G.R. No. 246270 , June 30, 2021
SUSAN R. ROQUEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND PNB GLOBAL REMITTANCE AND FINANCIAL CO. (HK) LTD., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Susan R. Roquel seeks compensation for her alleged illegal dismissal. She claims that Philippine National Bank (PNB) should be considered her employer because she was a shared employee among corporations belonging to the PNB Hongkong group, including respondent PNB Global Remittance and Financial Co. (HK) Ltd. (PNB Global). The concurring opinion notes that petitioner’s transfers within the PNB Hongkong group and the use of PNB letterhead constituted prima facie proof that PNB Global was a mere instrumentality of PNB. In its position paper, PNB admitted that petitioner’s appointment as Branch Manager of PNB-RCL explicitly stipulated changes of assignments among PNB affiliates/subsidiaries. PNB failed to present evidence to controvert petitioner’s account or to establish the separate and independent operations of PNB Global.

ISSUE

Whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be applied to hold PNB liable for petitioner’s claims, considering the State policy to afford full protection to labor and the evidentiary rules in labor cases.

RULING

The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia that PNB should be held accountable. The three-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil should be tempered in labor cases. Petitioner adequately established a prima facie case that PNB Global was a mere instrumentality of PNB through evidence of her transfers within the group and PNB’s own admission regarding shared employees. This shifted the burden to PNB to prove separate corporate existence and lack of intent to evade labor obligations, which it failed to do. The case of Maricalum Mining Corp. v. Florentino is distinguishable because there, a contractual agreement clearly identified the employer, and the separate corporate personalities were substantiated and involved government intervention affording a presumption of regularity. Here, no such demarcation or government role was shown. In labor cases, employees should be given latitude in proving their cause, as corporate evidence is often elusive to them, while employers can easily present countervailing documents. The failure to timely question transfers should not prejudice the employee, recognizing their vulnerability to preserve livelihood.