cases in labor
AC Ransom Labor Union v. NLRC (1986)
Doctrines:
•Since a corporate employer is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be theemployer, being the “person acting in the interest of the employer.”
Facts :On June 6, 1961, employees of AC Ransom, most being members of the AC Ransom Labor Union, went on strike. The said strike was lifted on June 21 with most of the strikers being allowed to resume their work. However,twenty two strikers were refused reinstatement.During 1969, the Hernandez family (owners of AC RANSOM) organized another corporation under the name of Rosario Industrial Corporation. The said company dealt in the same type of business as AC Ransom.The issue of back wages was brought before the Court of Industrial Relations which rendered a decision onDecember 19, 1972 ordering the twenty two strikers to be reinstated with back wages. On April 2, 1973, RANSOM filed an application for clearance to close or cease operations. The same was granted by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. Although it has stopped operations, RANSOM has continued its personality as a corporation. For practical purposes, reinstatement of the 22 strikers has been precluded. As a matter of fact, reinstatement is not an issue in this case.A motion of execution was filed by the Union against AC Ransom but the former was unable to collect due to theinability to find leviable assets of the company.
The Union subsequently asked the officers of Ransom to be personally liable for payment of the back wages.
The motion was granted by the Labor Arbiter but was subsequently reversed by the NLRC.
Issue:
1W/N the officers of the corporation should be held personally liable to pay for the back wages.
Held:
1.YES. Under Article 212 (c) of the Labor Code, “Employee” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. Since Ransom is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the
Doctrines:
•Since a corporate employer is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be theemployer, being the “person acting in the interest of the employer.”
Facts :On June 6, 1961, employees of AC Ransom, most being members of the AC Ransom Labor Union, went on strike. The said strike was lifted on June 21 with most of the strikers being allowed to resume their work. However,twenty two strikers were refused reinstatement.During 1969, the Hernandez family (owners of AC RANSOM) organized another corporation under the name of Rosario Industrial Corporation. The said company dealt in the same type of business as AC Ransom.The issue of back wages was brought before the Court of Industrial Relations which rendered a decision onDecember 19, 1972 ordering the twenty two strikers to be reinstated with back wages. On April 2, 1973, RANSOM filed an application for clearance to close or cease operations. The same was granted by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. Although it has stopped operations, RANSOM has continued its personality as a corporation. For practical purposes, reinstatement of the 22 strikers has been precluded. As a matter of fact, reinstatement is not an issue in this case.A motion of execution was filed by the Union against AC Ransom but the former was unable to collect due to theinability to find leviable assets of the company.
The Union subsequently asked the officers of Ransom to be personally liable for payment of the back wages.
The motion was granted by the Labor Arbiter but was subsequently reversed by the NLRC.
Issue:
1W/N the officers of the corporation should be held personally liable to pay for the back wages.
Held:
1.YES. Under Article 212 (c) of the Labor Code, “Employee” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. Since Ransom is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the