G.R. No. L-33906. December 21, 1983.
VICTORIA ABLAZA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION (ADLO), et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, 36 laborers, filed a complaint before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against “Cerisco Blackcat Trading” for salary differentials, overtime pay, and reinstatement with backwages. Summons and subsequent notices were served at the business address. The defendant entity failed to file an answer, prompting the CIR to declare it in default and allow ex-parte presentation of evidence. The CIR subsequently rendered a decision ordering the computation and payment of monetary awards totaling P223,098.04. A writ of execution was issued and levied upon the personal properties of petitioner Victoria Ablaza.
Petitioner Victoria Ablaza, claiming to be the owner and operator of the business under the trade name “Cerisco Blackcat Trading,” filed an urgent petition for relief with the CIR. She argued she was never impleaded as a party defendant, was never lawfully summoned, and that a mere trade name is not a juridical entity capable of being sued. She contended the CIR never acquired jurisdiction over her person. The CIR denied her petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of Industrial Relations acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Victoria Ablaza, who was not formally named as a party respondent but was the owner of the business entity sued under its trade name.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations validly acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that while “Cerisco Blackcat Trading” is merely a trade name and not a juridical person, service of summons at the business establishment’s address, as performed in this case, was sufficient to bring the actual owner and operator within the court’s jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the determinative factor is whether the defendant was afforded the opportunity to be heard. Here, summons and notices were properly served at the business address, which was the petitioner’s place of business. Petitioner’s failure to respond, despite such service, constituted a waiver of her right to present evidence.
The legal logic is anchored on procedural rules and substantive justice. Under the rules, service of summons upon a person in charge at the place of business of an entity operating under a common name is effective service. The intention of the labor complaint was unmistakably to sue the proprietor of the business employing the workers. To allow the petitioner to evade liability by hiding behind the non-juridical nature of a trade name would defeat the purpose of labor legislation designed to protect workers’ rights to their lawful wages. The Court found no fraud or fatal irregularity in the service of processes. The monetary claims awarded (wage differentials, overtime, holiday pay) were all encompassed within the original complaint’s prayer for relief based on the Minimum Wage Law and overtime compensation. The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.