New employer cannot evade obligations incurred by predecessor-in-interest
In Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission (210 SCRA 277 [1992], in Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (247 SCRA 386 [1995]), and then only most recently, in the resolution of 12 July 1996 in Corral vs. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court categorically declared: PCPPIs defense that it is a separate and distinct corporation and thus free from the obligations incurred by its predecessor PCD was rejected by this Court not once but twice, in the cases of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. vs. NLRC and Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC. Clearly, it is judicially settled that PCPPI, PCDs successor-in-interest, is answerable for the liabilities incurred by the latter, the obstinacy of PCPPI notwithstanding. PCPPI can no longer successfully evade its responsibilities in the face of the foregoing pronouncements of this Court. [G.R. No. 117945. November 13, 1996]