FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 193816. November 21, 2016.]

ERSON ANG LEE DOING BUSINESS as "SUPER LAMINATION

SERVICES ," petitioner, vs. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER
LAMINATION (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU) , respondent.

DECISION

SERENO , C.J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on
the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) a rming the assailed
Decision 3 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). DOLE allowed the
conduct of certi cation election among the rank-and- le employees of Super
Lamination Services (Super Lamination), Express Lamination Services, Inc. (Express
Lamination), and Express Coat Enterprises, Inc. (Express Coat). HTcADC

THE ANTECEDENT FACTS

Petitioner Erson Ang Lee (petitioner), through Super Lamination, is a duly
registered entity principally engaged in the business of providing lamination services to
the general public. Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Super Lamination
Services (Union A) is a legitimate labor organization, which is also a local chapter
a liate of the National Federation of Labor Unions — Kilusang Mayo Uno. 4 It appears
that Super Lamination is a sole proprietorship under petitioner's name, 5 while Express
Lamination and Express Coat are duly incorporated entities separately registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 6
On 7 March 2008, Union A led a Petition for Certi cation Election 7 to represent
all the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination. 8
Notably, on the same date, Express Lamination Workers' Union (Union B) also
led a Petition for Certi cation Election to represent all the rank-and- le employees of
Express Lamination. 9
Also on the same date, the Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Express Coat
Enterprises, Inc. (Union C) led a Petition for Certi cation Election to represent the
rank-and-file employees of Express Coat. 1 0
Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat, all represented by one
counsel, separately claimed in their Comments and Motions to Dismiss that the
petitions must be dismissed on the same ground — lack of employer-employee
relationship between these establishments and the bargaining units that Unions A, B,
and C seek to represent as well as these unions' respective members. 1 1 Super
Lamination, in its Motion, posited that a majority of the persons who were enumerated
in the list of members and o cers of Union A were not its employees, but were
employed by either Express Lamination or Express Coat. 1 2 Interestingly, both Express
Lamination and Express Coat, in turn, maintained the same argument — that a majority
of those who had assented to the Petition for Certi cation Election were not
employees of either company, but of one of the two other companies involved. 1 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 All three Petitions for Certi cation Election of the Unions were denied. On 21 May
2008, an Order was issued by DOLE National Capital Region (NCR) Med-Arbiter Michael
Angelo Parado denying the respective petitions of Unions B and C on the ground that
there was no existing employer-employee relationship between the members of the
unions and the companies concerned. On 23 May 2008, DOLE NCR Med-Arbiter Alma
Magdaraog-Alba also denied the petition of respondent Union A on the same ground. 1 4
The three unions led their respective appeals before the O ce of the DOLE
Secretary, which consolidated the appeal because the involved companies alternately
referred to one another as the employer of the members of the bargaining units sought
to be represented. 1 5 The unions argued that their petitions should have been allowed
considering that the companies involved were unorganized, and that the employers had
no concomitant right to oppose the petitions. They also claimed that while the
questioned employees might have been assigned to perform work at the other
companies, they were all under one management's direct control and supervision. 1 6
DOLE, through Undersecretary Romeo C. Lagman, rendered the assailed Decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeals led by Express
Lamination Workers Union (ELWU-NAFLU-KMU), Samahang Manggagawa ng
Express Coat Enterprises, Inc. (SMEC-NAFLU-KMU) and Samahang
Manggagawa ng Super Lamination Services (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU) are hereby
GRANTED and the Orders dated 21 May 2008 of DOLE-NCR Mediator-Arbiter
Michael Angelo T. Parado are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The Order
dated 23 May 2008 of DOLE NCR Mediator-Arbiter Alma E. Magdaraog-Alba is
likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE . aScITE

Accordingly, let the entire records of this be remanded to the regional

o ce of origin for the immediate conduct of certi cation election among the
rank-and- le employees of Express Lamination Services, Inc., Super Lamination
Services and Express Coat Enterprises, Inc., after the conduct of pre-election
conference/s, with the following as choices;
1. Express Lamination Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU;
2. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Super Lamination
Services-NAFLU-KMU;
3. Samahang ng mga Manggagawa ng Express Coat
Enterprises, Inc.-NAFLU-KMU; and
4. "No Union."
The employer/s and/or contending union(s) are hereby directed to
submit to the Regional O ce of origin, within ten (10) days from receipt of this
Decision, a certi ed list of employees in the bargaining unit or the payrolls
covering the members of the bargaining unit for the last three (3) months prior
to the issuance of the Decision.
SO DECIDED. 1 7 (Emphases in the original)
DOLE found that Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat were
sister companies that had a common human resource department responsible for
hiring and disciplining the employees of the three companies. The same department
was found to have also given them daily instructions on how to go about their work and
where to report for work. It also found that the three companies involved constantly
rotated their workers, and that the latter's identi cation cards had only one signatory.
18
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 To DOLE, these circumstances showed that the companies were engaged in a
work-pooling scheme, in light of which they might be considered as one and the same
entity for the purpose of determining the appropriate bargaining unit in a certi cation
election. 1 9 DOLE applied the concept of multi-employer bargaining under Sections 5
and 6 of DOLE Department Order 40-03, Series of 2003. Under that concept, the
creation of a single bargaining unit for the rank-and- le employees of all three
companies was not implausible and was justi ed under the given circumstances. 2 0
Thus, it considered these rank-and- le employees as one bargaining unit and ordered
the conduct of a certification election as uniformly prayed for by the three unions. HEITAD

Aggrieved, petitioner instituted an appeal before the CA, which denied his
Petition and a rmed the Decision of DOLE. It sided with DOLE in nding that Super
Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat were sister companies that had
adopted a work-pooling scheme. Therefore, it held that DOLE had correctly applied the
concept of multi-employer bargaining in nding that the three companies could be
considered as the same entity, and their rank-and- le employees as comprising one
bargaining unit. 2 1
Petitioner led a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision, but the motion
was denied. 2 2 Therefore, he now comes to this Court through the present Petition.
ISSUES
From the established facts and arguments, we cull the issues as follows:
1. Whether the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is
warranted
2. Whether the rank-and- le employees of Super Lamination, Express
Lamination, and Express Coat constitute an appropriate bargaining unit
THE COURT'S RULING
We deny the petition.
An application of the doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil is
warranted.
Petitioner argues that separate corporations cannot be treated as a single
bargaining unit even if their businesses are related, 2 3 as these companies are
indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. 2 4 Hence, the
employees of one corporation cannot be allowed to vote in the certi cation election of
another corporation, lest the above-mentioned rule be violated. 2 5
Petitioner's argument, while correct, is a general rule. This Court has time and
again disregarded separate juridical personalities under the doctrine of piercing the
corporate veil. It has done so in cases where a separate legal entity is used to defeat
public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, among other grounds.
2 6 In any of these situations, the law will regard it as an association of persons or, in
case of two corporations, merge them into one. 2 7 ATICcS

A settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is that when
two business enterprises are owned, conducted and controlled by the same parties,
both law and equity will, when necessary to protect the rights of third parties, disregard
the legal ction that these two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as one
and the same. 2 8

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 This formulation has been applied by this Court to cases in which the laborer has
been put in a disadvantageous position as a result of the separate juridical
personalities of the employers involved. 2 9 Pursuant to veil-piercing, we have held two
corporations jointly and severally liable for an employee's back wages. 3 0 We also
considered a corporation and its separately-incorporated branches as one and the
same for purposes of finding the corporation guilty of illegal dismissal. 3 1 These rulings
were made pursuant to the fundamental doctrine that the corporate ction should not
be used as a subterfuge to commit injustice and circumvent labor laws. 3 2
Here, a certi cation election was ordered to be held for all the rank-and- le
employees of Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat. The three
companies were supposedly distinct entities based on the fact that Super Lamination
is a sole proprietorship while Express Lamination and Express Coat were separately
registered with the SEC. 3 3 The directive was therefore, in effect, a piercing of the
separate juridical personalities of the corporations involved. We nd the piercing to be
proper and in accordance with the law as will be discussed below.
The following established facts show that Super Lamination, Express Lamination,
and Express Coat are under the control and management of the same party —
petitioner Ang Lee. In effect, the employees of these three companies have petitioner
as their common employer, as shown by the following facts:
1. Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat were engaged in
the same business of providing lamination services to the public as
admitted by petitioner in his petition. 3 4
2. The three establishments operated and hired employees through a
common human resource department as found by DOLE in a clari catory
hearing. 3 5 Though it was not clear which company the human resource
department was o cially attached to, petitioner admits in his petition that
such department was shared by the three companies for purposes of
convenience. 3 6
3. The workers of all three companies were constantly rotated and
periodically assigned to Super Lamination or Express Lamination or
Express Coat to perform the same or similar tasks. 3 7 This nding was
further a rmed when petitioner admitted in his petition before us that the
Super Lamination had entered into a work-pooling agreement with the two
other companies and shared a number of their employees. 3 8
4. DOLE found and the CA a rmed that the common human resource
department imposed disciplinary sanctions and directed the daily
performance of all the members of Unions A, B, and C. 3 9 TIADCc

5. Super Lamination included in its payroll and SSS registration not just its
own employees, but also the supposed employees of Express Lamination
and Express Coat. This much was admitted by petitioner in his Motion to
Dismiss 4 0 which was affirmed by the Med-Arbiter in the latter's Order. 4 1
6. Petitioner admitted that Super Lamination had issued and signed the
identi cation cards of employees who were actually working for Express
Lamination and Express Coat. 4 2
7. Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat were
represented by the same counsel who interposed the same arguments in
their motions before the Med-Arbiters and DOLE. 4 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Further, we discern from the synchronized movements of petitioner and the two
other companies an attempt to frustrate or defeat the workers' right to collectively
bargain through the shield of the corporations' separate juridical personalities. We
make this nding on the basis of the motions to dismiss led by the three companies.
While similarly alleging the absence of an employer-employee relationship, they
alternately referred to one another as the employer of the members of the bargaining
units sought to be represented respectively by the unions. This fact was affirmed by the
Med-Arbiters' Orders nding that indeed, the supposed employees of each
establishment were found to be alternately the employees of either of the two other
companies as well. This was precisely the reason why DOLE consolidated the appeals
filed by Unions A, B, and C. 4 4
Due to the nger-pointing by the three companies at one another, the petitions
were dismissed. As a result, the three unions were not able to proceed with the conduct
of the certi cation election. This also caused confusion among the employees as to
who their real employer is, as Union A claims in its Comment. 4 5
We hold that if we allow petitioner and the two other companies to continue
obstructing the holding of the election in this manner, their employees and their
respective unions will never have a chance to choose their bargaining representative.
We take note that all three establishments were unorganized. That is, no union therein
was ever duly recognized or certified as a bargaining representative. 4 6
Therefore, it is only proper that, in order to safeguard the right of the workers and
Unions A, B, and C to engage in collective bargaining, the corporate veil of Express
Lamination and Express Coat must be pierced. The separate existence of Super
Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat must be disregarded. In effect, we
affirm the lower tribunals in ruling that these companies must be treated as one and the
same unit for purposes of holding a certification election.
Petitioner has cited Diatagon Labor Federation Local v. Ople 4 7 and Indophil
Textile Mill Worker Union v. Calica 4 8 in which this Court refused to treat separate
corporations as a single bargaining unit. Those cases, however, are not substantially
identical with this case and would not warrant their application herein. Unlike in the
instant case, the corporations involved were found to be completely independent or
were not involved in any act that frustrated the laborers' rights.AIDSTE

I n Diatagon, 4 9 we refused to include the 236 employees of Georgia Paci c

International Corporation in the bargaining unit of the employees of Liangga Bay
Logging Co., Inc. This Court's refusal was in light of the fact that the two corporations
were indubitably distinct entities with separate corporate identities and origins.
Moreover, there was no discernible attempt to frustrate any of their labor-related rights,
as the only conflict was over which bargaining unit they belonged to.
I n Indophil 5 0 this Court refused to pierce the corporate veil of Indophil Textile
Mill and Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing. We found that the creation of Indophil Acrylic
was not a device to evade the application of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
between petitioner union and Indophil Textile Mill. This Court further found that despite
the similarity in their business operations, the separate personalities of the two
corporations were maintained and were not used for any of the purposes speci ed
under the law that would warrant piercing. It is also apparent in this case that the
workers' rights were not being hampered by the employers concerned, as the only issue
between them was the extent of the subject CBA's application.
In this case, not only were Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Coat found to be under the control of petitioner, but there was also a discernible
attempt to disregard the workers' and unions' right to collective bargaining.
The foregoing considered, we nd no error in the CA's a rmance of the DOLE
directive. We a rm DOLE's application by analogy of the concept of multi-employer
bargaining to justify its Decision to treat the three companies as one. While the multi-
employer bargaining mechanism is relatively new and purely optional under Department
Order No. 40-03, it illustrates the State's policy to promote the primacy of free and
responsible exercise of the right to collective bargaining. 5 1 The existence of this
mechanism in our labor laws a rm DOLE's conclusion that its treatment of the
employees of the three companies herein as a single bargaining unit is neither
impossible nor prohibited. 5 2 It is justified under the circumstances discussed above.
Besides, it is an established rule that factual ndings of labor o cials, who are
deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally
accorded by the courts not only respect but even finality when supported by substantial
evidence; i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion. 5 3
The bargaining unit of the rank-and-
file employees of the three companies
is appropriate.
Petitioner argues that there is no showing that the rank-and- le employees of the
three companies would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit on account of the
latter's different geographical locations. 5 4 This contention lacks merit. The basic test
for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a standard whereby
a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have
substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of
collective bargaining. 5 5 We have ruled that geographical location can be completely
disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed. 5 6
In the present case, there was communal interest among the rank-and- le
employees of the three companies based on the nding that they were constantly
rotated to all three companies, and that they performed the same or similar duties
whenever rotated. 5 7 Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment
status and working conditions were so substantially similar as to justify a conclusion
that they shared a community of interest. This nding is consistent with the policy in
favor of a single-employer unit, unless the circumstances require otherwise. 5 8 The
more solid the employees are, the stronger is their bargaining capacity. 5 9acEHCD

As correctly observed by the CA and DOLE, while there is no prohibition on the

mere act of engaging in a work-pooling scheme as sister companies, that act will not
be tolerated, and the sister companies' separate juridical personalities will be
disregarded, if they use that scheme to defeat the workers' right to collective
bargaining. The employees' right to collectively bargain with their employers is
necessary to promote harmonious labor-management relations in the interest of sound
and stable industrial peace. 6 0
WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is DENIED for
lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision 6 1 and Resolution 6 2 in CA-G.R. SP No.
109486 are hereby AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
* On official leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 28-38; dated 24 May 2010; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang,
with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Manuel M. Barrios concurring;
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 109486.

2. Id. at 39-41; dated 21 September 2010.

3 . Id. at 63-69; dated 8 May 2009; penned by DOLE Undersecretary Romeo C. Lagman by
authority of the DOLE Secretary.
4. Id. at 78.
5. Id. at 129.
6. Id. at 127-128.
7. Id. at 75-77.

8. Id. at 64.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 65-66, 140.

12. Id. at 32.

13. Id. at 65.
14. Id. 32-33.
15. Id. at 64.
16. Id. at 66.

17. Id. at 69.

18. Id. at 67.
19. Id. at 33-34.
20. Id. at 68.
21. Id. at 36.

22. Id. at 39-41.

23. Diatagon Labor Federation Local 110 of the ULGWP v. Ople, 189 Phil. 396 (1980).
24. Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica , G.R. No. 96490, 205 SCRA 697, 3
February 1992; Umali, et al. v. CA, 267 Phil. 553 (1990).
25. A certi cation election, as de ned in the Labor Code's Implementing Rules, is the process
of determining, by secret ballot, the employees' sole and exclusive representative in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation
(Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 [x]). A union's right to le a petition for certi cation election is
founded on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The workers whom
the union intends to represent must therefore be employees of the enterprise in which
an election is sought. (C.A. Azucena, Jr., THE LABOR CODE WITH COMMENTS AND
CASES, 461 [Eighth Edition, 2013]). Otherwise, the petition must be dismissed.
26. The veil of separate corporate personality may be lifted when such personality is used to
defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime; or used as a
shield to confuse the legitimate issues; or when the corporation is merely an adjunct,
a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation or where the corporation is
so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an
instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation; or when the
corporation is used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, or to work injustice, or
where necessary to achieve equity or for the protection of the creditors. In such cases,
the corporation will be considered as a mere association of persons. The liability will
directly attach to the stockholders or to the other corporation. (China Banking Corp. v.
Dyne-Sem Electronics Corp., 527 Phil. 74 [2006]).
27. Villanueva v. Lorezo , G.R. No. 179640, 18 March 2015; Times Transportation Co., Inc. v.
Sotelo, 491 Phil. 756 (2005).
28. Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, 654 Phil. 296 (2011).

29. See Vicmar Development Corp. v. Elarcosa (G.R. No. 202215, 9 December 2015); Azcor
Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (362 Phil. 370 [1999]);
Tomas Lao Construction v. National Labor Relations Commission (344 Phil. 268
[1997]).
3 0 . Azcor Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission , id.; Tomas Lao
Construction v. National Labor Relations Commission, id.
31. Vicmar Development Corp. v. Elarcosa, supra note 29.
32. Tomas Lao Construction v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 29 at 287.
33. Rollo, pp. 127-129.

34. Id. at 10-11.

35. Id. at 36, 67.
36. Id. at 11.
37. Id.
38. Id.

39. Id. at 36, 67.

40. Id. at 131.
41. Id. at 141.
42. Id. at 131.
43. Id. at 64-65.

44. Id. at 64.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 45. Id. at 147.
46. Article 268, Labor Code; Azucena, supra note 25, p. 447.
47. Diatagon Labor Federation Local 110 of the ULGWP v. Ople, supra note 23.

48. Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica, supra note 24.
49. Diatagon Labor Federation Local 110 of the ULGWP v. Ople, supra note 23.
50. Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica, supra note 24.
5 1 . Book V, Rule XVI, Section 1. Policy. — It is the policy of the State to promote and
emphasize the primacy of free and responsible exercise of the right to self-
organization and collective bargaining, either through single enterprise level
negotiations or through the creation of a mechanism by which different employers
and recognized or certified labor union in their establishments bargain collectively.
52. Rollo, p. 68.

53. Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, supra note 28.

54. Rollo, p. 18.
55. University of the Phils. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 96189, 14 July 1992, 211 SCRA 464.
56. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, 343 Phil. 143 (1997).
57. Rollo, p. 36.

58. General Rubber and Footwear Corp. v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 239 Phil. 276 (1987).
59. Azucena, supra note 25, p. 440.
6 0 . Government Service Insurance System v. GSIS Supervisor's Union , 160-A Phil. 1066
(1975).
61. Dated 24 May 2010.
62. Dated 21 September 2010.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com