Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union vs. Calica Facts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

6. Petitioner Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union- PTGWO is the LLO and EBA of all Rank&File of Indophil. Respondent Calica is Voluntary Arbitrator of NCMB of DOLE Indophil Textile Mills Inc is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and export of yarns of various counts and kinds and of materials of kindred character. Plant in Marilao, Bulacan. Petitioner Union and Indophil Textile Company executed a CBA 04/01/87 to 03/31/90 11/3/87 Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing Corporation was formed. a. Workers of Acrylic unionized and a duly certified CBA was executed. Union in 1990 claimed that plant facilities built and setup by Acrylic should be considered as an EXTENSION or EXPANSION of the facilities of the company pursuant to the CBA and part of the Indophil bargaining unit. Company submitted it is a juridical entity separate and distinct from Acrylic. a. Impasse led petitioner and PR to enter into submission to VA Calica for interpretation of CBA VA interpreted that the CBA does not extend to the employees of Acrylic as an extension/ expansion of Company. Petition for certiorari to review the award issued by VA Calica.

ISSUE: w/n the operations in Acrylic are an extension of expansion of company and that the RnF employees of Acrylic should be recognized as part of, and/ or within the scope of the bargaining unit. Petitioner stresses that the Articles of Incorporation establish that the two are engaged in the SAME KIND OF BUSINESS, which is the manufacture and sale of yarns and other materials of kindred character or nature. -argues also that two corporations have practically the same incorporators, directors and officers. -both have plants located in Marilao Bulacan -many of machineries were transferred and used now in the Acrylic plant -employees of Indophil textile are the same persons manning and servicing the units of Acrylic Calica argues that Acrylic has a separate legitimate business purpose. Indophil Textile is engaged in business of MANUFACTURING yarns and textiles. Acrylic is engaged in manufacture, buy, sell at wholesale, barter, import etc of yarns of various counts and kinds. So Acrylic cannot manufacture textiles while Indophil cannot buy or import yarns. -also that two corporations cannot be treated as a single bargaining unit even if their businesses are related. -existence of a business relationship between Acrylic and Indophil textile is not a proof of being a single corporate entity.

HELD: -

Decisions of voluntary arbitrators are to be given the highest respect and a certain measure of finality is not a hard and fast rule. Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity: The legal fiction that a corporation is an entity with a juridical personality separate and distinct from its members or stockholders may be disregarded. Corp will be considered as a mere association of persons. Liability will attach directly to the officers and stockholders. Applies when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime or where a corpo is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person. Fact that business of Indophil Textile and Acrylic are related, that some of the employees of the private respondent are the same persons manning and providing for auxiliary services to the units of Acrylic and that the physical plants, offices and facilities are situated in the same compound are not sufficient to justify the piercing of the corporate veil of Acrylic. Doctrine cannot be applied in this case.