The Supreme Court held that a corporation can be held liable for the debts of its owner when it is shown that the corporation is merely an alter ego or business conduit of the owner, used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. This means that business owners cannot hide behind the corporate form to avoid their legal obligations, particularly in labor disputes.

PVP Liner’s Legal Maze: Can a Family Corporation Shield Labor Violations?

This case revolves around labor disputes between the Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Panfilo V. Pajarillo (respondent union) and Panfilo V. Pajarillo, the owner and operator of PVP Liner buses. The central legal question is whether Panfilo and his family-owned corporation, P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc., can be considered as a single entity for the purpose of liability, particularly in relation to unfair labor practices and illegal dismissals. The private respondents, composed of drivers and conductresses, claimed that they were illegally dismissed due to their union activities and were subjected to illegal deductions and non-payment of benefits.

The controversy began when the respondent union filed complaints for unfair labor practice, illegal deductions, illegal dismissal, and violation of labor standards laws. These complaints were initially filed against “Panfilo V. Pajarillo Liner” and later amended to include “PVP Liner Inc. and Panfilo V. Pajarillo, as its General Manager/Operator.” Panfilo denied the charges, claiming that the employees either resigned, were separated from work, or abandoned their employment. After Panfilo’s death, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated complaints, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ordering the reinstatement and payment of backwages and benefits to the employees.

The NLRC’s decision led to a series of legal challenges, including a motion for reconsideration filed by Panfilo’s counsel, which was partially granted by the NLRC, remanding the case for further hearing. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the NLRC’s orders and reinstated the original decision favoring the respondent union. The heirs of Panfilo then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising several issues, including the mispleading of PVP Liner Inc., the lack of proper service of summons, and the propriety of piercing the corporate veil of P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether PVP Liner Inc. was properly impleaded, despite the petitioners’ claim that it was a non-existent corporation. The Court found that Panfilo had actively participated in the proceedings without questioning the inclusion of PVP Liner Inc. as a party-respondent, thus estopping him from later raising the issue. The Court emphasized that a party cannot submit a case for decision and then challenge the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body only when the decision is unfavorable.

Furthermore, the Court determined that Panfilo V. Pajarillo Liner and PVP Liner Inc. were essentially the same entity. It was Panfilo, through counsel, who answered the complaints and participated in the hearings. In fact, Panfilo’s son, Abel, testified as the operations manager of PVP Liner Inc. “Dictated, however, by the imperatives of due process, we find it more judicious to just remand this case for further hearing on key questions of: 1) whether or not PVP Liner Inc. was properly impleaded as party respondent in the consolidated cases below; 2) whether or not summons was properly served on said corporation below; and 3) whether or not the subject cases can be considered as principally money claims which have to be litigated in intestate/testate proceedings involving the estate of the late Panfilo V. Pajarillo,”.

The Supreme Court also tackled the issue of whether there was proper service of summons on PVP Liner Inc. The records showed that a certain Irene G. Pajarillo received the summons on behalf of PVP Liner Inc. The petitioners argued that Irene was not an officer of the company. However, the Court noted that Irene was identified as one of the secretaries of PVP Liner Inc., and therefore, the service of summons was valid based on Sections 4 and 5 of Rule IV of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which provide the rules for service of summons and notices.

Sec. 4. Service of notices and resolutions. – a) Notices or summons and copies of orders, resolutions or decisions shall be served personally by the bailiff or the duly authorized public officer or by registered mail on the parties to the case within five (5) days from receipt thereof by the serving officer.

A key aspect of the case was the piercing of the corporate veil of P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. The Court reiterated the principle that a corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its stockholders. However, this separate personality is a fiction created by law to promote justice. The court emphasized that the corporate veil can be pierced when it is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit, or an alter ego of another corporation.

In this case, the Court found that Panfilo transformed his sole proprietorship into a family corporation in an attempt to evade the charges of the respondent union. P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. shared the same business address as Panfilo’s sole proprietorship, used the name “PVP Liner” on its buses, and had its license to operate transferred from Panfilo. As such, the Supreme Court ruled that Panfilo and P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. should be treated as one and the same person for purposes of liability.

It is clear from the foregoing that P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. was a mere continuation and successor of the sole proprietorship of Panfilo. It is also quite obvious that Panfilo transformed his sole proprietorship into a family corporation in a surreptitious attempt to evade the charges of respondent union. Given these considerations, Panfilo and P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. should be treated as one and the same person for purposes of liability.

Addressing the issue of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, the Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the private respondents were dismissed due to their union activities and without due process. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.

The Court, however, noted that some of the private respondents had executed quitclaims releasing petitioners from any and all claims. While quitclaims are generally viewed with disfavor, the Court recognized the validity of those executed voluntarily, with full understanding, and for a credible and reasonable consideration. Therefore, the private respondents who executed valid quitclaims were precluded from claiming reinstatement, backwages, and other monetary claims. For the other private respondents who did not execute quitclaims, the Court affirmed their entitlement to reinstatement, backwages, and other benefits in accordance with the NLRC’s computation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the corporate veil of P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. could be pierced to hold it liable for the labor violations of Panfilo V. Pajarillo, the owner of PVP Liner. The court had to determine if the corporation was merely used as a shield to evade legal obligations.
What is “piercing the corporate veil”?	Piercing the corporate veil is a legal concept where a court disregards the separate legal personality of a corporation and holds its owners or shareholders personally liable for the corporation’s actions or debts. This is done when the corporate form is used to commit fraud, evade laws, or defeat public convenience.
Under what circumstances can a corporate veil be pierced?	A corporate veil can be pierced when the corporation is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. It can also be pierced when the corporation is merely an adjunct, business conduit, or alter ego of another entity or person.
Who received the summons for PVP Liner Inc.?	Irene G. Pajarillo, identified as one of the secretaries of PVP Liner Inc., received the summons. The court deemed this as valid service of summons on the corporation.
What is a quitclaim in the context of labor law?	A quitclaim is a document where an employee waives their rights to certain claims against their employer, such as unpaid wages, separation pay, or other benefits. While generally viewed with disfavor, a quitclaim can be valid if executed voluntarily, with full understanding, and for a reasonable consideration.
What benefits are illegally dismissed employees entitled to?	Illegally dismissed employees are generally entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, backwages from the time of their dismissal until reinstatement, and other benefits such as ECOLA, 13th-month pay, legal holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay.
Why was P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. considered an alter ego of Panfilo?	The court considered P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. an alter ego of Panfilo because he transformed his sole proprietorship into a family corporation shortly after the labor complaints were filed. The corporation shared the same business address, used the same name (PVP Liner), and had its operating license transferred from Panfilo.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?	The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications. It ruled that those who signed valid quitclaims were precluded from claiming benefits, while the others were entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and other benefits.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to labor laws and the potential consequences of attempting to evade legal obligations through corporate structures. It serves as a reminder that the corporate veil is not impenetrable and can be pierced when used to perpetuate injustice or circumvent the law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: THE HEIRS OF THE LATE PANFILO V. PAJARILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NOS. 155056-57, October 19, 2007