Scribd
Upload
161 views1 page

Yupangco Cotton Mills

Yupangco Cotton Mills filed an affidavit to invalidate the sale of Artex Development Company's properties to Mendoza. This was compensation for back wages owed to former ADC employees represented by SAMAR. The labor arbiter and RTC Manila denied Yupangco's claims. Yupangco then filed a robbery case against Mendoza. The Supreme Court ruled that Yupangco's third-party claim as the new owner of ADC's properties was not valid as it was a different case from the labor dispute. The sale was guaranteed by the labor arbiter's decision, so the robbery case was also improper.

Uploaded by

Laurene Ashley S Quiros
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
161 views1 page

Yupangco Cotton Mills

Yupangco Cotton Mills filed an affidavit to invalidate the sale of Artex Development Company's properties to Mendoza. This was compensation for back wages owed to former ADC employees represented by SAMAR. The labor arbiter and RTC Manila denied Yupangco's claims. Yupangco then filed a robbery case against Mendoza. The Supreme Court ruled that Yupangco's third-party claim as the new owner of ADC's properties was not valid as it was a different case from the labor dispute. The sale was guaranteed by the labor arbiter's decision, so the robbery case was also improper.

Uploaded by

Laurene Ashley S Quiros
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC. VS.

MENDOZA
G.R. No. 139912 March 31, 2005

FACTS: Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc., new owner of the Artex Development Company and its
properties, filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim with the Labor Arbiter to invalidate the sale of
ADC’s properties to Mendoza as a compensation for the backwages of ADC’s former
employees represented by SAMAR. The claim was denied which prompted Yupangco to file a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC Manila but was also denied. YMCI then filed a
case of robbery against Mendoza.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of third-party claim by YMCI is valid.

RULING: NO. Yupangco’s third-party claim as the owner of the properties pertains to a case
very different from the one for which the subject execution was made. Hence, it is not binding on
the respondents. The sale is guaranteed by the decision of the Labor Arbiter in the labor case
between SAMAR and ADC. Hence, the filing of the criminal case of robbery is not proper. The
proper remedy is an action before the NLRC which had control over the respondents in lieu of
the labor case.

You might also like