TUIBEO, NICANOR TUMAMAO, EDUARDO TUMBALE, RAMON TURIRIT, LONGENIO UMACAM, TOLENTINO UNDAUNDO, DIOLITO VALENCIA, ERNESTO VARGAS, BILLY VASQUEZ, TOMAS VELINA, MARCOS DE VERA, IRENEO VILELA, NICANDRO VILLAFRANCA, DANNY VILLANUEVA, LOLITA VITALICO, ALIPIO YGOT, AGOSTO YROMA, FELIX ZAMBALES, and GUILLERMO ZIPANGAN, petioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION and/or MAGNUM INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (formerly FORTUNE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.), respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: This case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and refund of cash bond filed by petitioners against respondents before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The petition at bar seeks the annulment of the resolution of the NLRC dated July 5, 1993 reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding respondents liable for the charges, and its resolution dated August 10, 1993 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The undisputed facts are as follows: On August 23, 1980, Fortune Tobacco Corporation (FTC) and Fortune Integrated Services, Inc. (FISI) entered into a contract for security services where the latter undertook to provide security guards for the protection and security of the former. The petitioners were among those engaged as security guards pursuant to the contract. On February 1, 1991, the incorporators and stockholders of FISI sold out lock, stock and barrel to a group of new stockholders by executing for the purpose a "Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock". On the same date, the Articles of Incorporation of FISI was amended changing its corporate name to Magnum Integrated Services, Inc. (MISI). A new by-laws was likewise adopted and approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 1993. On October 15, 1991, FTC terminated the contract for security services which resulted in the displacement of some five hundred eighty two (582) security guards assigned by FISI/MISI to FTC, including the petitioners in this case. FTC engaged the services of two (2) other security agencies, Asian Security Agency and Ligalig Security Services, whose security guards were posted on October 15, 1991 to replace FISI's security guards. Sometime in October 1991, the Fortune Tobacco Labor Union, an affiliate of the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU), and claiming to be the bargaining agent of the security guards, sent a Notice of Strike to FISI/MISI. On November 14, 1991, the members of the union which include petitioners picketed the premises of FTC. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, however, issued a writ of injunction to enjoin the picket.

[5] The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the NLRC but the same was denied. or in case of two corporations. justify wrong.[1] Respondent FTC. Consequently. and to pay attorney's fees. the stockholders of FISI sold all their participations in the corporation to a new set of stockholders which renamed the corporation Magnum Integrated Services. This resulted in the displacement of petitioners. together with sixteen (16) other complainants instituted the instant case before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.. it held that the Labor Arbiter erred in applying the "single employer" principle and concluding that there was an employer-employee relationship between FTC and FISI on one hand. The NLRC held that the principle of "single employer" and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil could not apply under the circumstances. on the other hand. had a different set of stockholders and officers from that of FTC. to refund their cash bond deposit.:[10] “The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of section (a) (1) is whether t he employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act. 1991. However. He observed that not long after the stockholders of FISI sold all their stocks to a new set of stockholders.[8] Petitioners have been employed with FISI since the 1980s and have since been posted at the premises of FTC -. FTC terminated the contract of security services and engaged the services of two other security agencies.[12] In the case at bar.[9] To enforce their rightful benefits under the laws on Labor Standards. 1991. he ruled that FISI and FTC should be considered as a single employer. protect fraud or defend crime. at that time. He observed that the two corporations have common stockholders and they share the same business address. while having its own corporate identity. Employees Association-NATU vs. It is a fundamental principle in corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it is connected. Petitioners alleged that they were regular employees of FTC which was also using the corporate names Fortune Integrated Services. The complaint was later amended to allow the inclusion of other complainants. FTC did not give any reason for the termination of the contract. however. when the concept of separate legal entity is used to defeat public convenience. As regards the charge of unfair labor practice. petitioners were the employees of MISI which was a separate and distinct corporation from FTC. They also had separate offices. An examination of the facts of this case reveals that there is sufficient ground to conclude that respondents were guilty of interfering with the right of petitioners to self-organization which constitutes unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. FISI could not be faulted for the severance of petitioners' assignment at the premises of FTC. They averred that they performed their duties under the control and supervision of FTC's security supervisors. We gave due course to the petition on May 15. FISI. the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. petitioners had no cause of action against FTC. Petitioners have remained unemployed since then. the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons. The Labor Arbiter gave credence to petitioners' theory that respondents' precipitate termination of their employment was intended to bust their union.its main factory plant. On February 1. FISI also had no other clients except FTC and other companies belonging to the Lucio Tan group of companies. it ordered the dismissal of petitioners' complaint. Inc. Hence. without any reason. petitioners formed a union which was later certified as bargaining agent of all the security guards. It further ruled that the proximate cause for the displacement of petitioners was the termination of the contract for security services by FTC on October 15. Inc. It alleged that the temporary displacement of petitioners was not due to its fault but was the result of the pretermination by FTC of the contract for security services. preterminated its contract of security services with MISI and contracted two other agencies to provide security services for its premises.[2] Respondent FISI. They were assigned to work as security guards at the company's main factory plant.On November 29. Petitioners claimed that their dismissal was part of respondents' design to bust their newly-organized union which sought to enforce their rights under the Labor Standards law. Rejecting FTC's argument that there was no employeremployee relationship between FTC and petitioners. Hence. the NLRC found that petitioners who had the burden of proof failed to adduce any evidence to support their charge of unfair labor practice against respondents. by virtue of a contract . meanwhile. As MISI had no other clients. FTC. Inc. The petition is impressed with merit.[4] On appeal. NLRC[7] remanding all petitions for certiorari from the decision of the NLRC to the Court of Appeals does not apply to the case at bar. Inc. the NLRC held that the charge of illegal dismissal had no basis. were severed in October 1991 without valid cause and without due process. was a mere instrumentality of FTC. the Labor Arbiter ordered respondents to pay petitioners their backwages and separation pay. 1991. maintained that there was no employer-employee relationship between FTC and petitioners. and (3) Whether petitioners are entitled to the refund of their cash bond deposited with respondent FISI. Martin Funeral Home vs. its tobacco redrying plant and warehouse. had been renamed Magnum Integrated Services. It appears from the records that FISI. Their services. The separate juridical personality of a corporation may also be disregarded when such corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of another person. Consequently.”[11] We are not persuaded by the argument of respondent FTC denying the presence of an employer-employee relationship. (2) Whether respondents are guilty of unfair labor practice. 1995. Insular Life Assurance Co. it failed to give new assignments to petitioners.[6] Hence. The Labor Arbiter thus found respondents guilty of union busting and illegal dismissal. Thus. Moreover. the ruling in St. First. 1991. Ltd. FISI had no client other than FTC and other corporations belonging to the group of companies owned by Lucio Tan. The parties submitted the following issues for resolution: (1) Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed. this petition. and petitioners on the other hand. and Magnum Integrated Services. merge them into one. FISI which. the early payslips of petitioners show that their salaries were initially paid by FTC.[3] The Labor Arbiter found respondents liable for the charges. tasked to provide protection and security in the company premises. It found that at the time of the termination of the contract of security services on October 15.. The records show that the two corporations had identical stockholders and the same business address. All these facts indicate a concerted effort on the part of respondents to remove petitioners from the company and thus abate the growth of the union and block its actions to enforce their demands in accordance with the Labor Standards laws. denied the charge of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. It argued that petitioners were not dismissed from service but were merely placed on floating status pending re-assignment to other posts.. We find that the Labor Arbiter correctly applied the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to hold all respondents liable for unfair labor practice and illegal termination of petitioners' employment. Simeon de Leon. In addition. Ltd. It said that at the time of the termination of their services. 1991. The Court held in Insular Life Assurance Co. its tobacco redrying plant and warehouse. On October 15. it was shown that FISI was a mere adjunct of FTC.

It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: (a) To interfere with. xxx [9] Annex "B"-"B-19". Position Paper of Complainants. or to award them separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer feasible. G.J. However. [11] citing Francisco. 93 Phil 160 (1953). NLRC. The sudden sale of FISI to a new set of stockholders.for security services. provided FTC with security guards to safeguard its premises.. 112661. Inc. Davide. inclusive of allowances.. [13] Dela Cruz vs. that the union came into being only in October 1991. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code. Court of Tax Appeals. No. Under these circumstances. and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was witheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. NLRC. such explanation is a mere afterthought as no mention was made regarding the reason for the pretermination of the contract either in the letter sent by FTC to . [7] 295 SCRA 494 (1998). [4] Rollo. Tomas Lao Construction vs. vs. several months after the sale of FISI. Jarencio.May 27. the union was already in existence and has been certified as bargaining agent. Inc. p. Contrary to respondents' assertion. Inc. and the removal of petitioners from their posts within the premises of FTC were all done at a time when petitioners were in the process of organizing their union and were seeking the satisfaction of their various benefits and privileges under the Labor Code. [MISI] (formerly Fortune Integrated Services. Vol. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. concur. At that time. vs. pp. vs. FIRST DIVISION Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder. NLRC.R. C. Original Record. It is not correct to say. p. [10] 37 SCRA 244 (1971). 140-150. Original Record. pp. 26-45. if reinstatement is no longer possible. we find that the termination of petitioners' services was without basis and therefore illegal. pp. 1956. on leave. [2] Position Paper of Respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation. We find no merit on the first ground raised by the respondents. Original Record. the petition is GRANTED. Pardo and Ynares-Santiago. vs. Jr. it had the authority to file a notice of strike against FISI and FTC in behalf of the employees. II. and to reinstate them to their former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. [12] Yutivo Sons and Hardware Co. the unexplained pretermination of the security contract between FTC and FISI/MISI. Thus.. (Chairman). et al.[13] IN VIEW WHEREOF.R. Unfair labor practices of employers. Labor Laws. See also La Campana Coffee Factory. for your information. et al. [5] Rollo. Original Record. 268 SCRA 458 (1997). records show that FISI and FTC have the same owners and business address. [3] Position Paper of Respondent Fortune Integrated Services. pp. Inc.) Before the Court for resolution are the motions for reconsideration of our Decision [1]cralaw filed by respondents Fortune Tobacco Corporation and Magnum Integrated Services. [6] Rollo. 47-64. [FISI]) should be considered as a single employer and should be held liable for unfair labor practice and for the unlawful dismissal of petitioners. Respondent FTC also faults the Decision for modifying the Decision of the Labor Arbiter by increasing the amount of backwages and separation pay awarded to petitioners. Inc. The assailed resolutions of the NLRC are SET ASIDE. 1 SCRA 160 (1961).-.. appears to be part of a scheme to terminate the services of FISI's security guards posted at the premises of FTC and bust their newly-organized union which was then beginning to become active in demanding the company's compliance with Labor Standards laws. 163 SCRA 205 (1988). the employer has the alternative of paying the employee his separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Inc. 323. 66-73. [G. 112661 (Simeon De Leon. Both respondents assail our ruling that Fortune Tobacco Corporation [FTC] and Magnum Integrated Services. pp. [8] Art. However. Thus. Tan Boon Bee & Co. The purported sale of the shares of the former stockholders to a new set of stockholders who changed the name of the corporation to Magnum Integrated Services. Also. as respondents want to impress upon the Court. No. vs. NLRC. is a resolution of this Court dated 27 MAY 2002. the Court cannot allow FTC to use its separate corporate personality to shield itself from liability for illegal acts committed against its employees. 46. pp. SO ORDERED. 278 SCRA 716 (1997). and to his full backwages. To our mind. [1] Position Paper of Complainants. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay petitioners their full backwages. an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. et al. there is adequate evidence on record to show that respondents are guilty Of unfair labor practice. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana (KKM). 81-100. and FISI provided security services only to FTC and other companies belonging to the Lucio Tan group of companies. Inc. 248. 2002] DE LEON. et al. Kapunan J.. 121-125. we are not convinced by the explanation offered by respondents for the pretermination of the security contract between FTC and FISI/MISI. JJ.

but complete domination. and 3. On this score. It is clear from the facts that FISI was a mere instrumentality of FTC. This separate and distinct personality is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. the separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded. (now Magnum Integrated Services. But even when there is dominance over the affairs of the subsidiary. in cases where it is used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality.10 as separation pay. The earlier salaries of the security guards were paid by FTC. the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction applies only when such fiction is used to defeat public convenience. Employees Association-NATU vs. FISI's security guards were posted mostly in FTC and other companies owned by respondent Tan.) to pay complaints. hence. however.[6]cralaw Against this backdrop. Arsenio Tan were the President and the Treasurer of FISI. Inc.[7]cralaw Any piercing of the corporate veil. That the Decision of the Commission dated 05 July 1993 and its subsequent Resolution dated 10 August. All other claims of the complainants are hereby dismissed for reasons hereinabove stated. The presence of these elements will justify the piercing of the corporate veil. Petitioners accepted the Decision. We now come to the contention of the respondent FTC that our Decision unduly modified the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and awarded the petitioners more than what they prayed for in their petition. justify wrong. respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation and/or Fortune Integrated Services. MISI's stockholders. 1992.MISI[2]cralaw or in the position papers filed by the respondents before the Labor Arbiter. moral damages and attorney's fees. it is most respectfully prayed: 1. They prayed as follows: "WHEREFORE. all the foregoing premises being considered. the element of control has been adequately proved by the identity of the stockholders of FTC and FISI. 2. Petitioners thus elevated the Decision of the NLRC via certiorari to this Court. The test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows: 1. General Mariano Ordonez and Mr. illegal dismissal. as follows: 1. Accordingly. and 4.10 as separation pay. No court will allow the use of a corporation's separate personality as a shield against its wrongdoing.. not mere majority or complete stock control.The dispositive portion of the Decision states: "WHEREFORE. the corporation's separate personality will be disregarded where the business affairs of a subsidiary corporation are so controlled by the mother corporation to the extent that it becomes an instrument or agent of its parent. has to be done with caution.[4]cralaw which we also quoted in our Decision. we find that there is sufficient basis to conclude that the sale of FISI was only a means to evade any liability for unfair labor practice on the part of FISI and FTC. we sustain the respondent. P7. respectively. the NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaints of the petitioners for unfair labor practice.. thus: "The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of section (a) (1) is whether The employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act." Respondents alone appealed the Decision to the NLRC. we cannot apply the general rule that a corporation possesses a personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it or any other legal entity to which it may be related.926. 2. The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of. judgment is hereby rendered ordering the.926. P13. to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty. 1993. not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind. will or existence of its own. or the veil or corporate fiction pierced. 1993 be annulled and judgment be rendered affirming the Decision of Labor Arbiter Jose de Vera ordering private respondents to pay petitioners P13. Inc. SO ORDERED. as well as their business address. We reiterate our ruling in Insular Life Assurance Co. The change in the stockholders of FISI is of no moment as it appears that such change was only a device used by respondents to avoid liability for non-compliance with labor standards laws and unfair labor practice committed against the petitioners. [3]cralawFTC's silence as regards the cause.. On July 5. Control. and the payment by FTC of the earlier salaries of the security guards assigned by FISI to secure its premises. Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong. The payslips attached to the record of this case provide reasonable basis to prove that FTC paid the salaries of FISI's security guards. the posting of most of FISI's security guards to FTC and its sister companies.[8]cralaw Thus. 3.051. or to work an injustices or where necessary to achieve equity or when necessary for the protection of creditors. . and to pay attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent. Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of whatever are herein adjudicated in favor of the complainants. Unfair labor practice need not be proved by direct evidence as long as it is shown that the employer has engaged in conduct from which a reasonable inference may be made that the latter is attempting or has attempted to interfere with the employees' free exercise of their right to self organization.847. for the premature cessation of the contract reveals the lack of a valid reason therefor.847. Refund of accumulated cash bond deposits due each complainant. Ltd. That this petition be kindly given due course.20 as backwages. or dishonesty and unjust acts in contravention of plaintiff's legal rights.[5]cralaw We further note that the new stockholders of MISI were also previously connected with FISI. Insular Life Assurance Co. 2..05 1. protect fraud or defend crime. P7. refund of cash bond deposits. The records will show that the Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioners on December 15. did not challenge it.20 as backwages. and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. Ltd.345.345.[9]cralawIn this case. to refund the accumulated cash bond deposit of each petitioner. They have identical stockholders and they operated within the same premises." Using this test to the facts of the case at bar.

1993 and its Resolution dated August 10. 344 SCRA 238 (2000). cralaw Annex "A". 1992. pp. Original Record. petitioners merely prayed for its affirmance. vs. Sr. Inc. Id. 101-111. We ordered the respondents to pay petitioners "x x x their full backwages and to reinstate them to their former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. CA. cralaw Reynoso IV vs." We agree with the respondent FTC that the petitioners can be given only the awards ordered by the Labor Arbiter. cralaw Annexes "C" and "D". cralaw Annexes "B" . vs. pp. but reinstate in toto the Decision of Labor Arbiter Jose de Vera dated December 15. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] ." In our Decision. 163 SCRA 205 (1988). or to award them separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer feasible. the Motions for Reconsideration of the respondents are denied with the qualification that we reverse and set aside the Decision of the NLRC dated July 5. no part as she did not participate in the main decision. Inc.. The decision of said Labor Arbiter has not been assailed by the petitioners and in their petition before us. pp. (Sgd. we reversed the NLRC. cralaw Heirs of Ramon Durano.. cralaw 37 SCRA 244 (1971). that we awarded to petitioners more than the awards given by the Labor Arbiter. cralaw Tan Boon Bee & Co. It appears. Original Record. Uy. p. Appeal Memorandum filed by Fortune Integrated Services. IN VIEW WHEREOF. Very truly yours. 445. Complainants' Position Paper. however. 81-100."B-19". pp. Jarencio. 140-150.J. 1993. 121-125. 2001.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO Clerk of Court Endnotes: [1] cralaw Promulgated May 30. 345 SCRA 335 (2000). cralaw Original Record. Martinez.. Respondents will be denied due process if they will be made liable on the basis of an issue not raised by the petitioners themselves.3. That petitioners be granted such other and further reliefs (sic) and remedies which this most Honorable Supreme Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the premises.