Alfante v. National Labor Relations Commission-Fifth Division
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Reynaldo B. Alfante (Alfante) was employed as Maintenance Manager by Pepsi-Cola Distributors (PCD) on August 1, 1984, and was terminated on December 31, 1988, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Alfante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with backwages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared Alfante's dismissal illegal and ordered PCD to reinstate him with full backwages, damages, and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed with modification, ordering backwages subject to a three-year limitation and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, deleting the award of damages but affirming attorney's fees. This decision became final and executory after PCD's petition for review was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Petition: Alfante sought a writ of execution against Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI), alleging it was a successor-in-interest of PCD. PCPPI opposed, asserting its separate juridical personality and that it was never a party to the case, thus issuance of a writ against it would violate its due process rights. The Labor Arbiter granted Alfante's motion, ordering a writ of execution against both PCD and PCPPI. PCPPI filed a petition with the NLRC, which set aside the Labor Arbiter's order, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over PCPPI as it was not a party to the original complaint. Alfante filed the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that PCPPI has a separate and distinct personality from PCD, thereby exempting PCPPI from the judgment against PCD. Whether the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari applies when the decision sought to be annulled is a nullity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC dated September 27, 1995, and reinstated the March 1, 1995 Order of the Labor Arbiter. The Court modified the award by ordering PCPPI to pay Alfante his full backwages without deduction and, if reinstatement is not feasible, separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service. The temporary restraining order issued by the NLRC was lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that PCPPI has a separate and distinct personality from PCD: The Supreme Court sustained petitioner Alfante's contention. The Court reiterated its consistent rulings in previous cases, such as Pepsi-Cola Bottling v. NLRC, Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, Corral v. NLRC, and Caliquia v. NLRC, which have definitively established that PCPPI is the successor-in-interest of PCD and is answerable for the liabilities incurred by the latter. The Court emphasized that the sale of business interests by PCD to PCPPI was merely a continuation of the business, and PCPPI could not evade its responsibilities as a purchasing corporation. The NLRC's disregard of these established rulings constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that PCPPI's purchase of PCD was merely a continuation of the latter, thus impelling a finding of assumption of liability by PCPPI as a purchasing corporation. On the issue of whether the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari applies: The Court held that while generally a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to a petition for certiorari, this requirement does not apply when the decision sought to be annulled is a nullity. In this case, the NLRC ignored previous rulings of the Supreme Court that PCPPI is the successor-in-interest of PCD. Therefore, the NLRC's decision was considered a nullity, making the petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court not premature, despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration filed with the NLRC. The Court found that the NLRC's decision was an act that was beyond its ambit to do, as it contravened established jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI), as the successor-in-interest of Pepsi-Cola Distributors (PCD), is liable for the liabilities incurred by PCD, including judgments in illegal dismissal cases, despite PCPPI's claim of separate juridical personality. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's order for a writ of execution against PCPPI.