7/25/2019 FilipinasPort Services Inc v NLRC Labor Review

1/3

Filipinas Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC

FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES, INC. VS. NLRC200 SCRA 773

PARAS, J.;

FACTS

1.In view of the government policy which ordained that cargo handling operations should be limited toonly one cargo handling operator-contractor for every port, the different stevedoring and arrastrecorporations operating in the Port of Davao were integrated into a single dockhandlers corporation,known as the Davao Dockhandlers, Inc., which was registered with the S! on "uly 1#, 1$%&.

'.Due to the late receipt of its permit to operate, Davao Dockhandlers, Inc., which was subse(uentlyrenamed )ilport, actually started its operation on )ebruary 1&, 1$%%.

#.*s a result of the merger, )ilport+s labor force was mostly taken from the integrating corporations,

among them were the private respondents.

.Private respondent Paterno iboon and 1 others filed a complaint with the D/ 0egional /ffice inDavao !ity, alleging

that they were employees of )ilport since 1$22 through 1$2 up to December #1, 1$& whenthey retired3

that they were paid retirement benefits computed from )ebruary 1&,1$%% up to December #1,1$& only3and that taking into consideration their continuous length of service, they are entitled to bepaid retirement benefits differentials from the time they started working with the predecessors of)ilport up to the time they were absorbed by the latter in 1$%%.

2.)inding )ilport a mere alter ego of the different integrating corporations, the Labor Arbiter helFil!ort liable "or retire#e$t be$e"it% &e !ri'ate re%!o$e$t% "or %er'i(e% re$ere !rior toFebr&ar) *+, *77.

&.Sai e(i%io$ -a% a""ir#e b) the NLRC o$ a!!eal.Filport filed a petition for certiorari with theclaiming that it is an entirely new corporation with a separate juridical personality from the integratingcorporations; and that Filport is not a successor-employer, liable for the obligations of privaterespondents' previous employers.

ISSE4hether or not )ilport is liable for the retirement benefits due private respondents for services

rendered prior to )eb. 1&, 1$%%.

/EL1

Fil!ort i% liable "or the retire#e$t be$e"it% &e !ri'ate re%!o$e$t% "or the %er'i(e%re$ere!rior to Feb. *+, *77being a survivor entity as it merely absorbed the integrating workerslabor force.It -a% #a$ate that Fil!ort %hall ab%orb all labor "or(e a$ $e(e%%ar) !er%o$$el(o#!le#e$t o" the #eri$ o!erator%, th&%, (learl) i$i(ati$ the i$te$tio$ to (o$ti$&e thee#!lo)ere#!lo)ee relatio$%hi!% o" the i$i'i&al (o#!a$ie% -ith it% e#!lo)ee% thro&hFil!ort.5hus, )ilport has the obligation not only to absorb the workers of the dissolved companies b&t

7/25/2019 FilipinasPort Services Inc v NLRC Labor Review

2/3

al%o to i$(l&e the le$th o" %er'i(e ear$e b) the ab%orbe e#!lo)ee% -ith their "or#ere#!lo)ee% a% -ell. 5o rule otherwise would be manifestly less than fair,certainly, less than 6ust ande(uitable.

Finally, to deny the private respondents the fruits of their labor corresponding to the time theyworked with their previous employers would render at naught the constitutional provisions on

labor protection.

In interpreting the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and thelabor laws, and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the SupremeCourt has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.

7/25/2019 FilipinasPort Services Inc v NLRC Labor Review

3/3