claparols.docx
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 claparols.docx
1/3
1
G.R. No. L-30822 July 31, 1975
EDUARDO CLAPAROLS, ROMULO AGSAM and/or CLAPAROLS STEEL
AND NAIL PLANT, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ALLIED WORKERS'
ASSOCIATION and/or DEMETRIO GARLITOS, ALFREDO ONGSUCO,
JORGE SEMILLANO, SALVADOR DOROTEO, ROSENDO ESPINOSA,
LUDOVICO BALOPENOS, ASER AMANCIO, MAXIMO QUIOYO,
GAUDENCIO QUIOYO, and IGNACIO QUIOYO,respondents.
Facts:
Aug 6 1957 complaint for unfair labor practice (ULP) was filed by AlliedWorkers Association (AWA), Demetrio Garlitos and 10 other workers
against Claparols Steel & Nail Plant (CSNP).
Sep 16 1963 CIR found Eduardo Claparols guilty of union busting and of
dismissing the complainants because of union activities. Mar 30 1964 the
workers filed a motion for execution, which was granted by CIR. The
workers were reinstated to their former jobs with backwages.
Dec 14 1964 the Chief of Police of Talisay, Negros Occidental accompaniedthe workers to the CSNP compound to report for work but were refursed
reinstatement by the accountant, Francisco Cuso, as he had not yet received
an order from CLaparols and Atty. Katalbas. Dec 15 they were again
refused by Cusi.
Jan 15 1965 CIR Examiner submitted his report that CSNP ceased
operations on Jun 30 1957 and was succeeded by the Claparols Steel Corp
(CSC), which also stopped operations in Dec 1962.
Jan 23 1965 Claparols claimed that the workers could not be reinstated asthe corp stopped operations already, and that backwages should only be
limited to three months.
The workers replied alleging that CSNP and CSC are one and the same corp
controlled by Claparols.
Nov 28 1966 CIR ordered the recomputation of the backwages (yan lang
sabi, no period stated)
MFR by Claparols was denied. (apparently, pinag aawayan ang bonus. Ayaw
ni claparols na may bonus, si worker gusto na may bonus. Maraming MFR
ang ni-file ni CLaparols to remove the bonus in the recomp of the
backwages, pero lagging denied.)
Issue: WON bonueses should be included in backwages Yes
Ratio:
On bonuses part of compensation or recoverable wages if regularly given
without any condition imposed on its payment
"a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when it is a
part of the wage or salary compensation"
Whether or not bonus forms part of wages depends upon the condition or
circumstance for its payment. If it is an additional compensation WHICH THEEMPLOYER PROMISED AND AGREED to give without any condition imposed
for its payment ...then it is part of the wage.
an employee is not entitled to bonus where there is no showing that it had
been granted by the employer to its employees periodically or regularly asto become part of their wages or salaries. The clear implication is that bonus
is recoverable as part of the wage or salary where the employer regularly or
periodically gives it to employees.
SC the 1956-1962 FS of the corp consistently included bonus and pension
computation. Bonuses were also given out even if the company suffered
losses, therefore, the bonuses are part of wages and recoverable.
As to the claim that only 3mos worth of backwages should be given
because CSNP has already ceased operations
Claparols Steel and Nail Plant, which ceased operation of June 30, 1957, was
SUCCEEDED by the Claparols Steel Corporation effective the next day, July 1,
1957 up to December 7, 1962, when the latter finally ceased to operate. It is
very clear that the latter corporation was a continuation and successor of
the first entity, and its emergence was skillfully timed to avoid the financial
liability that already attached to its predecessor, the Claparols Steel and Nail
Plant. Both predecessors and successor were owned and controlled by the
-
7/28/2019 claparols.docx
2/3
2
petitioner Eduardo Claparols and there was no break in the succession and
continuity of the same business. This "avoiding-the-liability" scheme is very
patent, considering that 90% of the subscribed shares of stocks of the
Claparols Steel Corporation (the second corporation) was owned by
respondent (herein petitioner) Claparols himself, and all the assets of the
dissolved Claparols Steel and Nail Plant were turned over to the emerging
Claparols Steel Corporation.
It is very obvious that the second corporation seeks the protective shield ofa corporate fiction whose veil in the present case could, and should, be
pierced as it was deliberately and maliciously designed to evade its financial
obligation to its employees.
We held that when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public
convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will
regard the corporation as an association or persons, or, in the case of two
corporations, will merge them into one. Where a corporation is merely an
adjunct, business conduit or alter ego of another corporation, the fiction of
separate and distinct corporate entities should be disregarded.
Petition denied.
-
7/28/2019 claparols.docx
3/3
3