COBLAW2

V24

Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency vs. Torres, G.R. No.
92357

Relevant Facts
PGA Brother Association filed a petition seeking a certification election for the employees of the
three security agencies under “PGA Security Agency”. The involved parties are PSVSIA
(Philippine Scouts Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, GVM (GVM Security and
Investigation Agency, Inc.), and ASDA (Abaquin Security and Detective Agency, Inc.). The
Petitioners argued their concern on the significant change in the name from PSVSIA to FVSIA
(Filipino Veterans Security and Investigation Agency). The change in identity led to a legal
dispute with the SEC Commission wherefore the SEC Commission filed a cease and desist
order against FVSIA for operating as a security agency without the appropriate license.
However, FVSIA fired back by stating that FVSIA is merely a continuation of PSVSIA and
should not be held liable for its obligation.

Issue
The main issue, in this case, is whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies to
FVSIA. The doctrine allows for the overlook of the separate legal identity of a corporation and
holds its stakeholders accountable for corporate responsibilities under certain conditions.
Therefore, the argument revolves around whether FVSIA’s changes in corporate identity can
shield it from liability for actions and obligations undertaken during its earlier entity as PSVSIA.

Ruling
The argument set forth by the petitioners was that the three security companies should be
treated as one instead of three separate entities for labor union purposes.

Here’s why:
● Security guards can easily transfer between the companies
● The companies share activities and communication
● No explanation is provided for why these separate entities exist if they operate as one

Based on the argument above, the petition argued for:

● To ignore the separate legal entities of the companies
● To form a single union labor for all employees across the three agencies
COBLAW2
V24
● To have only one certificate election for the union

McDonald's Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak, Inc., G.R., 143993

Relevant Facts
McDonald’s, one of the biggest international franchises, filed a dispute case with a local
company, L.C. Big Mak Burger over a trademark name “Big Mac”, which was registered
by McDonald’s in 1979. Later, L.C. Big Mak Burger registered its own trademark, “Big
Mak”. In spite of L.C. Big Mak Burger’s denial of its resemblance and intent to deceive
its customers, McDonald’s sued them over trademark infringement and unfair
competition in 1990. The court sided with McDonald’s and issued a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction that prevented L.C. Big Mak Burger from
using the name “Big Mak” in NCR.

Issues
The main issue in this case is whether or not L.C. Big Mak’s adoption of a trademark closely
resembling a trademark owned by McDonald’s amounted to infringement and is liable for unfair
competition.

Ruling
Rightfully so, the court ruled in favor of McDonald’s, citing that the use of “Big Mak” by the L.C.
Big Mak Burger could potentially confuse the consumers. With the dominancy test, several
factors such as aural, phonetic, and visual semblance are raised as potentially confusing
elements. With this, it has been decided that L.C. Big Mak Burger's misuse of the trademark of
McDonald’s is intentionally produced to deceive its consumers and latch onto the reputation of
the Big Mac trademark owned by McDonald’s.
COBLAW2
V24
Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation vs. Coros, G.R. No. 157802

Relevant Facts
After being terminated from his position, Ricardo R. Coros, filed a complaint against an illegal
dismissal of his position as the Vice President of Finance and Administration against Matling
Industrial and Commercial Corporation. The said corporation attempted to dismiss the dismissal,
citing that it should have been under the jurisdiction of the SEC since it is an internal matter, as
Ricardo Coros is also a board member. Ricardo Coros disputed this claim due to the nature of
his status as a member of the board while at the same time, he held no share of the company’s
stocks. Coros subsequently stated that he was removed as the Vice President and not as a
Director.

Issues
The main dispute is whether Ricardo Coros did qualify as a corporate officer and whether the
jurisdiction should fall under the SEC or the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission).

Ruling
The court denied the appeal of Ricardo Coros. This is because in most usual cases, the LA
(Labor Arbiter) handles employee termination within a private company. However, when it
comes to the SEC, the agency usually involves themselves with terminated corporate officers,
which then becomes an internal corporational dispute.