ERSON ANG LEE DOING BUSINESS AS “SUPER LAMINATION SERVICES” v.

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER LAMINATION

G.R. No. 193816 21 November 2016

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:
1. The following unions filed for certification election: Samahang Manggagawa ng
Super Lamination; Samahang Manggagawa ng Express Coat Enterprises; and
Express Lamination Workers’ Union.
2. The employers all sought to dismiss the petition. The companies argued that the
persons petitioning for certification election are not their employees. Rather, the
persons are employees of the other two companies.
3. The Med-Arbiter dismissed all petitions for certification election.
4. The DOLE reversed the Med Arbiter’s ruling and green lighted the certification
election. The DOLE directed the employees to choose one of the three unions or
opt for no union.
5. In a clarificatory hearing, the DOLE discovered that the three workplaces hired
employees from a common pool. The employees rotated between Super
Lamination, Express Coat, and Express Lamination.
6. The Court of Appeals agreed that the three companies share a common human
resource department (HRD). This HRD hires, fires, disciplines, and instructs the
employees.

ISSUE:
Should the corporate veil be pierced?

DECISION:
Yes, the corporate veil should be pierced.

The corporate veil is pierced when the separate legal entity is used to defeat public
convenience, justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.

Here, the three companies are finger pointing. They deny that the people named in the
petitions for certification election are their employees.

If this is allowed to continue, a union will not be chosen, thereby depriving the workers
of their right.

Thus, the corporate veil was pierced, and the workers were directed to choose among
three unions or none.