This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Pamplona Plantation Company v. Acosta,[24] petitioner therein raised for the first time in its appeal to the NLRC that respondents therein were not its employees but of another company. In brushing aside this defense, the Court held: x x x Petitioner is estopped from denying that respondents worked for it. In the first place, it never raised this defense in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Notably, the defense it raised pertained to the nature of respondents' employment, i.e., whether they are seasonal employees, contractors, or worked under the pakyaw system. Thus, in its Position Paper, petitioner alleged that some of the respondents are coconut filers and copra hookers or sakadors; some are seasonal employees who worked as scoopers or lugiteros; some are contractors; and some worked under the pakyaw system. In support of these allegations, petitioner even presented the company's payroll which will allegedly prove its allegations. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, this Court in Pamplona Plantation Company, Inc. v. Tinghil[23] and Pamplona Plantation Company v. Acosta[24] had pierced the veil of corporate fiction and declared that the two corporations,[25] PPLC and the herein respondent, are one and the same. | |||||