By: Ed Morales

MANILA — Sixteen salesladies from several Divisoria mall outlet stores have challenged a ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Fifth Division, which reversed an earlier order enforcing a writ of execution and notices of garnishment on the bank deposits of alleged employers Fuhang Wu and Meili Zhang Wu amounting to P13 million.

In a resolution obtained by Republika News dated November 4, 2025, the NLRC granted the Wus’ motion for reconsideration, setting aside the writ of execution and garnishment notices after the couple claimed they were never served summons or a copy of the complaint, and that the NLRC therefore had not acquired jurisdiction over them.

The reversal contradicted the NLRC’s own October 15, 2025 decision, which had denied the Wus’ petition and upheld the validity of the summons service. In that earlier ruling, the Commission stated:

“At the outset, the LBC Track and Trace summary16 presented by petitioners to support their claim of lack of service of summons cannot be given any weight for being incomplete and self-serving. A thorough examination of the complete tracking records on file reveals that summons were actually served to petitioners on 30 May 2024, but they refused to accept the same. A second attempt to serve the summons was made on 31 May 2024 but petitioners again declined to accept service. A third attempt made on 01 June 2024 likewise proved futile due to petitioners’ continued refusal.

Records of the case further reveals that due to petitioners’ repeated refusal to accept the summons sent through courier service, the NLRC Bailiff proceeded to personally serve the summons to petitioner on 25 June 2024. However, as reflected in the Bailiff’s Return, petitioners again refused to receive the same. Accordingly, the Bailiff left a copy of the summons at the given address.”

Despite these findings, the NLRC later ruled that the summons had not been served at the Wus’ actual address.

In their November 14, 2025 motion for reconsideration, the 16 salesladies argued that the Wus’ company, Qing Tian Enterprises Corp., engages in trading activities similar to the businesses where they worked as salesladies and cashiers—establishments they claim are owned and operated by the Wus through dummies.

They said this setup makes it easy for the Wus to manipulate business records. The salesladies also pointed to a certification from the Manila City Government showing that Qing Tian Enterprises Corp. has no business permit at its registered address in Manila, which they said supports their claim that the firm is merely a front for alleged illegal business operations.

They added that the Wus failed to present proof of their store locations, reinforcing the workers’ claim that they operate through dummies.

The salesladies insisted that the NLRC should have relied on the Bailiff’s Return—“which enjoy presumption of regularity”—rather than what they described as the Wus’ “invented stories.” They maintained that summons had been served at the place where the Wus were doing business.

The workers asked the NLRC to reinstate the garnishment and execution orders to enforce their claims.