10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

SECONDDIVISION

LIGHTRAILTRANSITAUTHORITY,G.R.No.163782
Petitioner,

versus

PERFECTOH.VENUS,JR.,BIENVENIDO
P.SANTOS,JR.,RAFAELC.ROY,
NANCYC.RAMOS,SALVADORA.
ALFON,NOELR.SANTOS,MANUELA.
FERRER,SALVADORG.ALINAS,
RAMOND.LOFRANCO,AMADORH.
POLICARPIO,REYNALDOB.GENER,
andBIENVENIDOG.ARPILLEDA,
Respondents.

xx

METROTRANSITORGANIZATION,INC.,G.R.No.163881
Petitioner,
Present:
versus
PUNO,J.,Chairman,
COURTOFAPPEALS,PERFECTOH.SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
VENUS,JR.,BIENVENIDOP.SANTOS,CORONA,
JR.,RAFAELC.ROY,NANCYC.AZCUNA,and
RAMOS,SALVADORA.ALFON,GARCIA,JJ.
NOELR.SANTOS,MANUELA.FERRER,
SALVADORG.ALINAS,RAMOND.Promulgated:
LOFRANCO,AMADORH.POLICARPIO,
andREYNALDOB.GENER,
Respondents.March24,2006

xx

DECISION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

1/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

PUNO,J.:

Before us are the consolidated petitions of Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Metro Transit
Organization,Inc.(METRO),seekingthereversaloftheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdirecting
them to reinstate private respondent workers to their former positions without loss of seniority and
other rights and privileges, and ordering them to jointly and severally pay the latter their full back
wages, benefits, and moral damages. The LRTA and METRO were also ordered to jointly and
severallypayattorneysfeesequivalenttotenpercent(10%)ofthetotalmoneyjudgment.

PetitionerLRTAisagovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporationcreatedbyExecutiveOrderNo.
603,Seriesof1980,asamended,toconstructandmaintainalightrailtransitsystemandprovidethe
commuting public with an efficient, economical, dependable and safe transportation. Petitioner
METRO,formerlyMeralcoTransitOrganization,Inc.,wasaqualifiedtransportationcorporationduly
organizedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCorporationCode,registeredwiththeSecurities
andExchangeCommission,andexistingunderPhilippinelaws.

ItappearsthatpetitionerLRTAconstructedalightrailtransitsystemfromMonumentoinKalookan
CitytoBaclaraninParaaque,MetroManila.Toprovidethecommutingpublicwithanefficientand
dependablelightrailtransitsystem,petitionerLRTA,afterabiddingprocess,enteredintoaten(10)
yearAgreementfortheManagementandOperationoftheMetroManilaLightRailTransitSystem
[1]
fromJune8, 1984 until June 8, 1994 with petitioner METRO. The Agreement provided, among
others,that
1. Effective on the COMMENCEMENT DATE, METRO shall accept and take over from the
AUTHORITY[LRTA]themanagement,maintenanceandoperationofthecommissionedandtested
portionofthe[LightRailTransit]Systemxxx[par.2.02]
2.TheAUTHORITY [LRTA] shall pay METRO the MANAGEMENT FEE as followsx x x [par.
5.01]

3.In rendering these services, METRO shall apply its best skills and judgment, in attaining
theobjectivesofthe[LightRailTransit]Systeminaccordancewithacceptedprofessionalstandards.
It shall exercise the required care, diligence and efficiency in the discharge of its duties and
responsibilities and shall work for the best interest of the [Light Rail Transit] System and the
AUTHORITY[LRTA][par.2.03]

4. METROshallbefreetoemploysuchemployeesandofficersasitshalldeem
necessary in order to carry out the requirements of [the] Agreement. Such employees and officers
shall be the employees of METRO and not of the AUTHORITY [LRTA].METRO shall prepare a
compensation schedule and the corresponding salaries and fringe benefits of [its] personnel in
consultationwiththeAUTHORITY[LRTA][par.3.05]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

2/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

5.METROshalllikewiseholdtheAUTHORITY[LRTA]freeandharmlessfromany
andallfines,penalties,lossesandliabilitiesandlitigationexpensesincurredorsufferedonaccountof
and by reason of death, injury, loss or damage to passengers and third persons, including the
employeesandrepresentativesoftheAUTHORITY[LRTA],exceptwheresuchdeath,injury,lossor
damage is attributable to a defect or deficiency in the design of the system or its equipment [par.
3.06].

Pursuant to the above Agreement, petitioner METRO hired its own employees, including
herein private respondents. Petitioner METRO thereafter entered into a collective bargaining
agreementwithPinagisangLakasngManggagawasaMETRO,Inc.NationalFederationofLabor,
otherwise known as PIGLASMETRO, INC. NFL KMU (Union), the certified exclusive collective
bargainingrepresentativeoftherankandfileemployeesofpetitionerMETRO.

Meanwhile,on June 9, 1989, petitioners LRTA and METRO executed a Deed of Sale where
[2]
petitionerLRTApurchasedthesharesofstocksinpetitionerMETRO. However,petitionersLRTA
andMETROcontinuedwiththeirdistinctandseparatejuridicalpersonalities.Hence,whentheabove
ten(10)yearAgreementexpiredonJune8,1994,theyrenewedthesame,initiallyonayearlybasis,
andsubsequentlyonamonthlybasis.

OnJuly 25, 2000, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
BoardNationalCapitalRegionagainstpetitionerMETROonaccountofadeadlockinthecollective
bargainingnegotiation.Onthesameday,theUnionstruck.Thepowersupplyswitchesinthedifferent
light rail transit substations were turned off. The members of the Union picketed the various
substations.They completely paralyzed the operations of the entire light rail transit system. As the
strikeadverselyaffectedthemobilityofthecommutingpublic,thenSecretaryofLaborBienvenido
[3]
E.Laguesmaissuedonthatsamedayanassumptionofjurisdictionorder directingallthestriking
employeestoreturntoworkimmediatelyuponreceiptofthisOrderandfortheCompanytoaccept
[4]
thembackunderthesametermsandconditionsofemploymentprevailingpriortothestrike.

[5]
Intheirmemorandum, DepartmentofLaborandEmploymentSheriffsFelicianoR.Orihuela,Jr.,
and Romeo P. Lemi reported to Sec. Laguesma that they tried to personally serve the Order of
assumptionofjurisdictiontotheUnionthroughitsofficialsandmembersonJuly26,2000,butthe
latterrefusedtoreceivethesame.ThesheriffsthuspostedtheOrderinthedifferentstations/terminals
ofthelightrailtransitsystem.Further,theOrderofassumptionofjurisdictionwaspublishedonthe
[6]
[7]
July27,2000issuesofthePhilippineDailyInquirer andthePhilippineStar.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

3/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

Despite the issuance, posting, and publication of the assumption of jurisdiction and return to
workorder,theUnionofficersandmembers,includinghereinprivaterespondentworkers,failedto
returntowork.Thus,effectiveJuly27,2000,privaterespondents,PerfectoVenus,Jr.,BienvenidoP.
Santos,Jr.,RafaelC.Roy,NancyC.Ramos,SalvadorA.Alfon,NoelR.Santos,ManuelA.Ferrer,
SalvadorG.Alinas,RamonD.Lofranco,AmadorH.Policarpio,ReynaldoB.Gener,andBienvenido
G.Arpilleda,wereconsidereddismissedfromemployment.

Inthemeantime,onJuly31,2000, the Agreement for the Management and Operation of the

MetroManilaLightRailTransitSystembetweenpetitionersLRTAandMETROexpired.TheBoard
of Directors of petitioner LRTA decided not to renew the contract with petitioner METRO and
directedtheLRTAmanagementinsteadtoimmediatelytakeoverthemanagementandoperationof
thelightrailtransitsystemtoavertthemasstransportationcrisis.

OnOctober10,2000,privaterespondentsVenus,Jr.,Santos,Jr.,andRoyfiledacomplaintforillegal
dismissalbeforetheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)andimpleaded both petitioners
LRTAandMETRO.PrivaterespondentsRamos,Alfon,Santos,Ferrer,Alinas,Lofranco,Policarpio,
Gener,andArpilledafollwedsuitonDecember1,2000.

OnOctober1,2001,LaborArbiterLuisD.Floresrenderedaconsolidatedjudgmentinfavorof
[8]
theprivaterespondentworkers
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainants and against the
respondents,asfollows:

1.Declaringthatthecomplainantswereillegallydismissedfromemploymentandordering
theirreinstatementtotheirformerpositionswithoutlossofseniorityandotherrightsandprivileges.

2. Ordering respondents Metro Transit Organization, Inc. and Light Rail Transit
Authority to jointly and severally pay the complainants their other benefits and full backwages,
whichasofJune30,2001areasfollows:
1.PerfectoH.Venus,Jr.P247,724.36
2.BienvenidoP.Santos,Jr.247,724.36
3.RafaelC.Roy247,724.36
4.Nancy[C.]Ramos254,282.62
5.SalvadorA.Alfon257,764.62
6.NoelR.Santos221,897.58
7.ManuelA.Ferrer250,534.78
8.SalvadorG.[Alinas]253,454.88
9.RamonD.Lofranco253,642.18
10.AmadorH.Policarpio256,609.22
11.ReynaldoB.Gener255,094.56
TOTALP2,746,453.52

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

4/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

3. Ordering respondents Metro Transit Organization, Inc. and Light Rail Transit
AuthoritytojointlyandseverallypayeachofthecomplainantstheamountofP50,000.00asmoral
damages.

4. Ordering respondents Metro Transit Organization, Inc. and Light Rail Transit
Authority to jointly and severally pay the complainants attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent
(10%)ofthetotalmoneyjudgment.

SOORDERED.

ThecomplaintfiledbyBienvenidoG.Arpilleda,althoughinitiallyconsolidatedwiththemaincase,
[9]
waseventuallydroppedforhisfailuretoappearandsubmitanydocumentandpositionpaper.

OnMay29,2002,onappeal,theNLRCfoundthatthestrikingworkersfailedtoheedthereturnto
workorderandreversedandsetasidethedecisionofthelaborarbiter.The suit against LRTA was
dismissed since LRTA is a governmentowned and controlled corporation created by virtue of
[10]
ExecutiveOrderNo.603withanoriginalcharter
anditha[d]noparticipationwhatsoeverwith
[11]
theterminationofcomplainantsemployment.
In fine, the cases against the LRTA and METRO
weredismissed,respectively,forlackofjurisdictionandforlackofmerit.

On December 3, 2002, the NLRC denied the workers Motion for Reconsideration [t]here being no
showing that the Commission committed, (and that) the Motion for Reconsideration was based on,
palpableorpatenterrors,andthefactthat(the)saidmotionisnotunderoath.

On a petition for certiorari however, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the
Decision rendered by the Labor Arbiter. Public respondent appellate court declared the workers
dismissalasillegal,piercedtheveilofseparatecorporatepersonalityandheldtheLRTAandMETRO
asjointlyliableforbackwages.

Hence, these twin petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of public respondent appellate
courtfiledbyLRTAandMETROwhichthisCourteventuallyconsolidated.

Inthemain,petitionerLRTAarguesthatithasnoemployeremployeerelationshipwithprivate
respondent workers as they were hired by petitioner METRO alone pursuant to its ten (10)year
AgreementfortheManagementandOperationoftheMetroManilaLightRailTransitSystemwith
petitioner METRO. Private respondent workers recognized that their employer was not petitioner
LRTAwhentheircertifiedexclusivecollectivebargainingrepresentative,thePinagisangLakas ng
ManggagawasaMETRO,Inc.NationalFederationofLabor,otherwiseknownasPIGLASMETRO,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

5/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

INC.NFLKMU,enteredintoacollectivebargainingagreementwithpetitionerMETRO.Piercingthe
corporateveilofMETROwasunwarranted,astherewasnocompetentandconvincingevidenceof
anywrongful,fraudulentorunlawfulactonthepartofMETRO,and,moreso,onthepartofLRTA.

PetitionerLRTAfurthercontendsthatitisagovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporationwithan
originalcharter,ExecutiveOrderNo.603,Seriesof1980,asamended,andthusundertheexclusive
jurisdictiononlyoftheCivilServiceCommission,nottheNLRC.

Privaterespondentworkers,however,submitthatpetitionerMETROwasnotonlyfullyowned
bypetitionerLRTA,butallaspectsofitsoperationsandadministrationwerealsostrictlycontrolled,
conductedanddirectedbypetitionerLRTA.AndsincepetitionerMETROisamereadjunct,business
conduit,andalteregoofpetitionerLRTA,theirrespectivecorporateveilsmustbepiercedtosatisfy
themoneyclaimsoftheillegallydismissedprivaterespondentemployees.

We agree with petitioner LRTA. Section 2 (1), Article IX B, 1987 Constitution, expressly provides
that [t]he civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including governmentowned or controlled corporations with original charters.
Corporationswithoriginalchartersarethosewhichhavebeencreatedbyspeciallawandnotthrough
the general corporation law. Thus, in Philippine National Oil Company Energy Development
Corporation v. Hon. Leogrado, we held that under the present state of the law, the test in
determining whether a governmentowned or controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service
Law is the manner of its creation such that government corporations created by special charter are
subjecttoitsprovisionswhilethoseincorporatedunderthegeneralCorporationLaware
[12]
not within its coverage.
There should be no dispute then that employment in petitioner LRTA
shouldbegovernedonlybycivilservicerules,andnottheLaborCodeandbeyondthereachofthe
DepartmentofLaborandEmployment,sincepetitionerLRTAisagovernmentownedandcontrolled
corporationwithanoriginalcharter,ExecutiveOrderNo.603,Seriesof1980,asamended.

Incontrast,petitionerMETROiscoveredbytheLaborCodedespiteitslateracquisitionbypetitioner
[13]
LRTA.InLumantav.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,
thisCourtruledthatlaborlaw
claimsagainstgovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporationswithoutoriginalcharterfallwithinthe
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment and not the Civil Service Commission.
Petitioner METRO was originally organized under the Corporation Code, and only became a
governmentownedandcontrolledcorporationafteritwasacquiredbypetitionerLRTA.Even then,
petitionerMETROhasnooriginalcharter,hence,itistheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment,and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

6/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

nottheCivilServiceCommission,whichhasjurisdictionoverdisputesarisingfromtheemployment
of its workers. Consequently, the terms and conditions of such employment are governed by the
LaborCodeandnotbytheCivilServiceRulesandRegulations.

WethereforeholdthattheemployeesofpetitionerMETROcannotbeconsideredasemployees
ofpetitionerLRTA.TheemployeeshiredbyMETROarecoveredbytheLaborCodeandareunder
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment, whereas the employees of petitioner
LRTA, a governmentowned and controlled corporation with original charter, are covered by civil
service rules. Herein private respondent workers cannot have the best of two worlds, e.g., be
considered government employees of petitioner LRTA, yet allowed to strike as private employees
under our labor laws. Department of Justice Opinion No. 108, Series of 1999, issued by then
SecretaryofJusticeSerafinR.CuevasonwhetherornotemployeesofpetitionerMETROcouldgo
onstrikeispersuasive
We believe that METRO employees are not covered by the prohibition against strikes
applicabletoemployeesembracedintheCivilService.Itisnotdisputed,butinfactconceded,that
METROemployeesarenotcoveredbytheCivilService.Thisbeingso,METROemployeesarenot
covered by the Civil Service law, rules and regulations but are covered by the Labor Code and,
therefore,therightsandprerogativesgrantedtoprivateemployeesthereunder,includingtherightto
strike,areavailabletothem.

Moreover, as noted by Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno, of the Department of Budget and

Management,inhisletterdatedFebruary22,1999,theemployeesofMETROarenotentitledtothe
government amelioration assistance authorized by the President pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 37 for government employees, because the employees of METRO are not government
employeessinceMetro,Inc.couldnotbeconsideredasGOCCasdefinedunderSection3(b)of
[14]
E.O.518xxxx

Indeed, there was never an intention to consider the employees of petitioner METRO as
government employees of petitioner LRTA as well neither from the beginning, nor until the end.
Otherwise, they could have been easily converted from being employees in the private sector and
absorbed as government employees covered by the civil service when petitioner LRTA acquired
petitionerMETROin1989.Thestubbornfactisthattheyremainedprivateemployeeswithrightsand
prerogativesgrantedtothemundertheLaborCode,includingtherighttostrike,whichtheyexercised
andfromwhichtheinstantdisputearose.

We likewise hold that it is inappropriate to pierce the corporate veil of petitioner METRO. In Del
Rosariov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission, we ruled that [u]nder the law a corporation is
bestowed juridical personality, separate and distinct from its stockholders. But when the juridical
personality of the corporation is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or
defendcrime,thecorporationshallbeconsideredasamereassociationofpersons,anditsresponsible
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

7/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

officersand/orstockholdersshallbeheldindividuallyliable.Forthesamereasons,acorporationshall
be liable for the obligations of a stockholder, or a corporation and its successorininterest shall be
consideredasoneandtheliabilityoftheformershallattachtothelatter.Butfortheseparatejuridical
personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly
[15]
established.Itcannotbepresumed.
InDelRosario,wealsoheldthatthesubstantialidentityof
[16]
theincorporatorsofthetwocorporationsdoesnotnecessarilyimplyfraud.

In the instant case, petitioner METRO, formerly Meralco Transit Organization, Inc., was
originallyownedbytheManilaElectricCompanyandregisteredwiththeSecuritiesandExchange
Commissionmorethanadecadebeforethelabordispute.Itthenenteredintoatenyearagreement
withpetitionerLRTAin1984.And,evenifpetitionerLRTAeventuallypurchasedMETROin1989,
bothpartiesmaintainedtheirseparateanddistinctjuridicalpersonalityandallowedtheagreementto
proceed.In1990,thisCourt,inLightRailTransitAuthorityv.CommissiononAudit,evenupheld
[17]
thevalidityofthesaidagreement.
Consequently,theagreementwasextendedbeyonditstenyear
period. In 1995, METROs separate juridical identity was again recognized when it entered into a
collectivebargainingagreementwiththeworkersunion.Alltheseyears,METROsdistinctcorporate
personality continued quiescently, separate and apart from the juridical personality of petitioner
LRTA.

Thelabordisputeonlyarosein2000,afteradeadlockoccurredduringthecollectivebargaining
between petitioner METRO and the workers union. This alone is not a justification to pierce the
corporateveilofpetitionerMETROandmakepetitionerLRTAliabletoprivaterespondentworkers.
TherearenobadgesoffraudoranywrongdoingtopiercethecorporateveilofpetitionerMETRO.

On this point, the Department of Justice Opinion No. 108, Series of 1999, issued by then
SecretaryofJusticeSerafinR.Cuevasisonceagainapropos:
Anenttheissueofpiercingthecorporateveil,itwasheldinConceptBuilders,Inc.v.NLRC(G.R.No.
108734, May 29, 1996, 257 SCRA 149, 159) that the test in determining the applicability of the
doctrineofpiercingtheveilofcorporatefictionisasfollows:

1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete

domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the
transactionattackedsothatthecorporateentityastothistransactionhadatthetimeno
separatemind,willorexistenceofitsown

2. Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or
wrong,toperpetuatetheviolationofastatutoryorotherpositivelegalduty,ordishonest
andunjustactincontraventionofplaintiffslegalrightsand

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

8/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

3. Theaforesaidcontrolandbreachofdutymustproximatelycausetheinjury
orunjustlosscomplainedof.

Theabsenceofanyoneoftheseelementspreventspiercingthecorporateveil.In
applyingtheinstrumentalityoralteregodoctrine,thecourtsareconcernedwithreality
and not form, with how the corporation operated and the individual defendants
relationshiptothatoperation.

Here,therecordsdonotshowthatcontrolwasusedtocommitafraudorwrong.Infact,itappearsthat
piercing the corporate veil for the purpose of delivery of public service, would lead to a confusing
situationsincetheoutcomewouldbethatMetrowillbetreatedasamerealteregoofLRTA,nothaving
a separate corporate personality from LRTA, when dealing with the issue of strike, and a separate
juridicalentitynotcoveredbytheCivilServicewhenitcomestoothermatters.UndertheConstitution,
agovernmentcorporationiseitheronewithoriginalcharteroronewithoutoriginalcharter,butnever
[18]
both.

Insum,petitionerLRTAcannotbeheldliabletotheemployeesofpetitionerMETRO.

Withregardtheissueofillegaldismissal,petitionerMETROmaintainsthatprivaterespondent
workerswerenotillegallydismissedbutshouldbedeemedtohaveabandonedtheirjobsafterdefying
the assumption of jurisdiction and returntowork order issued by the Labor Secretary. Private
respondentworkers,ontheotherhand,submitthattheycouldnotimmediatelyreturntoworkasthe
lightrailtransitsystemhadceaseditsoperations.

We find for the private respondent workers. In Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v.
NationalLaborRelationsCommission,

[19]
wesaidthatthefivedayperiodforthestrikerstoobey

theOrderoftheSecretaryofJusticeandreturntoworkwasnotsufficientassomeofthemmayhave
leftMetroManilaanddidnothaveenoughtimetoreturnduringtheperiodgivenbypetitioner,which
[20]
[21]
wasonlyfivedays.
InBatangasLagunaTayabasBusCo.,
wefurtherheld
The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents abandoned their position is also not
acceptable.Anemployeewhoforthwithtakesstepstoprotesthislayoffcannotbyanylogicbesaidto
haveabandonedhiswork.

Forabandonmenttoconstituteavalidcauseforterminationofemployment,theremustbeadeliberate,
unjustifiedrefusaloftheemployeetoresumehisemployment.Thisrefusalmustbeclearlyestablished.
Aswestressedinarecentcase,mereabsenceisnotsufficientitmustbeaccompaniedbyovertacts
unerringlypointingtothefactthattheemployeesimplydoesnotwanttoworkanymore.

Intheinstantcase,privaterespondentworkerscouldnothavedefiedthereturntoworkorder
oftheSecretaryofLaborsimplybecausetheyweredismissedimmediately,evenbeforetheycould
obey the said order. The records show that the assumption of jurisdiction and returntowork order
was issued by Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma on July 25, 2000. The said order was
servedandpostedbythesheriffsoftheDepartmentofLaborandEmploymentthefollowingday,on
July26,2000. Further, the said order of assumption of jurisdiction was duly published on July 27,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

9/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

2000,inthePhilippineDailyInquirerandthePhilippineStar.Onthesamedayalso,onJuly27,
2000, private respondent workers were dismissed. Neither could they be considered as having
abandoned their work. If petitioner METRO did not dismiss the strikers right away, and instead
accepted them back to work, the management agreement between petitioners LRTA and METRO
couldstillhavebeenextendedandtheworkerswouldstillhavehadworktoreturnto.

INVIEWWHEREOF,theDecisionofpublicrespondentCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMEDinsofar
asitholdsMetroTransitOrganization,Inc.liablefortheillegaldismissalofprivaterespondentsand
ordersittopaythemtheirbenefitsandfullbackwagesandmoraldamages.Further, Metro Transit
Organization,Inc.isorderedtopayattorneysfeesequivalenttotenpercent(10%)ofthetotalmoney
judgment. The petition of the Light Rail TransitAuthority is GRANTED, and the complaint filed
againstitforillegaldismissalisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.

REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice

RENATOC.CORONAADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

10/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
Chairman

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairmansAttestation,itis
herebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Rollo,G.R.No.163782,pp.3572,384421.
Id.,pp.339342.
Id.,G.R.No.163881,pp.214215.
Ibid.
Id.,G.R.No.163881,p.216.
BusinessSection,p.B2.
BusinessSection,p.19.
DecisionoftheLaborArbiter,pp.1516.

[9]

Id.,pp.1415.

[10]
DecisionoftheFirstDivisionoftheNLRC,pennedbyPresidingCommissionerRoyV.Seeresandconcurredin
byCommissionersVicenteS.E.VelosoandAlbertoR.Quimpo,p.6.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

11/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.163782

[11]

Ibid.

[12]
G.R.No.58494,5July1989,175SCRA26,30.SeealsoTanjayWaterDistrictv.Gabaton,G.R.No.63742,17
April 1989, 172 SCRA 253, and Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87676, 20 December 1989, 180
SCRA428.

[13]
G.R.No.82819,8February1989,170SCRA79.

[14]
Rollo,G.R.No.163782,p.423.

[15]
G.R.No.85416,24July1990,187SCRA777,780.

[16]
Id.,p.781.

[17]
LightRailTransitAuthorityv.CommissiononAudit,G.R.No.88365,9January
1990.

[18]
Rollo,G.R.No.163782,p.424.

[19]
G.R.No.101858,21August1992,212SCRA792.

[20]
Id.,p.800.

[21]
Ibid.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20163782.htm

12/12