Manila Hotel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission [343 SCRA 1 (Oct.13, !!!

"# Re$%isites to &iercin' t(e )eil o* Corporate +iction +acts, Marcelo Santos -as an overseas -or.er, a printer at t(e Ma/oon &rintin' &ress, S%ltanate o* Oman -(en (e -as 0irectl1 (ire0 b1 t(e &alace Hotel, 2ei3in' b1 its 4M 4er(ar0 S(mi0t as (e -as recommen0e0 b1 Nestor 2%enio, (is *rien0. Santos resi'ne0 *rom Ma/oon an0 t(erea*ter si'ne0 an emplo1ment contract maile0 to (im. 5(e contract state0 it -o%l0 be *or a perio0 o* 1ears. A*ter a s(ort vacation in t(e &(il 6 barel1 a 1ear into t(e contract, Santos -as terminate0 *rom (is 3ob 0%e to retrenc(ment, an0 repatriate0 to t(e &(il. Santos, t(ro%'( (is la-1er, 0eman0e0 *%ll compensation p%rs%ant to t(e emplo1ment a'reement -(ic( S(mi0t 0enie0. Santos t(en *ile0 a complaint -it( t(e NLRC a'ainst MHC, MH7CL, t(e &alace Hotel 6 S(mi0t *or ille'al 0ismissal. 5(e Labor Arbiter 'rants pa1ment o* 0ama'es to Santos -(ic( -as vacate0 on appeal b1 t(e NLRC. On an MR, t(e NLRC *o%n0 Santos ille'all1 0ismisse0 6 recommen0e0 t(at (e be pai0 act%al 0ama'es e$%ivalent to (is salaries *or t(e %ne8pire0 portion o* (is contract. MRs -ere 0enie0, (ence t(is petition. 7ss%e, 9ON MHC is liable to Santos. Hel0, 4rante0. &iercin' t(e veil o* corporate *iction : *act t(at MHC is an incorporator 6 o-ns ;!< o* t(e capital stoc. o* MH7CL is not eno%'( to pierce t(e veil. =ven i* -e ass%me, NLRC (a0 3%ris0iction over t(e case 6 MH7CL -as liable *or Santos> retrenc(ment, still MHC, as a separate 6 0istinct 3%ri0ical entit1, cannot be (el0 liable. &iercin' t(e veil is an e$%itable reme01. 9(en t(e notion o* le'al entit1 is %se0 to 0e*eat p%blic convenience, 3%sti*1 -ron', protect *ra%0, or 0e*en0 crime, t(e la- -ill re'ar0 t(e corp as an association o* persons. 7t is 0one onl1 -(en t(e corp is a mere alter e'o or b%siness con0%it o* a person or anot(er corp. ? Clear 6 convincin' evi0ence is nee0e0 to pierce t(e veil o* corporate *iction. 5(ere is no s%c( evi0ence to s(ot(at MH7CL 6 MHC are 1 6 t(e same entit1. ? 5est to enable piercin' o* t(e veil, e8cept in e8press a'enc1, estoppel or 0irect tort, a"Control, not mere ma3orit1 or complete 0omination@ b"S%c( control m%st (ave eAbeen %se0 b1 t(e 0e*en0ant to commit *ra%0 or -ron', etc.@ c"5(e a*oresai0 control 6 breac( o* 0%t1 m%st appro8imatel1 ca%se t(e in3%r1 or %n3%st loss complaine0 o*. ? +act t(at t(e &alace Hotel is a member o* t(e Manila Hotel 4ro%p is not eno%'( to pierce t(e corporate veil : t(ere is no evi0ence to s(o- t(at t(e1 are 1 6 t(e same entit1. ? Contrar1 to -(at Santos claims t(at MH7CL si'ne0 (is emplo1ment contract, MH7CL )iceB&resi0ent si'ne0 as a mere -itness %n0er t(e -or0 Cnote0>. +%rt(ermore, t(ere is no ==R bet-een Santos 6 MH7CL.