G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953
LA CAMPANA FACTORY, INC., and TAN TONG doing business under the trade name “LA CAMPANA GAUGAU PACKING”, petitioners, vs. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA (KKM) and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Tan Tong operated a business under the name “La Campana Gaugau Packing.” On July 6, 1950, he and his family formed a corporation, La Campana Factory Co., Inc. (also referred to as La Campana Coffee Factory Co., Inc.). Prior to this, on July 11, 1949, Tan Tong had a collective bargaining agreement with the Philippine Legion of Organized Workers (PLOW). The employees later seceded from PLOW and formed the respondent union, Kaisahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa La Campana (Kaisahan). On July 19, 1951, the Kaisahan, representing 66 workers from both La Campana Gaugau Packing and La Campana Coffee Factory Co., Inc., presented a demand for higher wages addressed to “La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory.” The dispute was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on July 17, 1951. Subsequently, on September 5, 1951, the Secretary of Labor revoked the permit of the Kaisahan’s parent federation and suspended the Kaisahan’s permit on September 20, 1951. The petitioners (Tan Tong and the corporation) and the intervenor PLOW moved to dismiss the case in the CIR on grounds including that the action was against two distinct entities, that the coffee factory had fewer than 31 employees, that the union lacked legal capacity due to the suspension of its permit, and that an existing contract with PLOW bound the workers. The CIR denied the motions, finding that the two businesses operated under a single management, shared a common office, payroll, cashier, and interchangeable laborers, and that the union had a valid permit when the case was certified. The petitioners filed for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIR had jurisdiction over the case given the claim that La Campana Coffee Factory, Inc. had only 14 employees, below the jurisdictional number of 30 required by Commonwealth Act No. 103 .
2. Whether the suspension of the respondent union’s permit by the Secretary of Labor deprived it of legal personality to sue.

RULING

1. Yes, the CIR had jurisdiction. The Court upheld the CIR’s finding that La Campana Gaugau Packing and La Campana Coffee Factory Co., Inc., though bearing different trade names and one being a corporation, operated as a single business entity under one management. The corporate fiction was disregarded as it was used to defeat the law. Evidence showed a common office, management, payroll, cashier, interchangeable laborers, shared trucks, and advertising. Therefore, the total number of employees from both enterprises exceeded the jurisdictional requirement.
2. No, the suspension did not deprive the CIR of jurisdiction. The CIR acquired jurisdiction when the dispute, involving more than 30 laborers, was certified by the Secretary of Labor. The subsequent suspension of the union’s permit did not divest the CIR of the jurisdiction it had already acquired. Jurisdiction, once attached, continues until the case is fully decided.
The petition for certiorari was denied.