III. On August 01, 2008, Y, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of textile garments, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Union X in representation of the rank and-file employees of the corporation. The CBA was effective up to June 20, 2011. The contract had an automatic renewal clause which would allow the agreement after its expiry date to still apply until both parties would have been able to execute a new agreement. On May 10, 2011, Union X submitted to Y's management their proposals for the negotiation of a new CBA. The next day, Y suspended negotiations with Union X since Y had entered into a merger with z,· a corporation also engaged in the manufacture of textile garments. Z assumed all the assets and liabilities of Y. Union X filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court for specific performance and damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction against Y and Z and Z filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. (5%) X was one of more than one hundred (100) employees who were terminated from employment due to the closure of Construction Corporation A. The Cruz family owned Construction Company A. Upon the closure of Construction Company A, the Cruzes established Construction Company B. Both corporations had the same president, the same board of directors, the same corporate officers, and all the same subscribers. From the General Information Sheet filed by both companies, it also showed that they shared the same address and/or premises. . Both companies also hired the same accountant who prepared the books for both companies. X and his co-employees amended their Complaint with the Labor Arbiter to hold Construction Corporation 8 joint and severally liable with Construction Company A for illegal dismissal, backwages and separation pay. Construction Company 8 interposed a Motion to Dismiss contending that they are juridical entities with distinct and separate personalities from Construction Corporation A and therefore, they cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the money claims of workers who are not their employees. Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it be granted or denied? Why? (5%)