- Mon - Sun: 24/7 online service for you

The Intervenor cited the case of Daniel S.L. Borbon v. Hon. Bienvenido B. Laguesma, [8] G.R. No. 101766, March 5, 1993, where the Court recognized the separation of the employees of Magnolia from the SMC bargaining unit. It then prayed for the lifting of the temporary restraining order. ... [18] See Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILL WORKERS UNION V. CALICA (205 SCRA 698) Rule: The doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity applies when corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or when it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues or where a corporation is the mere alter ego ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
On June 6, 1961, employees of RANSOM, most of them being members of petitioner Labor UNION, went on strike and established a picket line which, however, was lifted on June 21st with most of the strikers returning and being allowed to resume their work by RANSOM. Twenty-two (22) strikers were refused reinstatement by the Company.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
The statute is a sort of codification of American Corporate Law. xHarden v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 58 Phil. 141 (1933). 2. The Corporation Law The first corporate statute, the Corporation Law, or Act No. 1459, became effective on 1 April 1906. It had various piece-meal amendments during its 74 year history.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
the issues are (1) whether the union's failure to disclose the pendency of ncmb-ncr-ns-05-167-96 in its certification of non-forum shopping and its failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the order, dated july 2, 1996, of the trial court were fatal to its petition for review before the court of appeals; and (2) whether petitioner has .
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Lately, in the case of Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica, although it was shown that two corporations business are related, that some of the employees of the two corporations are interchanged, and that the physical plants, offices and facilities are situated in the same compound, were not considered bases to pierce the veil of ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Indophil Textile Mill vs. CALICA-How do you distinguish this ruling to La Campana, having the same issues:-La campana, one payroll, employees were made interchangeable. Acrylic had its own standards PNB vs. Ritratto Group-Control test-Not mere complete majority but rather Twin ace was only a subsequent interested party-Assets and machineries-
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
In Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica, [41] the Court ruled, thus: In the case at bar, petitioner seeks to pierce the veil of corporate entity of Acrylic, alleging that the creation of the corporation is a devise to evade the application of the CBA between petitioner Union and private respondent Company.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
teodorico p. calica is impleaded in his official capacity as the voluntary arbitrator of the national conciliation and mediation board of the department of labor and employment, while private respondent indophil textile mills, inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture,... sale and export of yarns of various counts and kinds and of .
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Nov 19, 2021INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILL WORKERS UNION PTGWO VS. CALICA G.R. No. 124715 FACTS OF THE CASE In April, 1987, petitioner Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO and private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. executed a collective bargaining agreement effective from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990. Meanwhile, Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Cdpr The Supreme Court denied herein petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC. It held that the NLRC was correct in finding that the workers were illegally dismissed. Wanting in this case is the strict compliance of the mandatory requirements of substantive and procedural due process to effect a valid dismissal of employees. SYLLABUS 1.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
V.V.M. NV- kaai 0365 VHO Kluizendok - Kaai 7840A VLS-Group Gent DDS Shipping Tank Opslag Verbeke NV Monsin - Ausa Somef Cruise Terminal - kaai 103 -104 GFS nv NHM nv - kaai 608-609 PROVIRON SAGREX Ter Polder NV DDS Puurs Mouterij Albert NV Prayon NV Tessenderlo Chemie Ham Belgian Scrap Terminal NV Matramat NV RCT Stevedoring NV TCT Belgium NV ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma (263 SCRA 595) Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union v. Calica (205 SCRA 697) San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. Confessor (262 SCRA 81) Phil. Scout Veterans v. Torres (224 SCRA 682) Dunlop v. Sec. of Labor. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors v. Laguesma (277 SCRA 370) Kapisanan ng mga Manggawa sa Manila Railroad v.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 529 (1990); Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992); Uichico v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 35 (1997); San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 631 (1998); Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 315 (1999); Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Indo Phil, the first Indian-Filipino joint venture textile plant in the Philippines, went on stream in 1975, set up by the late Mr. Aditya Vikram Birla. A fruition of his global vision, long before the word globalization entered the lexicon of the corporate world. Indo Phil in 1975, commenced operations with approximately 15,500 spindles and 500 employees. As the unit grew from strength to ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Respondent Teodorico P. Calica is impleaded in his official capacity as the Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and Employment, while private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and export of yarns of various counts and
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 3 April 1998 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered ORDERING respondent Peggy Mills, Inc. to pay complainant his retirement pay equivalent to 22.5 days for every year of service for his twelve (12) years of service from 1980 to 1992 based on a salary rate of P50,495.00 a month.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
In April, 1987, petitioner Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO and private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. executed a collective bargaining agreement effective from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990. On November 3, 1967 Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing Corporation was formed and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
BA7107 - Legal Aspects of Business - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. This file contains the university question bank for the subject -legal aspects. Old regulation. New regulation 2013 questions are yet to come .
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Indophil Textile Mills, Incorporated. Respondent Teodorico P. Calica is impleaded in his official capacity as the Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and Employment, while private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Rahim Textile Mills. Annual Report; Audited Financial Statements; Quarterly Report; Price Sensitive; Date Title; Annual Report -2020-2021: Download PDF: Annual Report -2019-2020: Download PDF: Annual Report -2018-2019: Download PDF: Annual Report -2017-2018: Download PDF: Annual Report -2016-2017: Download PDF:
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Calica and Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. FACTS:In the given case, the petitioner union and respondent company executed a Collective Bargaining agreement to be effective from April 1987 to March 1990. Meanwhile, on November 1987, Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing was formed and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
The statute is a sort of codification of American Corporate Law. xHarden v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 58 Phil. 141 (1933). 2. The Corporation Law The first corporate statute, the Corporation Law, or Act No. 1459, became effective on 1 April 1906. It had various piece-meal amendments during its 74 year history.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
5 Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992). 6 Malolos v. Asia Pacific Finance Corp., 147 SCRA 61 (1987). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
CA 343 SCRA 674 • Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners vs. CA, 276 SCRA 681 • Fleischer vs. Botica Nolasco, 47 Phil 583 • Government of the Philippines vs. El Hogar, 50 Phil 399 THE CORPORATE ENTITY • Stockholders of F. Guanson and Sons, Inc. vs, Register of Deeds, 6 SCRA 373 • Caram vs. CA. 151 SCRA 638 • J,G. Summit Holdings, Inc. vs ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Thus, in Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union vs. Calica, 16 we ruled that: [I]n the case at bar, petitioner seeks to pierce the veil of corporate entity of Acrylic, alleging that the creation of the corporation is a devise to evade the application of the CBA between petitioner Union and private respondent company.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
In Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica, 41 the Court ruled, thus: In the case at bar, petitioner seeks to pierce the veil of corporate entity of Acrylic, alleging that the creation of the corporation is a devise to evade the application of the CBA between petitioner Union and private respondent Company.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
In April, 1987, petitioner Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO and private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. executed a collective bargaining agreement effective from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990. On November 3, 1987, Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing Corporation was formed and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
In April, 1987, petitioner Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO and private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. executed a collective bargaining agreement effective from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990. On November 3, 1967 Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing Corporation was formed and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Universal Mills Corp. v. Universal Textile Mills Inc., 78 SCRA 62 (1977). Section 18 of Corporation Code expressly prohibits the use of a corporate name which is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Ople47 and Indophil Textile Mill Worker Union v. Calica48 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.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v Calica. JL A H-d. Duterte vs Sandiganbayan Digest. Jay Suarez. 04-20-2016 ECF 438 USA v DYLAN ANDERSON - Dylan Anderson Release Conditions. Jack Ryan (3)Pamplona Plantation Co vs Tinghil. Jerik Solas. Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 180 Scra 218 (1989) JezenEstherB.Pati.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
View Piercing the Veil - NAFLU vs Ople.pdf from CORPO 101 at Arellano University Law School. TOPIC Case Name PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNION (NAFLU) AND
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
The trial court decided the case on June 26, 1985, in favor of petitioner in regard to the petitioner's claim for money, but also allowed the counter-claim of private respondents. Both parties appealed. On April 15, 1991, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's decision. 5 Hence, the present petition.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
contention that Acrylic is part of the Indophil bargaining uni. The union alleged that: 1. Both corporations are engaged in the same line of business. 2. Both have their physical plants, offices and facilities in the same compound. 3. Many of Indophil Textile's machines were transferred and installed and were being used in Acrylic .4.
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILL WORKERS UNION PTGWO VS. CALICA. G.R. No. 124715. FACTS OF THE CASE. In April, 1987, petitioner Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO and private respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. executed a collective bargaining agreement effective from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990. ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
INDO PHIL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. Barrio Lambakin, Marilao Bulacan, Philippines THE OFFICE BY : PATE. -DEC 0 2 20 aolU- 12- OF 0? Mani/Comm/ 202/3/2016 18 October 2016 We have received a representation from indo Phii Textile on some of the chaiienaes which thev face operatincr in the Phiiinpines. You would recall that indo Phil Textile, a
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
CA, 189 SCRA 529 (1990); Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992). (c) Piercing is not available when the personal obligations of an individual are sought to be enforced against the corporation. xRobledo v. NLRC, 238 SCRA 52 (1994)
WhatsApp:+8617329420102
Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO vs. Voluntary Arbitrator Teodorico P. Calica and Indophil Textile Mills, Inc., in the case of Diatagon Labor Federation Local 110 of the ULGWP v. Ople (supra) that it is grave abuse of discretion to treat two companies as a single bargaining unit when these companies are indubitably distinct entities ...
WhatsApp:+8617329420102