SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-97835 June 14, 1993

FIRST GENERAL MARKETING CORPORATION and/or JOSE UY, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), ADELAIDA SAN MIGUEL, MARY ESCALADA, ANECITA DIZON, LUZ CHAN, JHUN REFORMA, SALVACION NOBLEFRANCA, VICKY DONAIRE, MARITES REPIL, LOURDES BATUIGAS, REBECCA PICORRO, MARIETTA ESCOBIO, GLORIA PARDE, MERLINA OLIET, LEONY NOLASCO, MARILYN ALBIOS AND ERLINDA LAVILLA, Respondents.

Gerardo S. Alansalon for petitioners.chanrobles virtual law library

Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raneses, Sy, Ttaquio & Associates for private respondents.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

This petition for certiorari seeks to review the decision dated November 22, 1990 of the respondent, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-12-05131-88 which reversed the decision dated August 7, 1989 of the Labor Arbiter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Jose Uy owned and controlled three (3) garment companies, namely Paramount Gloves Phils., Inc., State Garment Company, and First General Marketing Corporation (FGMC). In March, 1988, the Paramount and FGMC were merged to enable Uy to meet the rising volume of purchase orders and export demands.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

By agreement dated March 16, 1988 between Jose Uy and ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations), the workers of Paramount were absorbed by FGMC. The private respondents, who were regular cutters at Paramount, were assigned as "temporary trimmers" in FGMC's finishing section. Later, Uy asked them to sign probationary contracts with FGMC either as sewers or cutters, to exclude them from the new company's bargaining unit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On November 21, 1988, they were discharged without notice. On December 15, 1988, they filed a complaint against FGMC and Uy for illegal dismissal (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-12-05131-88).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On August 7, 1989, Labor Arbiter Donato Quinto rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground that when the complainants were required to work with respondent FGMC as temporary trimmers, they knew that their hiring was seasonal in character, hence, it could not ripen into permanent or regular employment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On appeal to the NLRC, the Commission on November 22, 1990, reversed the Labor Arbiter. It held that the merger agreement compelled the respondents, FGMC and Uy, to respect the permanent status of the complainants. They could not be dismissed without cause. The seasonal demand of respondents for workers was not a lawful cause to dismiss the complainants who have always been considered permanent, rather than seasonal, workers of Paramount. The respondents were directed to reinstate them to their former positions with full backwages.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

FGMC and/or Jose Uy filed the present petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, to restrain the enforcement and/or implementation of the questioned NLRC decision and its resolutions. The petition alleged that:

1. there was neither testimonial nor documentary evidence proving the private respondents' allegation of illegal dismissal; andchanrobles virtual law library

2. there was no violation of their right to due process.

Furthermore, Uy had already sold all his share-holdings in FGMC two months before the contracts of the private respondents expired, hence, he had no privity with FGMC at the time the private respondents were terminated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The petition has no merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The agreement between Jose Uy and ANGLO dated March 16, 1988 clearly stated that:

Seksyon 1. Na ang kumpanya at ang Unyon ay nagkasundo na ang mga Manggagawa sa Tri-Star na ang mga pangalan ay nakalakip sa kasunduang ito at lahat ng manggagawa ng PARAMOUNT GLOVES PHILS., INC. ay sasaklawin at mapapasailalaim bilang mga regular na Manggagawa sa FIRST GENERAL MARKETING at kasapi ng Unyon sa ilalim ng ANGLO. (Interpretation: That the company and the union agree that the workers of Tri-Star whose names are attached to this agreement and all workers of PARAMOUNT GLOVES PHILS., INC. will be covered and will fall under regular employees of FIRST GENERAL MARKETING and members of the union under ANGLO.)chanrobles virtual law library

Seksyon 2. Benepisyo - Lahat ng mga benepisyo na matatanggap ng mga Manggagawa sa kanikaniyang dating Pabrika ay ipagpapatuloy at ang mga benepisyo na nakuha sa CBA ng FIRST GENERAL MARKETING ay ibibigay, at tatamasahin ng mga Manggagawa na masasaklaw. (All of the benefits to be received by the workers from their respective companies shall continue and the benefits derived from the CBA of FIRST GENERAL MARKETING shall be given and enjoyed by the covered workers-translation ours.)

Jose Uy signed the agreement as President and General Manager of both Paramount Gloves Phils. Inc. and FGMC. Therefore, he is estopped from disclaiming any liability under it. The probationary employment contracts which the private respondents were made to sign on May 23, 1988, a week after the execution of the merger agreement on March 16, 1988, violated the terms of the merger agreement and the employees' right to security of tenure.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.