Case #1 the Union members and officers were deemed to have lost their

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION employment status.

EMPLOYEES UNION vs. NLRC
(G.R. No. 156635;11 January 2016) ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed?

FACTS: Petitioner Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation
Employees Union (Union) was the duly recognized collective
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of respondent
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). HSBC
announced its implementation of a Job Evaluation Program
(JEP) which consisted of a job designation per grade level with
the accompanying salary scale providing for the minimum and
maximum pay the employee could receive per salary level. The
Union demanded the suspension of the JEP, which it labeled as
an unfair labor practice (ULP) and subsequently informed HSBC
that it would exercise its right to concerted action. The Union
members started picketing during break time which persisted for
11 months, notwithstanding that both sides had meanwhile
started the re-negotiation of the economic provisions of their
CBA. The continued concerted actions impelled HSBC to
suspend the negotiations.
The Union's officers and members walked out and gathered
outside the premises of HSBC's offices which blocked the entry
and exit points of the bank premises, preventing the bank
officers from entering and/or leaving the premises.
HELD: Yes. As a general rule, the mere finding of the illegality
of the strike does not justify the termination of the strikers from
their employment. To avoid rendering the recognition of the
workers' right to strike illusory, the responsibility for the illegal
strike is individual instead of collective. The last paragraph of
Article 264(a) of the Labor Code defines the norm for
terminating the workers participating in an illegal strike: Any
union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to
have lost his employment status.
In conform with the said provision, the officers may be deemed
terminated from their employment upon a finding of their
knowing participation in the illegal strike, but the members of the
union shall suffer the same fate only if they are shown to have
knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during
the strike. Article 264 expressly requires that the officer must
have "knowingly participated" in the illegal strike.

HSBC filed its complaint to declare the strike illegal. In the

meantime, HSBC issued return-to-work notices to the striking
gemployees; however, only 25 employees complied and
returned to work. Due to the continuing concerted actions,
HSBC terminated the individual petitioners.

The Labor Arbiter declared thestrike illegal for failure of the

Union to file the notice of strike with the DOLE; to observe the
cooling-off period; and to submit the results of the strike vote to
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board pursuant to the
Labor Code and concluded that due to the illegality of the strike
 Case #2
HIJO RESOURCES CORPORATION vs. MEJARES
(G.R. No. 208986; 13 January 2016)
FACTS: "Nagkakaisang Mamumuo ng Bit, Djevon, at Raquilla
Farms sa Hijo Resources Corporation" (Union), asserted that
they were absorbed by Hijo Resources Corporation (HRC) while
working under the contractor-growers. The Union filed a petition
for certification election before the DOLE. However, when HRC
learned that complainants formed a union, the three contractor-
growers filed with the DOLE a notice of cessation of business
operations. Thereafter, complainants were terminated from their
employment on the ground of cessation of business operations
by the contractor-growers of HRC.
The DOLE Med-Arbiter issued an Order dismissing
NAMABDJERA-HRC's petition for certication election on the
ground that there was no employer-employee relationship
between complainants. However, the Court of Appeals
concluded that the decision in a certification election case does
not foreclose further dispute as to the existence or non-
existence of an employer-employee relationship between HRC
and the complainants.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the
NLRC ruling and remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for
further proceedings?
HELD: No. The Court cited the ruling in the Manila Golf case
that the decision in a certification election case, by the very
nature of that proceeding, does not foreclose all further dispute
between the parties as to the existence or non-existence of an
employer employee relationship between them. To dismiss the
illegal dismissal case filed before the labor arbiter on the basis
of the pronouncement of the MedArbiter, which the respondent
union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of
the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying
due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal case.
This, we cannot allow.
Case #3
MENDOZA vs OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES
UNION
(GR No. 201595; 25 January 2016)
FACTS:Allan Mendoza was a member of the Manila Water
Employees Union (MWEU), a DOLE-registered labor
organization consisting of rank-and-file employees within Manila
Water Company (MWC).
MWEU informed Mendoza that the union was unable to fully
deduct the increased union dues from his salary due to lack of
the required check-off authorization from the latter. Mendoza
was warned that non-payment of union dues would be subject
for sanction. He was then suspended for 30 days for non-
payment three (3) times. He did not attend the scheduled
hearing and was meted the penalty of expulsion from the union,
per unanimous approval of the members of the Executive
Board.
Mendoza filed a petition against Officers of MWEU for unfair
labor practice under the labor code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Unfair Labor
Practice?
HELD: Yes, Officers of MWEU are guilty of Unfair Labor
Practice.
Unfair labor practice for a labor organization is any act which
‘restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization. The right of self-organization includes the right
to organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine which of
two or more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in
concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, or for
their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or
enhancement of their rights and interests.
 Case #4
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO
NASWE, INC. (SAMMANA)vs. TAN
(G.R. No. 196028;18 April 2016)
FACTS: Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio
Naswe, Inc. (SAMMANA)is an association of farmers and
fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles,
Bataan for several years doing farming activities" from which
they "derive their income for their daily sustenance."
The PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation to Bid for
the sale of its assets, including the land occupied by the farmer-
members of SAMMANA. Tomas Tan emerged as the highest
bidder in the bidding of the property.
The Chairman of the PCGG Committee wrote the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of the
property under the CARP as it appeared that, a Notice of
Coverage had been issued and that the land sold by the PCGG
to Tan had been already identified for CARP coverage.
represent their members in any proceedings before the DAR. It
must be pointed out, however, that the law should be
harmonized with the interest requirement in bringing actions and
suits." In other words, while organizations and associations may
represent their members before the DAR, these members must
have such real, actual; material, or substantial interest in the
subject matter of the action, NOT merely' an expectancy, or a
future contingent interest.
The SAMMANA failed to allege and prove that these members
are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the
subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of
it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the
land's grantees having a real, actual, material interest to
question the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR Secretary lifting
the Notice of Coverage. Not being identified and duly registered
qualified beneficiaries, these members' interest over the subject
land were at most an expectancy that, unfortunately for them,
did not ripen to actual award and ownership.

SAMMANA filed with DAR a Petition to grant the land to the

farmers but the DAR denied the petition based on the ground
that the subject property, being government-owned, does not
fall as 'private agricultural land' subject to the CARP.

ISSUE:Whether or not SAMMANA is a real party in interest?

HELD: No, SAMMANA is not a real party-in-interest to question

the DAR Order; the Constitutional right to form associations
does not make the petitioner a real party-in-interest in this case.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every
action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest.

RA No. 6657 in relation with Section 3 of the Rules of Court

expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc.,
organizations and associations, 'through their leaders, to
 Case #5:
WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
(G.R. No. 191699; 19 April 2016)
FACTS:Union members were workers of William Go Que
Construction were hired as steel men on various dates, and
were regular employees of the Company until their dismissal on
June 2006. As to the employer, they were hired as project
employees, and were informed of the specific period or phase of
construction wherein their services were needed. Later on, the
employer learned that some workers were getting excess and
cutting unused steel bars, and selling them to junk shops,
prompting him to announce that he will bring the matter to the
proper authorities. Thereafter, the workers no longer reported
for work, and were identified by the other workers as the
thieves.
Meanwhile, the employer filed a complaint for theft against the
workers. On the other hand, the workers filed a case for illegal
dismissal against the Construction Company and for
nonpayment of their monetary benefits.
ISSUE:Whether or not the workers of the William Go Que
Construction were illegally dismissed for non-payment of their
monetary benefits?
HELD:No, the workers of the William Go Que Construction were
not illegally dismissed. The workers were validly dismissed as
they stole from the construction company. The prosecutor found
probable cause for theft against the workers and that the latter
abandoned their employment after they were identified by their
former co-workers as the thieves. However, considering the
Company’s failure to accord them procedural due process, the
court held that the workers are entitled for nominal damages but
not the monetary benefits given as separation pay for dismissed
employees/workers.
Case #6
RICASATA vs CARGO SAFEWAY, INC.
(GR Nos. 208896-97; 6 April 2016)
FACTS: Ricasata was hired as an engine fitter for M.V. Uni
Chart, a ship owned by Evergreen Marine Corporation, Ltd. of
Taiwan, represented by its local manning agency, Cargo
Safeway, Inc. The deployment was for a period of nine months.
His work included handling noisy equipment such as grinders,
generators, and pumps in the vessel's engine room on a regular
eight to five shift schedule.
Two incidents occurred wherein Ricasata experienced severe
pain in his ears. He requested for medical check-up but such
was denied. Having been replaced by a reliever, Ricasata
returned to the Philippines, underwent an audiogram and was
diagnosed with “Permanent Medical Unfitness with a Disability
Grade 1” due to a “profound hearing loss”
Ricasata filed an action against Cargo Safeway and Evergreen
Marine claiming disability benefits for loss of hearing was due to
his work in a noisy environment. As such, his illness is
compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) but
the latter moved for dismissalon the ground that Ricasata's
employment was covered by a CBA between the Associated
Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines and the
National Chinese Seamen's Union.
Respondents, on the other hand, countered that Ricasata is not
entitled to the benefits claimed because (1) he did not suffer any
illness, accident, or injury while on board the vessel; (2) he was
repatriated to the Philippines because of the expiration of his
contract; and (3) he did not report any illness, injury, or accident
upon his arrival in the Philippines, and he did not request for
referral to a company-designated physician.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ricasata is entitled to disability benefits?
HELD: No. It is a settled rule that for a seaman's disability claim
to prosper, it is mandatory that within three days from
repatriation, he is examined by a company-designated
physician. His failure to do so will result to the forfeiture of his
right to claim for compensation and disability benefits. The
Audiogram, taken six days after his arrival, did not indicate that
it was taken by a company-designated physician. It did not
indicate that it came from Seamen's Hospital. It was not signed,
and it did not contain an interpretation of the graph. It was
simply a printout from the audiometer. The private physician,
who issued a medical certificate diagnosing Ricasata with
severe hearing loss, was not a company-designated physician.
Case #7
ROBINA FARMS CEBU vs. VILLA
(GR No. 175869; 18 April 2016)
FACTS: Villa averred that she had been employed by Robina
Farms as sales clerk and then applied to the offer of the
company’s special retirement program. Villa then received a
memorandum from Lily Ngochua requiring her to explain her
failure to issue invoices for unhatched eggs in the months of
January to February 2002. She explained that the delivery
receipts were delayed and overlooked, thus, the invoices were
not delivered on time. Despite explanation, Villa had been
suspended for 10 days. Upon reporting back to work, she was
advised to cease working because her application for retirement
had already been approved. Later on, she was informed that her
application had been disapproved, and had been advised to
tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance.
She prevented from returning to work, confiscated her gate pass
and had been replaced by another employee.
ISSUE: Whether retirement was voluntary or involuntary?
HELD: Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of both the
employer and the employee based on their voluntary agreement
that upon reaching a certain age, the employee agrees to sever
his employment. On one hand, voluntary retirement cuts the
employment ties leaving no residual employer liability; on the
other, involuntary retirement amounts to a discharge, rendering
the employer liable for termination without cause. The
employee’s intent is decisive. In determining such intent, the
relevant parameters to consider are the fairness of the process
governing the retirement decision, the payment of stipulated
benefits, and the absence of badges of intimidation or coercion.
In case of early retirement programs, the offer of benefits must
be certain while the acceptance to be retired should be
absolute. The acceptance by the employees contemplated
herein must be explicit, voluntary, free and uncompelled.
 Case #8
DIVINE WORLD COLLEGE OF LAOAG vs. MINA
(GR NO. 195155; 13 APRIL 2016)
FACTS: Divine Word College of Laoag (DWCL) is a non-stock
educational institution offering Catholic education to the public.
It is run by the Society of Divine Word (SVD), a congregation of
Catholic priests. DWCL first employed Delfin A. Mina as a high
school teacher, and later on a high school principal at the
Academy of St. Joseph (ASJ), a school run by the SVD. Mina
transferred back to DWCL and was accorded a permanent
status. Mina was transferred to DWCL’s College Department as
an Associate Professor III. He was assigned as the College
Laboratory Custodian of the School of Nursing and was
divested of his teaching load subject to automatic termination
without need for any further notification. He was the only one
among several teachers transferred to the College Department
who was divested of teaching load. Mina was offered early
retirement by DWCL. He initially declined the offer. He later
received a memorandum from the office of DWCL’s Dean
enumerating specific acts of gross or habitual negligence,
insubordination and reporting for work under the influence of
alcohol. Sensing that it was pointless to continue employment
with DWCL, he requested that his retirement date be adjusted to
avail of better benefit which was denied. It was made to appear
that his services were terminated by reason of redundancy to
avoid any tax implications. He was also made to sign a deed of
waiver and quitclaim.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mina can file a case for illegal dismissal
and recovery of separation pay and other money claims?
HELD: Yes. Constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise.
There is cessation of work in constructive dismissal because
“continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution
in pay’ and other benefits.” To be considered as such, an act
must be a display of utter discrimination or insensibility on the
part of the employer so intense that it becomes unbearable for
the employee to continue with his employment. The law
recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in
order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts
of the employer. In this case, Mina’s transfer clearly amounted
to a constructive dismissal. He was divested of his teaching
load. His appointment even became contractual in nature and
was subject to automatic termination after one year “without any
further notification.” Aside from this, Mina was the only one
among the high school teachers transferred to the college
department who was divested of teaching load. More
importantly, DWCL failed to show any reason for Mina’s transfer
and that it was not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to
him.
There is demotion when an employee occupying a highly
technical position requiring the use of one’s mental faculty is
transferred to another position, where the employee performed
mere mechanical work – virtually a transfer from a position of
dignity to a servile or menial job. The assessment whether
Mina’s transfer amounted to a demotion must be done in
relation to his previous position, that is, from an associate
college professor, he was made a keeper and inventory-taker of
laboratory materials. Clearly, Mina’s new duties as laboratory
custodian were merely perfunctory and a far cry from his
previous teaching job, which involved the use of his mental
faculties. And while there was no proof adduced showing that
his salaries and benefits were diminished, there was clearly a
demotion in rank.
 CASE #9
MARIANO vs MARTINEZ MEMORIAL COLLEGES INC.
(GR NO. 194119; 13 APRIL 2016)
FACTS: Martinez Memorial Colleges, Inc. (MMC) is a private
educational institution. Mariano was MMC's Assistant Cashier
and had been in service for 32 years. Part of her job was to
accept payments and issue receipts and deposit slips to MMC
students. Mariano went on a one-month authorized leave of
absence. When the she reported back to work, she received a
Memorandum stating that in line with the streamlining activities
of MMC, Mariano would be transferred from the Cashier's Office
to the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) for Finance, her
husband's office. Mariano alleged that the copies of the said
memorandum had already been distributed to all concerned
immediately after the respondents signed it while she and her
husband were still on vacation. Mariano went to MMC to file
another application for leave as she was not feeling well but this
was denied by the Human Resources. When her leave form
was returned, there was a note which reads: "Extension
disapproved until further notice due to on-going audit." The
Audit Report showed the Mariano improperly handled the cash
accounts of MMC. The non-essential accounts contained the
total amount of over 40 Million. Mariano was then dismissed.
She filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal against MMC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mariano's dismissal from employment
was illegal?
HELD: Yes the dismissal of the Mariano was illegal. Mariano’s
dismissal is illegal for failure of MMC to prove lawful or just
cause for the termination of her employment and for their failure
to accord her due process. The System Review Report
prepared provided sufficient grounds for MMC to terminate the
petitioner from employment for serious or gross dishonesty.
However, despite such, the employee shall still have the right to
due process.
Case #10
BLUE EAGLE MANAGEMENT, INC. vs NAVAL
(GR NO 192488; 19 APRIL 2016)
FACTS: Blue Eagle Management, Inc. (BEMI) and Ateneo De
Manila University (ADMU) entered into a contract whereby
BEMI was to manage and operate ADMU’s Sports Center, and
that the profits or losses from operation would be for the
account of the former. BEMI employed Jocelyn L. Naval as one
of the maintenance staffs in the gymnasium.
According to the BEMI, Naval and four others, who have been
selected on the basis of their length of stay in the company
being the shortest, would have to be retrenched because of the
substantial loss suffered by the former. Naval et al. has been
offered separation package, if they would instead resign
voluntarily. Thus, they resigned voluntarily, and in exchange,
they received such separation package from petitioner.
Naval, however, testified that she has been illegally dismissed
as a result of an incident where she had been reported by a
customer in the gymnasium as being remiss of her duties.
Thus, petitioner forced her to write a resignation letter in her
own handwriting upon the dictation of the BEMI’s HR Manager.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Naval was illegal?
HELD: No, the dismissal was not illegal. No fraud or deception
was employed upon Naval to resign because BEMI was indeed
about to implement in good faith a retrenchment of its
employees in order to advance its interest and not merely to
defeat or circumvent the former's right to security of tenure.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a
situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed for the favor of employment, and opts to leave rather
than stay employed. It is a formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the
office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to
relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the
acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation
must be considered in determining whether, he or she, in fact,
intended to sever his or her employment.
As borne out by the Financial Statements of BEMI, there was
ground for the company to implement a retrenchment of its
employees at the time respondent resigned. Retrenchment is
one of the authorized causes for termination of employment
which the law accords an employer who is not making good in
its operations in order to cut back on expenses for salaries and
wages by laying off some employees. The purpose of
retrenchment is to save a financially ailing business
establishment from eventually collapsing.
Case #11
COCOPLANS, INC. vs. VILLAPANDO
(GR No. 183129; 30 May 2016)
FACTS: Ma. Socorro R. Villapando, began working as a
Financial Advisor for Cocoplans, Inc. She was eventually
promoted to Division Head/Senior Sales Manager. However, her
employment was terminated on the alleged ground that she was
deliberately influencing people to transfer to another company
thereby breaching the trust and losing the confidence given to
her by Cocoplans. Consequently, Villapando filed an action for
illegal dismissal alleging that she was dismissed without the just
cause mandated by law and for non accordance of due process.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was illegally terminated?
HELD: To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two
requisites must concur: (a) the employee must be afforded due
process; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid. Cocoplans
duly afforded Villapando the opportunity to be heard and defend
herself, thereby complying with the first requisite.
Loss of trust and confidence must be based on a wilful breach
of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is
wilful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without
justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on
substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would
eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of
confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by
the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee
was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show
that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the
employer. In the instant case, there is no finding of evidence to
be substantial enough to discharge the burden of proving that
Villapando was, indeed, dismissed for just cause.
 Case #12
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. LIGAN
(GR No. 203932; 8 June 2016)
FACTS: Philippine Airlines and Synergy Services Corporation
as Contractor, entered into an Agreement whereby Synergy
undertook to provide loading and delivery services by furnishing
all the necessary capital, workers, materials, supplies and
equipment for the performance and execution of said work.
Respondents, who appear to have been assigned to work for
PAL filed complaints before the NLRC for the payment of their
labor standard benefits and regularization of employment status
claiming that they are performing duties directly connected with
PAL’s business.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is labor-only contracting?
OWNER’S (PAL) rules, regulations, procedures and
directives relative to the safety and security of OWNER’S
premises, properties and operations (2) xxx shall furnish its
employees and workers identification cards to be countersigned
by OWNER and uniforms to be approved by OWNER. (3)
OWNER may require CONTRACTOR to dismiss immediately
and prohibit entry into OWNER’S premises of any person
employed therein by CONTRACTOR who in OWNER’S opinion
is incompetent or misconducts himself or does not comply with
OWNER’S reasonable instructions xxx PAL in fact admitted that
it fixes the work schedule of respondents as their work was
dependent on the frequency of plane arrivals. And as the NLRC
found, PAL’s managers and supervisors approved respondents’
weekly work assignments and respondents and other regular
PAL employees were all referred to as “station attendants” of
the cargo operation and airfreight services of PAL.

HELD: YES. For labor-only contracting to exist, Section 5 of Respondents having performed tasks which are usually
D.O. No. 18-02 which requires any of two elements to be necessary and desirable in the air transportation business of
present: (i) The contractor or subcontractor does not PAL, they should be deemed its regular employees and
have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, Synergy as a labor-only contractor.
work or service to be performed and the employees recruited,
supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are
performing activities which are directly related to the main
business of the principal; or, (ii) The contractor does not
exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of
the contractual employee.

From the records of the case, it is gathered that the work

performed by almost all of the respondents – loading and
unloading of baggage and cargo of passengers – is directly
related to the main business of PAL. And the equipment used
by respondents as station loaders, such as trailers and
conveyors, are owned by PAL.

PAL, and not Synergy, exercises control and supervision over

the respondent workers’ methods of doing the work, as reflected
in their Agreement: (1) Contractor (Synergy) shall require all its
workers, employees, suppliers and visitors to comply with
 Case #13 enough justification to disregard the separate corporate
MALIXI vs. MEXICALI PHILIPPINES personalities. To pierce the veil of corporate action, there should
(GR NO. 205061; 8 June 2016) be clear and convincing proof that fraud, illegality or inequity has
been committed against third persons.
FACTS: Emerita Malixi filed an illegal dismissal case against
Mexicali and its General Manager. Malixi alleged that she was
hired by Mexicali as a team leader assigned at the delivery
service. Mexicali's training officer, Jay Teves, informed her of
the management's intention to transfer and appoint her as store
manager at a newly opened branch, which is a joint venture
between Mexicali and Calexico Food Corporation. She then
subsequently submitted a resignation letter as advised by
Teves. Thereafter, she started working as the store manager of
Mexicali although, however, she was compelled by Teves to
sign an end-of-contract letter by reason of a criminal complaint
for sexual harassment she filed against Mexicali's operations
manager. Upon her vehement refusal to sign, she was informed
by Luna that it was her last day of work. Mexicali, however,
denied responsibility over Maxili's alleged dismissal. They
averred that Maxili has resigned from Mexicali, hence, she was
no longer Mexicali's employee at the time of her dismissal but
rather an employee of Calexico, a franchisee of Mexicali which
is a separate and distinct corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Malixi is Mexicali's employee at the time

of her dismissal?

RULING: No. Upon Malixi's resignation, she ceased to be an

employee of Mexicali and chose to be employed at Calexico. It
is basic that "a corporation is an artificial being invested with a
personality separate and distinct from those of the stockholders
and from other corporations to which it may be connected or
related." The Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of both
corporations show that they have distinct business locations and
distinct business purposes. It can also be gleaned therein that
they have a different set of incorporators or directors since only
two out of the have directors of Mexicali are also directors of
Calexico. At any rate, the Court has ruled that the existence of
interlocking directors, corporate officers and shareholders is not