Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

THIRD DIVISIO

ARMANDO ALILING,
Petitione!"


# $e!sus #


JOSE B. FELICIANO,
MANUEL BERS%MI" JJ
.
F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R.
LARIOSA, and WIDE
WIDE P!o&ulgate'(
WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Respon'ents)
G.R.
No. 1858!

P!esent(

VE*%SCO"
+R)" J)"
Chai!pe!son
PER%*T%"
%B%D"
MEDO,%"
an'
PER*%S#
BER%BE" JJ
)


P!o&ulgate'(

%p!il -." -/0-
1#########################################################################################1

D E C I S I O N


"ELASCO, JR., J.#

T$% Ca&%


This Petition fo! Re$ie2 on Ce!tio!a!i un'e! Rule 3. assails an' see4s to set
asi'e the +uly 5" -//6 Decision
708
an' Dece&be! 0." -//6 Resolution
7-8
of the Cou!t
of %ppeals 9C%:" in C%#;)R) SP o) 0/05/<" entitle' Armando Aliling v. National
Labor Relations Commission, Wide Wide World Express Corporation, Jose B.
Feliciano, Manel F. !an Mateo """ and Josep# R. Lariosa) The assaile' issuances
&o'ifie' the Resolutions 'ate' May 50" -//=
758
an' %ugust 50" -//=
738
!en'e!e' by
the ational *abo! Relations Co&&ission 9*RC: in *RC CR Case o) //#
0/#000>>#-//3" affi!&ing the Decision 'ate' %p!il -." -//>
7.8
of the *abo!
%!bite!)
T$% Fa'(&

Via a lette! 'ate' +une -" -//3"
7>8
!espon'ent ?i'e ?i'e ?o!l' E1p!ess
Co!po!ation 9???EC: offe!e' to e&ploy petitione! %!&an'o %liling 9%liling: as
@Accont Exective $!ea%reig#t !ales&"A 2ith the follo2ing co&pensation pac4age(
a &onthly sala!y of PhP 05"///" t!anspo!tation allo2ance of PhP 5"///" clothing
allo2ance of PhP 6//" cost of li$ing allo2ance of PhP .//" each payable on a pe!
&onth basis an' a 03
th
&onth pay 'epen'ing on the p!ofitability an' a$ailability of
financial !esou!ces of the co&pany) The offe! ca&e 2ith a si1 9>:#&onth p!obation
pe!io' con'ition 2ith this e1p!ess ca$eat( '(er%ormance dring )sic* probationar+
period s#all be made as basis %or con%irmation to Reglar or (ermanent !tats.A

On +une 00" -//3" %liling an' ???EC in4e' an Emplo+ment
Contract
7=8
un'e! the follo2ing te!&s" a&ong othe!s(

Con$e!sion to !egula! status shall be 'ete!&ine' on the basis of 2o!4
pe!fo!&anceB an'

E&ploy&ent se!$ices &ay" at any ti&e" be te!&inate' fo! Cust cause o! in
acco!'ance 2ith the stan'a!'s 'efine' at the ti&e of engage&ent)
768

T!aining then sta!te') Ho2e$e!" instea' of a Seaf!eight Sale assign&ent"
???EC as4e' %liling to han'le ;!oun' E1p!ess 9;D:" a ne2 co&pany p!o'uct
launche' on +une 06" -//3 in$ol$ing 'o&estic ca!go fo!2a!'ing se!$ice fo! *uEon)
Ma!4eting this p!o'uct an' fin'ing 'aily cont!acts fo! it fo!&e' the co!e of
%lilingFs ne2 assign&ent)

Ba!ely a &onth afte!" Manuel G) San Mateo III 9San Mateo:" ???EC Sales
an' Ma!4eting Di!ecto!" e&aile' %liling
7<8
to e1p!ess 'issatisfaction 2ith the
latte!Fs pe!fo!&ance" thus(

%!&an'"

My e1pectations is 7sic8 that ;D Shuttles shoul' be 6/H full by the 5
!'
2ee4
9%ugust .: afte! launch 9+uly 0.:) Pls) &a4e that happen) It has been &o!e than a
&onth since you ca&e in) I a& e1pecting sales to be pu&ping in by no2) Than4s)

onong

The!eafte!" in a lette! of Septe&be! -." -//3"
70/8
+oseph R) *a!iosa 9*a!iosa:"
Hu&an Resou!ces Manage! of ???EC" as4e' %liling to !epo!t to the Hu&an
Resou!ces Depa!t&ent to e1plain his absence ta4en 2ithout lea$e f!o& Septe&be!
-/" -//3)

%liling !espon'e' t2o 'ays late!) He 'enie' being absent on the 'ays in
Iuestion" attaching to his !eply#lette!
7008
a copy of his ti&esheet
70-8
2hich sho2e'
that he 2o!4e' f!o& Septe&be! -/ to -3" -//3) %lilingFs e1planation ca&e 2ith a
Iue!y !ega!'ing the 2ithhol'ing of his sala!y co!!espon'ing to Septe&be! 00 to -."
-//3)

In a sepa!ate lette! 'ate' Septe&be! -=" -//3"
7058
%liling 2!ote San
Mateo stating( @Pu!suant to you! inst!uction on Septe&be! -/" -//3" I he!eby
ten'e! &y !esignation effecti$e Octobe! 0." -//3)A ?hile ???EC too4 no action
on his ten'e!" %liling nonetheless 'e&an'e' !einstate&ent an' a 2!itten apology"
clai&ing in a subseIuent lette! 'ate' Octobe! 0" -//3
7038
to &anage&ent that San
Mateo ha' fo!ce' hi& to !esign)

*a!iosaFs !esponse#lette! of Octobe! 0" -//3"
70.8
info!&e' %liling that his
case 2as &()** )n ($% +,o'%&& o- .%)n/ %0a*1a(%d) On Octobe! >" -//3"
70>8
*a!iosa
again 2!ote" this ti&e to a'$ise %liling of the te!&ination of his se!$ices effecti$e
as of that 'ate o2ing to his @non,satis%actor+ per%ormanceA 'u!ing his p!obationa!y
pe!io') Reco!'s sho2 that %liling" fo! the pe!io' in'icate'" 2as pai' his
outstan'ing sala!y 2hich consiste' of(

PhP 3"<66)06 9sala!y fo! the Septe&be! -." -//3 pay!oll:
0"<6=)-6 9sala!y fo! 3 'ays in Octobe! -//3:
#############
PhP >"<=.)3> Total

Ea!lie!" ho2e$e!" o! on Octobe! 3" -//3" %liling file' a Co&plaint
70=8
fo!
illegal 'is&issal 'ue to fo!ce' !esignation" nonpay&ent of sala!ies as 2ell as
'a&ages 2ith the *RC against ???EC) %ppen'e' to the co&plaint 2as
%lilingFs %ffi'a$it 'ate' o$e&be! 0-" -//3"
7068
in 2hich he state'( @-. At t#e time
o% m+ engagement, respondents did not ma.e .no/n to me t#e standards nder
/#ic# " /ill 0ali%+ as a reglar emplo+ee.1

Refuting %lilingFs basic postu!e" ???EC state' in its Position Pape! 'ate'
o$e&be! --" -//3
70<8
that" in a''ition to the lette!#offe! an' e&ploy&ent cont!act
a'$e!te' to" ???EC an' %liling ha$e signe' a lette! of appoint&ent
7-/8
on +une
00" -//3 containing the follo2ing te!&s of engage&ent(

%''itionally" 1+on ($% %--%'()0)(2 o- 2o1, +,o.a()on, 2o1 and 2o1, )33%d)a(%
&1+%,)o, a,% ,%41),%d (o 5o)n(*2 d%-)n% 2o1, o.5%'()0%& co&pa!e' 2ith the Cob
!eIui!e&ents of the position) Base' on the p!e#ag!ee' obCecti$es, 2o1,
+%,-o,3an'% &$a** .% ,%0)%6%d on ($% 7
,d
3on($ (o a&&%&& 2o1, 'o3+%(%n'%
and 6o,8 a(()(1d%. T$% 5
($
3on($ P%,-o,3an'% A++,a)&a* &$a** .% ($% .a&)& )n
%*%0a()n/ o, 'on-),3)n/ 2o1, %3+*o23%n( &(a(1& -,o3 P,o.a()ona,2 (o
R%/1*a,)

Gailu!e to &eet the Cob !eIui!e&ents 'u!ing the p!obation stage &eans that you!
se!$ices &ay be te!&inate' 2ithout p!io! notice an' 2ithout !ecou!se to
sepa!ation pay)

???EC also attache' to its Position Pape! a &e&o 'ate' Septe&be! -/"
-//3
7-08
in 2hich San Mateo as4e' %liling to e1plain 2hy he shoul' not be
te!&inate' fo! failu!e to &eet the e1pecte' Cob pe!fo!&ance" consi'e!ing that the
loa' facto! fo! the ;D Shuttles fo! the pe!io' +uly to Septe&be! 2as only /)06H as
oppose' to the allege'ly ag!ee' upon loa' of 6/H ta!gete' fo! %ugust ." -//3)
%cco!'ing to ???EC" %liling" instea' of e1plaining hi&self" si&ply sub&itte' a
!esignation lette!)

In a Reply#%ffi'a$it 'ate' Dece&be! 05" -//3"
7--8
%liling 'enie' ha$ing
!ecei$e' a copy of San MateoFs Septe&be! -/" -//3 lette!)

Issues ha$ing been Coine'" the *abo! %!bite! issue' on %p!il -." -//>
7-58
a
Decision 'ecla!ing %lilingFs te!&ination as unCustifie') In its pe!tinent pa!ts" the
'ecision !ea's(

The g!oun's upon 2hich co&plainantFs 'is&issal 2as base' 'i' not
confo!& not only the stan'a!' but also the co&pliance !eIui!e' un'e! %!ticle -60
of the *abo! Co'e" ecessa!ily" co&plainantFs te!&ination is not Custifie' fo!
failu!e to co&ply 2ith the &an'ate the la2 !eIui!es) Respon'ents shoul' be
o!'e!e' (o +a2 &a*a,)%& 'o,,%&+ond)n/ (o ($% 1n%9+),%d +o,()on o- ($% 'on(,a'(
o- %3+*o23%n( an' all othe! benefits a&ounting to a total of THIRTJ GIVE
THOUS%D EI;HT HUDRED E*EVE PESOS 9P5."600)//: co$e!ing the
pe!io' f!o& Octobe! > to Dece&be! =" -//3" co&pute' as follo2s(


Une1pi!e' Po!tion of the Cont!act(

Basic Sala!y P05"///)//
T!anspo!tation 5"///)//
Clothing %llo2ance 6//)//
ECO*% .//)//
##############
P1:,7;;.;;


1;<;=<;> ? 1<;:<;>
P1:,7;;.;; 9 .: 3o&. @ P75,811.;;

Co&plainantFs 05
th
&onth pay p!opo!tionately fo! -//3 2as not sho2n to
ha$e been pai' to co&plainant" !espon'ent be &a'e liable to hi& the!efo!e
co&pute' at SID THOUS%D GIVE HUDRED THIRTJ T?O PESOS %D
./K0// 9P>".5-)./:)

Go! engaging the se!$ices of counsel to p!otect his inte!est" co&plainant is
li4e2ise entitle' to a 0/H atto!neyFs fees of the Cu'g&ent a&ount) Such othe!
clai&s fo! lac4 of basis sufficient to suppo!t fo! thei! g!ant a!e un2a!!ante')

?HEREGORE" Cu'g&ent is he!eby !en'e!e' o!'e!ing !espon'ent
co&pany to pay co&plainant %!&an'o %liling the su& of THIRTJ GIVE
THOUS%D EI;HT HUDRED E*EVE PESOS 9P5."600)//: !ep!esenting
his sala!ies an' othe! benefits as 'iscusse' abo$e)

Respon'ent co&pany is li4e2ise o!'e!e' to pay sai' co&plainant the
a&ount of TE THOUS%D SEVE HUDRED SIDTJ SID PESOS %D
6.K0// O*J 90/)=>>)6.: !ep!esenting his p!opo!tionate 05
th
&onth pay fo! -//3
plus 0/H of the total Cu'g&ent as an' by 2ay of atto!neyFs fees)

Othe! clai&s a!e he!eby 'enie' fo! lac4 of &e!it) 9E&phasis supplie'):


The labo! a!bite! ga$e c!e'ence to %lilingFs allegation about not !ecei$ing
an'" the!efo!e" not boun' by" San MateoFs pu!po!te' Septe&be! -/" -//3 &e&o)
The &e&o" to !eite!ate" suppose'ly app!ise' %liling of the sales Iuota he 2as" but
faile'" to &eet) Pushing the point" the labo! a!bite! e1plaine' that %liling cannot be
$ali'ly te!&inate' fo! non#co&pliance 2ith the Iuota th!eshol' absent a p!io!
a'$iso!y of the !easonable stan'a!'s upon 2hich his pe!fo!&ance 2oul' be
e$aluate')

Both pa!ties appeale' the abo$e 'ecision to the *RC" 2hich affi!&e' the
Decision in toto in its Resolution 'ate' May 50" -//=) The sepa!ate &otions fo!
!econsi'e!ation 2e!e also 'enie' by the *RC in its Resolution 'ate' %ugust 50"
-//=)

The!ef!o&" %liling 2ent on ce!tio!a!i to the C%" 2hich e$entually !en'e!e'
the assaile' Decision" the 'ispositi$e po!tion of 2hich !ea's(
?HEREGORE" the petition is P%RT*J ;R%TED) The assaile'
Resolutions of !espon'ent 9Thi!' Di$ision: ational *abo! Relations Co&&ission
a!e %GGIRMED" 2ith the follo2ing MODIGIC%TIOKC*%RIGIC%TIO(
Respon'ents ?i'e ?i'e ?o!l' E1p!ess Co!p) an' its office!s" +ose B) Geliciano"
Manuel G) San Mateo III an' +oseph R) *a!iosa" a!e 5o)n(*2 and &%0%,a**2
*)a.*% to pay petitione! %!&an'o %liling( 9%: the su& of Go!ty T2o Thousan'
Th!ee Hun'!e' Thi!ty Th!ee L ./K0// 9P3-"555)./: as the total &oney Cu'g&ent"
9B: the su& of Gou! Thousan' T2o Hun'!e' Thi!ty Th!ee L 5.K0// 9P3"-55)5.:
as atto!neyFs fees" an' 9C: the a''itional su& eIui$alent to one#half 90K-: &onth
of petitione!Fs sala!y as sepa!ation pay)

SO ORDERED)
7-38
9E&phasis supplie'):


The C% ancho!e' its assaile' action on the st!ength of the follo2ing
p!e&ises( 9a: !espon'ents faile' to p!o$e that %lilingFs 'is&al pe!fo!&ance
constitute' g!oss an' habitual neglect necessa!y to Custify his 'is&issalB 9b: not
ha$ing been info!&e' at the ti&e of his engage&ent of the !easonable stan'a!'s
un'e! 2hich he 2ill Iualify as a !egula! e&ployee" %liling 2as 'ee&e' to ha$e
been hi!e' f!o& 'ay one as a !egula! e&ployeeB an' 9c: the st!aine' !elationship
e1isting bet2een the pa!ties a!gues against the p!op!iety of !einstate&ent)

%lilingFs &otion fo! !econsi'e!ation 2as !eCecte' by the C% th!ough the
assaile' Resolution 'ate' Dece&be! 0." -//6)

Hence" the instant petition)

T$% I&&1%&

%liling !aises the follo2ing issues fo! consi'e!ation(

%) The failu!e of the Cou!t of %ppeals to o!'e! !einstate&ent 9'espite
its fin'ing that petitione! 2as illegally 'is&isse' f!o& e&ploy&ent: is cont!a!y to
la2 an' applicable Cu!isp!u'ence)

B) The failu!e of the Cou!t of %ppeals to a2a!' bac42ages 9e$en if it
'i' not o!'e! !einstate&ent: is cont!a!y to la2 an' applicable Cu!isp!u'ence)
C) The failu!e of the Cou!t of %ppeals to a2a!' &o!al an' e1e&pla!y
'a&ages 9'espite its fin'ing that petitione! 2as 'is&isse' to p!e$ent the
acIuisition of his !egula! status: is cont!a!y to la2 an' applicable Cu!isp!u'ence)
7-.8

In thei! Co&&ent"
7->8
!espon'ents !eite!ate' thei! position that ???EC
hi!e' petitione! on a p!obationa!y basis an' fi!e' hi& befo!e he beca&e a !egula!
e&ployee)

T$% Co1,(A& R1*)n/

The petition is pa!tly &e!ito!ious)

P%()()on%, )& a ,%/1*a, %3+*o2%%

On a p!oce'u!al &atte!" petitione! %liling a!gues that ???EC" not ha$ing
appeale' f!o& the Cu'g&ent of C% 2hich 'ecla!e' %liling as a !egula! e&ployee
f!o& the ti&e he signe' the e&ploy&ent cont!act" is no2 p!eclu'e' f!o&
Iuestioning the appellate cou!tFs 'ete!&ination as to the natu!e of his e&ploy&ent)

Petitione! e!!s) The Cou!t has" 2hen a case is on appeal" the autho!ity to
!e$ie2 &atte!s not specifically !aise' o! assigne' as e!!o! if thei! consi'e!ation is
necessa!y in !eaching a Cust conclusion of the case) ?e sai' as &uch in !ociedad
Eropea de Financiacion, !A v. Cort o% Appeals"
7-=8
@It is a1io&atic that an
appeal" once accepte' by this Cou!t" th!o2s the enti!e case open to !e$ie2" an' that
this Cou!t has the autho!ity to !e$ie2 &atte!s not specifically !aise' o! assigne' as
e!!o! by the pa!ties" if thei! consi'e!ation is necessa!y in a!!i$ing at a Cust
!esolution of the case)A


The issue of 2hethe! o! not petitione! 2as" 'u!ing the pe!io' &ate!ial" a
p!obationa!y o! !egula! e&ployee is of pi$otal i&po!t) Its !esolution is 'oubtless
necessa!y at a!!i$ing at a fai! an' Cust 'isposition of the cont!o$e!sy)

The *abo! %!bite! c!yptically hel' in his 'ecision 'ate' %p!il -." -//> that(

Be that as it &ay" the!e appea!s no sho2ing that in'ee' the sai' Septe&be!
-/" -//3 Me&o!an'u& a''!esse' to co&plainant 2as !ecei$e' by hi&)
Mo!eo$e!" co&plainantFs tas4e' 2he!e he 2as assigne' 2as a ne2 'e$elope'
se!$ice) In this !ega!'" it is note'(

@Due p!ocess 'ictates that an e&ployee be app!ise' befo!ehan' of
the con'itions of his e&ploy&ent an' of the te!&s of a'$ance&ent the!ein)
P!ecisely" i&plicit in %!ticle -60 of the *abo! Co'e is the !eIui!e&ent that
!easonable stan'a!'s be p!e$iously &a'e 4no2n by the e&ploye! to the
e&ployee at the ti&e of his engage&ent 9Ibi'" citing Sa&ee! O$e!seas
Place&ent %gency" Inc) $s) *RC" ;)R) o) 05-.>3" Octobe! -/" 0<<<:)
7-68

G!o& ou! !e$ie2" it appea!s that the labo! a!bite!" an' late! the *RC"
consi'e!e' %liling a p!obationa!y e&ployee 'espite fin'ing that he 2as not
info!&e' of the !easonable stan'a!'s by 2hich his p!obationa!y e&ploy&ent 2as
to be Cu'ge')

The C%" on the othe! han'" citing Cielo v. National Labor Relations
Commission"
7-<8
!ule' that petitione! 2as a !egula! e&ployee f!o& the outset
inas&uch as he 2as not info!&e' of the stan'a!'s by 2hich his p!obationa!y
e&ploy&ent 2oul' be &easu!e') The C% 2!ote(

Petitione! 2as !egula!iEe' f!o& the ti&e of the e1ecution of the
e&ploy&ent cont!act on +une 00" -//3" although !espon'ent co&pany ha'
a!bit!a!ily sho!tene' his tenu!e) %s pointe' out" ,%&+ond%n( 'o3+an2 d)d no(
3a8% 8no6n ($% ,%a&ona.*% &(anda,d& 1nd%, 6$)'$ $% 6)** 41a*)-2 a& a
,%/1*a, %3+*o2%% a( ($% ()3% o- $)& %n/a/%3%n(. H%n'%, $% 6a& d%%3%d (o
$a0% .%%n $),%d -,o3 da2 on% a& a ,%/1*a, %3+*o2%%)
75/8
9E&phasis supplie'):

???EC" ho2e$e!" e1cepts on the a!gu&ent that it put %liling on notice
that he 2oul' be e$aluate' on the 5
!'
an' .
th
&onths of his p!obationa!y
e&ploy&ent) To ???EC" its effo!ts t!anslate to sufficient co&pliance 2ith the
!eIui!e&ent that a p!obationa!y 2o!4e! be app!ise' of the !easonable stan'a!'s fo!
his !egula!iEation) ???EC in$o4es the ensuing hol'ing in Alcira v. National
Labor Relations Commission
7508
to suppo!t its case(

Con$e!sely" an e&ploye! is 'ee&e' to substantially co&ply 2ith the !ule
on notification of stan'a!'s if he app!ises the e&ployee that he 2ill be subCecte'
to a pe!fo!&ance e$aluation on a pa!ticula! 'ate afte! his hi!ing) ?e ag!ee 2ith
the labo! a!bite! 2hen he !ule' that(

In the instant case" petitione! cannot successfully say that he 2as
ne$e! info!&e' by p!i$ate !espon'ent of the stan'a!'s that he &ust satisfy
in o!'e! to be con$e!te' into !egula! status) T$)& ,an& B&)'C 'o1n(%, (o ($%
a/,%%3%n( .%(6%%n ($% +a,()%& ($a( a-(%, -)0% 3on($& o- &%,0)'% ($%
+%()()on%,A& +%,-o,3an'% 6o1*d .% %0a*1a(%d. It is only but natu!al that
the e$aluation shoul' be &a'e $is#M#$is the pe!fo!&ance stan'a!'s fo! the
Cob) P!i$ate !espon'ent T!ifona Ma&a!a'lo spea4s of such stan'a!' in he!
affi'a$it !efe!!ing to the fact that petitione! 'i' not pe!fo!& 2ell in his
assigne' 2o!4 an' his attitu'e 2as belo2 pa! co&pa!e' to the co&panyFs
stan'a!' !eIui!e' of hi&) 9E&phasis supplie'):

???ECFs contention is untenable)

Alcira is cast un'e! a 'iffe!ent factual setting) The!e" the labo! a!bite!" the
*RC" the C%" an' e$en finally this Cou!t 2e!e one in thei! fin'ings that the
e&ployee conce!ne' 4ne2" ha$ing been 'uly info!&e' 'u!ing his engage&ent" of
the stan'a!'s fo! beco&ing a !egula! e&ployee) This is in sta!4 cont!ast to the
instant case 2he!e the ele&ent of being info!&e' of the !egula!iEing stan'a!'s
'oes not obtain) %s such" Alcira cannot be &a'e to apply to the instant case)

To note" the +une -" -//3 lette!#offe! itself states that the !egula!iEation
stan'a!'s o! the pe!fo!&ance no!&s to be use' a!e &()** (o .% a/,%%d 1+on .2
A*)*)n/ and $)& &1+%,0)&o,) ???EC has faile' to p!o$e that an ag!ee&ent as
!ega!'s the!eto has been !eache') Clea!ly then" the!e 2e!e actually no pe!fo!&ance
stan'a!'s to spea4 of) %n' lest it be o$e!loo4e'" %liling 2as assigne' to ;D
t!uc4ing sales" an acti$ity enti!ely 'iffe!ent to the Seaf!eight Sales he 2as
o!iginally hi!e' an' t!aine' fo!) Thus" at the ti&e of his engage&ent" the stan'a!'s
!elati$e to his assign&ent 2ith ;D sales coul' not ha$e plausibly been
co&&unicate' to hi& as he 2as un'e! Seaf!eight Sales) E$en fo! this !eason alone"
the conclusion !eache' in Alcira is of little !ele$ant to the instant case)

Base' on the facts establishe' in this case in light of e1tant Cu!isp!u'ence"
the C%Fs hol'ing as to the 4in' of e&ploy&ent petitione! enCoye' is co!!ect) So
2as the *RC !uling" affi!&ato!y of that of the labo! a!bite!) In the final analysis"
one co&&on th!ea' !uns th!ough the hol'ing of the labo! a!bite!" the *RC an'
the C%" i)e)" petitione! %liling" albeit hi!e' f!o& &anage&entFs stan'point as a
p!obationa!y e&ployee" 2as 'ee&e' a !egula! e&ployee by fo!ce of the follo2ing
self#e1planato!y p!o$isions(

A,()'*% 81 o- ($% La.o, Cod%

%RT) -60) (robationar+ emplo+ment) # P!obationa!y e&ploy&ent shall
not e1cee' si1 9>: &onths f!o& the 'ate the e&ployee sta!te' 2o!4ing" unless it is
co$e!e' by an app!enticeship ag!ee&ent stipulating a longe! pe!io') The se!$ices
of an e&ployee 2ho has been engage' on a p!obationa!y basis &ay be te!&inate'
fo! a Cust cause o! 2hen he fails to Iualify as a !egula! e&ployee in
acco!'ance 6)($ ,%a&ona.*% &(anda,d& 3ad% 8no6n .2 ($% %3+*o2%, (o ($%
%3+*o2%% a( ($% ()3% o- $)& %n/a/%3%n(. %n e&ployee 2ho is allo2e' to 2o!4
afte! a p!obationa!y pe!io' shall be consi'e!e' a !egula! e&ployee) 9E&phasis
supplie'):

S%'()on =BdC o- ($% I3+*%3%n()n/ R1*%& o- Boo8 "I, R1*% "IIIDA o- ($% La.o,
Cod%

Sec) >) (robationar+ emplo+ment) N The!e is p!obationa!y e&ploy&ent
2he!e the e&ployee" upon his engage&ent" is &a'e to un'e!go a t!ial pe!io'
2he!e the e&ployee 'ete!&ines his fitness to Iualify fo! !egula! e&ploy&ent"
base' on !easonable stan'a!'s &a'e 4no2n to hi& at the ti&e of engage&ent)
P!obationa!y e&ploy&ent shall be go$e!ne' by the follo2ing !ules(

1 1 1 1

BdC In a** 'a&%& of p!obationa!y e&ploy&ent, ($% %3+*o2%, &$a** 3a8%
8no6n to the e&ployee ($% &(anda,d& 1nd%, 6$)'$ $% 6)** 41a*)-2 a& a ,%/1*a,
%3+*o2%% a( ($% ()3% o- $)& %n/a/%3%n(. W$%,% no &(anda,d& a,% 3ad%
8no6n (o ($% %3+*o2%% a( ($a( ()3%, $% shall be d%%3%d a ,%/1*a,
%3+*o2%%. 9E&phasis supplie'):

To !epeat" the labo! a!bite!" *RC an' the C% a!e ag!ee'" on the basis of
'ocu&enta!y e$i'ence a''uce'" that !espon'ent ???EC 'i' not info!&
petitione! %liling of the !easonable stan'a!'s by 2hich his p!obation 2oul' be
&easu!e' against at the ti&e of his engage&ent) The Cou!t is loathe' to inte!fe!e
2ith this factual 'ete!&ination) %s ?e ha$e hel'(

S%((*%d )& ($% ,1*% ($a( ($% -)nd)n/& o- ($% La.o, A,.)(%,, 6$%n
a--),3%d .2 ($% NLRC and ($% Co1,( o- A++%a*&, a,% .)nd)n/ on ($%
S1+,%3% Co1,(, 1n*%&& +a(%n(*2 %,,on%o1&. It is not the function of the Sup!e&e
Cou!t to analyEe o! 2eigh all o$e! again the e$i'ence al!ea'y consi'e!e' in the
p!ocee'ings belo2) The Cu!is'iction of this Cou!t in a petition fo! !e$ie2 on
ce!tio!a!i is li&ite' to !e$ie2ing only e!!o!s of la2" not of fact" unless the factual
fin'ings being assaile' a!e not suppo!te' by e$i'ence on !eco!' o! the i&pugne'
Cu'g&ent is base' on a &isapp!ehension of facts)
75-8


The &o!e !ecent (e2a%rancia 3ors and 3ravel 3ransport, "nc., v.
!armiento
7558
has !eaffi!&e' the abo$e !uling" to 2it(

Ginally" the C% affi!&e' the !uling of the *RC an' a'opte' as its o2n
the latte!Os factual fin'ings) *ong#establishe' is the 'oct!ine that fin'ings of fact
of Iuasi#Cu'icial bo'ies 1 1 1 a!e acco!'e' !espect" e$en finality" if suppo!te' by
substantial e$i'ence) ?hen passe' upon an' uphel' by the C%" they a!e bin'ing
an' conclusi$e upon this Cou!t an' 2ill not no!&ally be 'istu!be'. Though this
'oct!ine is not 2ithout e1ceptions" the Cou!t fin's that none a!e applicable to the
p!esent case)

???EC also cannot $ali'ly a!gue that @($% -a'(1a* -)nd)n/& .%)n/
a&&a)*%d a,% no( &1++o,(%d .2 %0)d%n'% on ,%'o,d o, ($% )3+1/n%d 51d/3%n( )&
.a&%d on a 3)&a++,%$%n&)on o- -a'(&)A Its $e!y o2n lette!#offe! of e&ploy&ent
a!gues against its abo$e postu!e) E1ce!pts of the lette!#offe!(

%''itionally" upon the effecti$ity of you! p!obation" 2o1 and 2o1,
)33%d)a(% &1+%,)o, a,% ,%41),%d (o 5o)n(*2 d%-)n% 2o1, o.5%'()0%& 'o3+a,%d
6)($ ($% 5o. ,%41),%3%n(& o- ($% +o&)()on. Base' on the p!e#ag!ee' obCecti$es"
you! pe!fo!&ance shall be !e$ie2e' on the 5!' &onth to assess you! co&petence
an' 2o!4 attitu'e) The .th &onth Pe!fo!&ance %pp!aisal shall be the basis in
ele$ating o! confi!&ing you! e&ploy&ent status f!o& P!obationa!y to Regula!)

Gailu!e to &eet the Cob !eIui!e&ents 'u!ing the p!obation stage &eans that
you! se!$ices &ay be te!&inate' 2ithout p!io! notice an' 2ithout !ecou!se to
sepa!ation pay) 9E&phasis supplie'):


Respon'ents fu!the! allege that San MateoFs e&ail 'ate' +uly 0>" -//3
sho2s that the stan'a!'s fo! his !egula!iEation 2e!e &a'e 4no2n to petitione!
%liling at the ti&e of his engage&ent) To !ecall" in that e&ail &essage" San
Mateo !e&in'e' %liling of the sales Iuota he ought to &eet as a con'ition fo! his
continue' e&ploy&ent" i)e)" that the ;D t!uc4s shoul' al!ea'y be 6/H full by
%ugust ." -//3) Cont!a!y to !espon'entsF contention" San MateoFs e&ail cannot
suppo!t thei! allegation on %liling being info!&e' of the stan'a!'s fo! his
continue' e&ploy&ent" such as the sales Iuota" a( ($% ()3% o- $)& %n/a/%3%n() %s
it 2e!e" the e&ail &essage 2as sent to %liling &o!e than a &onth afte! he signe'
his e&ploy&ent cont!act 2ith ???EC) The afo!eIuote' Section > of the
I&ple&enting Rules of Boo4 VI" Rule VIII#% of the Co'e specifically !eIui!es the
e&ploye! to info!& the p!obationa!y e&ployee of such !easonable stan'a!'s a( ($%
()3% o- $)& %n/a/%3%n(" not at any ti&e late!B else" the latte! shall be consi'e!e' a
!egula! e&ployee) Thus" pu!suant to the e1plicit p!o$ision of %!ticle -60 of the
*abo! Co'e" Section >9': of the I&ple&enting Rules of Boo4 VI" Rule VIII#% of
the *abo! Co'e an' settle' Cu!isp!u'ence" petitione! %liling is 'ee&e' a !egula!
e&ployee as of +une 00" -//3" the 'ate of his e&ploy&ent cont!act)



P%()()on%, 6a& )**%/a**2 d)&3)&&%d

To Custify fully the 'is&issal of an e&ployee" the e&ploye! &ust" as a !ule"
p!o$e that the 'is&issal 2as fo! a Cust cause an' that the e&ployee 2as affo!'e'
'ue p!ocess p!io! to 'is&issal) %s a co&ple&enta!y p!inciple" the e&ploye! has the
onus of p!o$ing 2ith clea!" accu!ate" consistent" an' con$incing e$i'ence the
$ali'ity of the 'is&issal)
7538

???EC ha' faile' to 'ischa!ge its t2in bu!'en in the instant case)

Gi!st off" the atten'ant ci!cu&stances in the instant case aptly sho2 that the
issue of petitione!Fs allege' failu!e to achie$e his Iuota" as a g!oun' fo!
te!&inating e&ploy&ent" st!i4es the Cou!t as a &e!e afte!thought on the pa!t of
???EC) Consi'e!( *a!iosaFs lette! of Septe&be! -." -//3 al!ea'y bet!aye'
&anage&entFs intention to 'is&iss the petitione! fo! allege' unautho!iEe'
absences) %liling 2as in fact &a'e to e1plain an' he 'i' so satisfacto!ily) But" lo
an' behol'" ???EC nonetheless p!ocee'e' 2ith its plan to 'is&iss the petitione!
fo! non#satisfacto!y pe!fo!&ance" although the co!!espon'ing te!&ination lette!
'ate' Octobe! >" -//3 'i' not e$en specifically state %lilingFs @non#satisfacto!y
pe!fo!&ance"A o! that %lilingFs te!&ination 2as by !eason of his failu!e to achie$e
his set Iuota)

?hat ???EC consi'e!e' as the e$i'ence pu!po!te'ly sho2ing it ga$e
%liling the chance to e1plain his inability to !each his Iuota 2as a pu!po!te'
Septe&be! -/" -//3 &e&o of San Mateoa''!esse' to the latte!) Ho2e$e!" %liling
'enies ha$ing !ecei$e' such lette! an' ???EC has faile' to !efute his contention
of non#!eceipt) In net effect" ???EC 2as at a loss to e1plain the e1act Cust
!eason fo! 'is&issing %liling)

%t any e$ent" assu&ing fo! a!gu&ent that the petitione! in'ee' faile' to
achie$e his sales Iuota" his te!&ination f!o& e&ploy&ent on that g!oun' 2oul'
still be unCustifie')

%!ticle -6- of the *abo! Co'e consi'e!s any of the follo2ing acts o!
o&ission on the pa!t of the e&ployee as Cust cause o! g!oun' fo! te!&inating
e&ploy&ent(

9a: Se!ious &iscon'uct o! 2illful 'isobe'ience by the e&ployee of the
la2ful o!'e!s of his e&ploye! o! !ep!esentati$e in connection 2ith his 2o!4B

B.C G,o&& and $a.)(1a* n%/*%'( .2 ($% %3+*o2%% o- $)& d1()%&E

9c: G!au' o! 2illful b!each by the e&ployee of the t!ust !epose' in hi& by
his e&ploye! o! 'uly autho!iEe' !ep!esentati$eB

9': Co&&ission of a c!i&e o! offense by the e&ployee against the pe!son
of his e&ploye! o! any i&&e'iate &e&be! of his fa&ily o! his 'uly autho!iEe'
!ep!esentati$esB an'

B%C O($%, 'a1&%& ana*o/o1& (o ($% -o,%/o)n/. 9E&phasis supplie':

In Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission"
75.8
the Cou!t consi'e!e'
inefficiency as an analogous Cust cause fo! te!&ination of e&ploy&ent un'e!
%!ticle -6- of the *abo! Co'e(

W% 'anno( .1( a/,%% 6)($ PEPSI ($a( F/,o&& )n%--)')%n'2G -a**& 6)($)n
($% +1,0)%6 o- Fo($%, 'a1&%& ana*o/o1& (o ($% -o,%/o)n/,G ($)& 'on&()(1(%&,
($%,%-o,%, 51&( 'a1&% (o (%,3)na(% an %3+*o2%% 1nd%, A,()'*% 8 o- ($%
La.o, Cod%. One is analogous to anothe! if it is susceptible of co&pa!ison 2ith
the latte! eithe! in gene!al o! in so&e specific 'etailB o! has a close !elationship
2ith the latte!) @;!oss inefficiencyA is closely !elate' to @g!oss neglect"A fo! both
in$ol$e specific acts of o&ission on the pa!t of the e&ployee !esulting in 'a&age
to the e&ploye! o! to his business) In Biser vs. Leogardo" this Cou!t !ule' that
failu!e to obse!$e' p!esc!ibe' stan'a!'s to inefficiency &ay constitute Cust cause
fo! 'is&issal) 9E&phasis supplie'):

It 'i' so ane2 in Leonardo v. National Labor Relations Commission
75>8
on
the follo2ing !ationale(
%n e&ploye! is entitle' to i&pose p!o'ucti$ity stan'a!'s fo! its 2o!4e!s" an'
in fact" non#co&pliance &ay be $isite' 2ith a penalty e$en &o!e se$e!e than
'e&otion) Thus"

H(I$% +,a'()'% o- a 'o3+an2 )n *a2)n/ o-- 6o,8%,& .%'a1&% ($%2
-a)*%d (o 3a8% ($% 6o,8 41o(a $a& .%%n ,%'o/n)J%d )n ($)&
51,)&d)'()on. 9Philippine %&e!ican E&b!oi'e!ies $s) E&b!oi'e!y an'
;a!&ent ?o!4e!s" -> SCR% >53" >5<:) In the case at ba!" the petitione!sO
failu!e to &eet the sales Iuota assigne' to each of the& constitute a Cust
cause of thei! 'is&issal" !ega!'less of the pe!&anent o! p!obationa!y status
of thei! e&ploy&ent) Fa)*1,% (o o.&%,0% +,%&',).%d &(anda,d& o- 6o,8,
o, (o -1*-)** ,%a&ona.*% 6o,8 a&&)/n3%n(& d1% (o )n%--)')%n'2 3a2
'on&()(1(% 51&( 'a1&% -o, d)&3)&&a*. Such inefficiency is un'e!stoo' to
&ean failu!e to attain 2o!4 goals o! 2o!4 Iuotas" eithe! by failing to
co&plete the sa&e 2ithin the allotte' !easonable pe!io'" o! by p!o'ucing
unsatisfacto!y !esults) T$)& 3ana/%3%n( +,%,o/a()0% o- ,%41),)n/
&(anda,d& 3a2 .% a0a)*%d o- &o *on/ a& ($%2 a,% %9%,')&%d )n /ood
-a)($ -o, ($% ad0an'%3%n( o- ($% %3+*o2%,K& )n(%,%&(. 9E&phasis
supplie'):

In fine" an e&ployeeFs failu!e to &eet sales o! 2o!4 Iuotas falls un'e! the
concept of g!oss inefficiency" 2hich in tu!n is analogous to g!oss neglect of 'uty
that is a Cust cause fo! 'is&issal un'e! %!ticle -6- of the Co'e) Ho2e$e!" in o!'e!
fo! the Iuota i&pose' to be consi'e!e' a $ali' p!o'ucti$ity stan'a!' an' the!eby
$ali'ate a 'is&issal" &anage&entFs p!e!ogati$e of fi1ing the Iuota &ust be
e1e!cise' in goo' faith fo! the a'$ance&ent of its inte!est) The 'uty to p!o$e goo'
faith" ho2e$e!" !ests 2ith ???EC as pa!t of its bu!'en to sho2 that the 'is&issal
2as fo! a Cust cause) ???EC &ust sho2 that such Iuota 2as i&pose' in goo'
faith) This ???EC faile' to 'o" pe!ceptibly because it coul' not) The fact of the
&atte! is that the allege' i&position of the Iuota 2as a 'espe!ate atte&pt to len' a
se&blance of $ali'ity to %lilingFs illegal 'is&issal) It &ust be st!esse' that e$en
???ECFs sales &anage!" E$e %&a'o! 9%&a'o!:" in an inte!nal e#&ail to San
Mateo" he'ge' on 2hethe! petitione! pe!fo!&e' belo2 o! abo$e e1pectation(

Coul' not Iuantify le$el of pe!fo!&ance as he as 2as tas4e' to han'le a ne2
p!o'uct 9;D:) Re$enue !epo!t is not yet a'&iniste!e' by IT on a &onth#to#&onth
basis) Mo!eo$e!" this in a 2ay is an e1pe!i&ental acti$ity) P!actically you ha$e a
close &onito!ing 2ith %!&an' 2ith !ega!'s to his pe!fo!&ance) Jou! assess&ent
of hi& 2oul' be &o!e accu!ate)

Being an e1pe!i&ental acti$ity an' ha$ing been launche' fo! the fi!st ti&e"
the sales of ;D se!$ices coul' not be !easonably Iuantifie') This 2oul' e1plain
2hy %&a'o! i&plie' in he! e&ail that othe! bases besi'es sales figu!es 2ill be
use' to 'ete!&ine %lilingFs pe!fo!&ance) %n' yet" 'espite such a neut!al
obse!$ation" %liling 2as still 'is&isse' fo! his 'is&al sales of ;D se!$ices) In any
e$ent" ???EC faile' to 'e&onst!ate the !easonableness an' the bona %ides on
the Iuota i&position)

E&ployees &ust be !e&in'e' that 2hile p!obationa!y e&ployees 'o not
enCoy pe!&anent status" they enCoy the constitutional p!otection of secu!ity of
tenu!e) They can only be te!&inate' fo! cause o! 2hen they othe!2ise fail to &eet
the !easonable stan'a!'s &a'e 4no2n to the& by the e&ploye! at the ti&e of thei!
engage&ent)
75=8
Respon'ent ???EC &ise!ably faile' to p!o$e the te!&ination of
petitione! 2as fo! a Cust cause no! 2as the!e substantial e$i'ence to 'e&onst!ate
the stan'a!'s 2e!e &a'e 4no2n to the latte! at the ti&e of his engage&ent) Hence"
petitione!Fs !ight to secu!ity of tenu!e 2as b!eache')

A*)*)n/A& ,)/$( (o +,o'%d1,a* d1% +,o'%&& 6a& 0)o*a(%d

%s ea!lie! state'" to effect a legal 'is&issal" the e&ploye! &ust sho2 not
only a $ali' g!oun' the!efo!" but also that p!oce'u!al 'ue p!ocess has p!ope!ly
been obse!$e') ?hen the *abo! Co'e spea4s of p!oce'u!al 'ue p!ocess" the
!efe!ence is usually to the t2o 9-:#2!itten notice !ule en$isage' in Section - 9III:"
Rule DDIII" Boo4 V of the O&nibus Rules I&ple&enting the *abo! Co'e" 2hich
p!o$i'es(

Section -) !tandard o% de process4 re0irements o% notice) P In all cases
of te!&ination of e&ploy&ent" the follo2ing stan'a!'s of 'ue p!ocess shall be
substantially obse!$e')

I) Go! te!&ination of e&ploy&ent base' on Cust causes as 'efine' in
%!ticle -6- of the Co'e(
9a: % 2!itten notice se!$e' on the e&ployee specifying the g!oun'
o! g!oun's fo! te!&ination" an' gi$ing to sai' e&ployee !easonable
oppo!tunity 2ithin 2hich to e1plain his si'eB

9b: % hea!ing o! confe!ence 'u!ing 2hich the e&ployee conce!ne'"
2ith the assistance of counsel if the e&ployee so 'esi!es" is gi$en
oppo!tunity to !espon' to the cha!ge" p!esent his e$i'ence o! !ebut the
e$i'ence p!esente' against hi&B an'

9c: % 2!itten notice 7of8 te!&ination se!$e' on the e&ployee
in'icating that upon 'ue consi'e!ation of all the ci!cu&stance" g!oun's
ha$e been establishe' to Custify his te!&ination)

In case of te!&ination" the fo!egoing notices shall be se!$e' on the
e&ployeeFs last 4no2n a''!ess)


M55 Marine !ervices, "nc. v. NLRC
7568
te!sely 'esc!ibe' the &echanics of
2hat &ay be consi'e!e' a t2o#pa!t 'ue p!ocess !eIui!e&ent 2hich inclu'es the
t2o#notice !ule" @1 1 1 one" of the intention to 'is&iss" in'icating the!ein his acts
o! o&issions co&plaine' against" an' t2o" notice of the 'ecision to 'is&issB an' an
oppo!tunity to ans2e! an' !ebut the cha!ges against hi&" in bet2een such notices)A


6ing o% 6ings 3ransport, "nc. v. Mamac
75<8
e1poun'e' on this p!oce'u!al
!eIui!e&ent in this &anne!(

90: The -),&( 6,)((%n no()'% to be se!$e' on the e&ployees shoul' contain
the specific causes o! g!oun's fo! te!&ination against the&" an' a 'i!ecti$e that
the e&ployees a!e gi$en the oppo!tunity to sub&it thei! 2!itten e1planation 2ithin
a !easonable pe!io') @Reasonable oppo!tunityA un'e! the O&nibus Rules &eans
e$e!y 4in' of assistance that &anage&ent &ust acco!' to the e&ployees to enable
the& to p!epa!e a'eIuately fo! thei! 'efense) This shoul' be const!ue' as a pe!io'
of at least fi$e calen'a! 'ays f!o& !eceipt of the notice 1111 Mo!eo$e!" in o!'e! to
enable the e&ployees to intelligently p!epa!e thei! e1planation an' 'efenses" the
notice shoul' contain a 'etaile' na!!ation of the facts an' ci!cu&stances that 2ill
se!$e as basis fo! the cha!ge against the e&ployees) % gene!al 'esc!iption of the
cha!ge 2ill not suffice) Lastl+" the notice shoul' specifically &ention 2hich
co&pany !ules" if any" a!e $iolate' an'Ko! 2hich a&ong the g!oun's un'e! %!t)
-66 7of the *abo! Co'e8 is being cha!ge' against the e&ployees

9-: %fte! se!$ing the fi!st notice" the e&ployees shoul' sche'ule an'
con'uct a $%a,)n/ o! 'on-%,%n'% 2he!ein the e&ployees 2ill be gi$en the
oppo!tunity to 90: e1plain an' cla!ify thei! 'efenses to the cha!ge against the&B
9-: p!esent e$i'ence in suppo!t of thei! 'efensesB an' 95: !ebut the e$i'ence
p!esente' against the& by the &anage&ent) Du!ing the hea!ing o! confe!ence" the
e&ployees a!e gi$en the chance to 'efen' the&sel$es pe!sonally" 2ith the
assistance of a !ep!esentati$e o! counsel of thei! choice 1 1 1)

95: %fte! 'ete!&ining that te!&ination is Custifie'" the e&ploye! shall se!$e
the e&ployees a 6,)((%n no()'% o- (%,3)na()on in'icating that( 90: all the
ci!cu&stances in$ol$ing the cha!ge against the e&ployees ha$e been consi'e!e'B
an' 9-: g!oun's ha$e been establishe' to Custify the se$e!ance of thei!
e&ploy&ent) 9E&phasis in the o!iginal):

He!e" the fi!st an' secon' notice !eIui!e&ents ha$e not been p!ope!ly
obse!$e'" thus tainting petitione!Fs 'is&issal 2ith illegality)

The a'$e!te' &e&o 'ate' Septe&be! -/" -//3 of ???EC suppose'ly
info!&ing %liling of the li4elihoo' of his te!&ination an' 'i!ecting hi& to account
fo! his failu!e to &eet the e1pecte' Cob pe!fo!&ance 2oul' ha$e ha' constitute'
the @cha!ge sheet"A sufficient to ans2e! fo! the fi!st notice !eIui!e&ent" but fo! the
fact that the!e is no p!oof such lette! ha' been sent to an' !ecei$e' by hi&) In fact"
in his Dece&be! 05" -//3 Co&plainantFs Reply %ffi'a$it, %liling goes on to tag
such lette!K&e&o!an'u& as fab!ication) ???EC 'i' not a''uce p!oof to sho2
that a copy of the lette! 2as 'uly se!$e' upon %liling) Clea!ly enough" ???EC
'i' not co&ply 2ith the fi!st notice !eIui!e&ent)

eithe! 2as the!e co&pliance 2ith the i&pe!ati$es of a hea!ing o!
confe!ence) The Cou!t nee' not '2ell at length on this pa!ticula! b!each of the 'ue
p!oce'u!al !eIui!e&ent) Suffice it to point out that the !eco!' is 'e$oi' of any
sho2ing of a hea!ing o! confe!ence ha$ing been con'ucte') On the cont!a!y" in its
Octobe! 0" -//3 lette! to %liling" o! ba!ely fi$e 9.: 'ays afte! it se!$e' the notice of
te!&ination" ???EC ac4no2le'ge' that it 2as still e$aluating his case) %n' the
2!itten notice of te!&ination itself 'i' not in'icate all the ci!cu&stances in$ol$ing
the cha!ge to Custify se$e!ance of e&ploy&ent)
A*)*)n/ )& %n()(*%d (o .a'86a/%&
and &%+a,a()on +a2 )n *)%1 o- ,%)n&(a(%3%n(

%s &ay be note'" the C% foun' %lilingFs 'is&issal as ha$ing been illegally
effecte'" but nonetheless conclu'e' that his e&ploy&ent cease' at the en' of the
p!obationa!y pe!io') Thus" the appellate cou!t &e!ely affi!&e' the &oneta!y a2a!'
&a'e by the *RC" 2hich consiste' of the pay&ent of that a&ount co!!espon'ing
to the unse!$e' po!tion of the cont!act of e&ploy&ent)

The case 'isposition on the a2a!' is e!!oneous)

%s ea!lie! e1plaine'" %liling cannot be !ightfully consi'e!e' as a &e!e
p!obationa!y e&ployee) %cco!'ingly" the p!obationa!y pe!io' set in the cont!act of
e&ploy&ent 'ate' +une 00" -//3 2as of no &o&ent) In net effect" as of that 'ate
+une 00" -//3" %liling beca&e pa!t of the ???EC o!ganiEation as a !egula!
e&ployee of the co&pany 2ithout a fi1e' te!& of e&ploy&ent) Thus" he is entitle'
to bac42ages !ec4one' f!o& the ti&e he 2as illegally 'is&isse' on Octobe! >"
-//3" 2ith a PhP 0="5//)// &onthly sala!y" until the finality of this Decision) This
'isposition he2s 2ith the Cou!tFs ensuing hol'ing in Javellana v. Belen4
73/8

%!ticle -=< of the *abo! Co'e" as a&en'e' by Section 53 of Republic %ct
>=0. inst!ucts(

%!t) -=<) Secu!ity of Tenu!e) # In cases of !egula! e&ploy&ent" the
e&ploye! shall not te!&inate the se!$ices of an e&ployee e1cept fo! a Cust
cause o! 2hen autho!iEe' by this Title) An %3+*o2%% 6$o )& 1n51&(*2
d)&3)&&%d -,o3 6o,8 &$a** .% %n()(*%d (o ,%)n&(a(%3%n( 6)($o1( *o&& o-
&%n)o,)(2 ,)/$(& and o($%, +,)0)*%/%& and (o $)& -1** .a'86a/%&,
)n'*1&)0% o- a**o6an'%&, and (o $)& o($%, .%n%-)(& o, ($%), 3on%(a,2
%41)0a*%n( 'o3+1(%d -,o3 ($% ()3% $)& 'o3+%n&a()on 6a& 6)($$%*d
-,o3 $)3 1+ (o ($% ()3% o- $)& a'(1a* ,%)n&(a(%3%n(. 9E&phasis
supplie':

Clea!ly" the la2 inten's the a2a!' of bac42ages an' si&ila! benefits to
accu&ulate past the 'ate of the *abo! %!bite!Fs 'ecision until the 'is&isse'
e&ployee is actually !einstate') But if" as in this case" !einstate&ent is no longe!
possible" ($)& Co1,( $a& 'on&)&(%n(*2 ,1*%d ($a( .a'86a/%& &$a** .% 'o3+1(%d
-,o3 ($% ()3% o- )**%/a* d)&3)&&a* 1n()* ($% da(% ($% d%')&)on .%'o3%&
-)na*. 9E&phasis supplie'):

%''itionally" %liling is entitle' to sepa!ation pay in lieu of !einstate&ent on
the g!oun' of &(,a)n%d ,%*a()on&$)+)

In 5olden Ace Bilders v. 3alde"
7308
the Cou!t !ule'(

The basis fo! the pay&ent of bac42ages is 'iffe!ent f!o& that fo! the
a2a!' of sepa!ation pay) Sepa!ation pay is g!ante' 2he!e !einstate&ent is no
longe! a'$isable because of st!aine' !elations bet2een the e&ployee an' the
e&ploye!) Bac42ages !ep!esent co&pensation that shoul' ha$e been ea!ne' but
2e!e not collecte' because of the unCust 'is&issal) The basis fo! co&puting
bac42ages is usually the length of the e&ployeeOs se!$ice 2hile that fo!
sepa!ation pay is the actual pe!io' 2hen the e&ployee 2as unla2fully p!e$ente'
f!o& 2o!4ing)

%s to ho2 both a2a!'s shoul' be co&pute'" Macasero v. !ot#ern
"ndstrial 5ases (#ilippines inst!ucts(

7T8he a2a!' of sepa!ation pay is inconsistent 2ith a fin'ing that
the!e 2as no illegal 'is&issal" fo! un'e! %!ticle -=< of the *abo! Co'e an'
as hel' in a catena of cases" an e&ployee 2ho is 'is&isse' 2ithout Cust
cause an' 2ithout 'ue p!ocess is entitle' to bac42ages an' !einstate&ent
o! pay&ent of sepa!ation pay in lieu the!eof(

T$1&, an )**%/a**2 d)&3)&&%d %3+*o2%% )& %n()(*%d (o (6o
,%*)%-&# .a'86a/%& and ,%)n&(a(%3%n(. T$% (6o ,%*)%-& +,o0)d%d
a,% &%+a,a(% and d)&()n'(. In )n&(an'%& 6$%,% ,%)n&(a(%3%n( )&
no *on/%, -%a&).*% .%'a1&% o- &(,a)n%d ,%*a()on& .%(6%%n ($%
%3+*o2%% and ($% %3+*o2%,, &%+a,a()on +a2 )& /,an(%d. In
%--%'(, an )**%/a**2 d)&3)&&%d %3+*o2%% )& %n()(*%d (o %)($%,
,%)n&(a(%3%n(, )- 0)a.*%, o, &%+a,a()on +a2 )- ,%)n&(a(%3%n( )&
no *on/%, 0)a.*%, and .a'86a/%&.

The no!&al conseIuences of !espon'entsF illegal 'is&issal"
then" a!e !einstate&ent 2ithout loss of senio!ity !ights" an'
pay&ent of bac42ages co&pute' f!o& the ti&e co&pensation 2as
2ithhel' up to the 'ate of actual !einstate&ent) ?he!e
!einstate&ent is no longe! $iable as an option" sepa!ation pay
eIui$alent to one 90: &onth sala!y fo! e$e!y yea! of se!$ice shoul'
be a2a!'e' as an alte!nati$e) The pay&ent of sepa!ation pay is in
a''ition to pay&ent of bac42ages) 1 1 1

7elasco v. National Labor Relations Commission e&phasiEes(
The accepte' 'oct!ine is that sepa!ation pay &ay a$ail in lieu of
!einstate&ent if !einstate&ent is no longe! p!actical o! in the best inte!est
of the pa!ties) Sepa!ation pay in lieu of !einstate&ent &ay li4e2ise be
a2a!'e' if the e&ployee 'eci'es not to be !einstate') 9e&phasis in the
o!iginalB italics supplie':

Und%, ($% do'(,)n% o- &(,a)n%d ,%*a()on&, ($% +a23%n( o- &%+a,a()on
+a2 )& 'on&)d%,%d an a''%+(a.*% a*(%,na()0% (o ,%)n&(a(%3%n( 6$%n ($% *a((%,
o+()on )& no *on/%, d%&),a.*% o, 0)a.*%. On one han'" such pay&ent libe!ates the
e&ployee f!o& 2hat coul' be a highly opp!essi$e 2o!4 en$i!on&ent) On the
othe! han'" it !eleases the e&ploye! f!o& the g!ossly unpalatable obligation of
&aintaining in its e&ploy a 2o!4e! it coul' no longe! t!ust)

S(,a)n%d ,%*a()on& 31&( .% d%3on&(,a(%d a& a -a'(, ho2e$e!" to be
a'eIuately suppo!te' by e$i'ence P substantial e$i'ence to sho2 that the
!elationship bet2een the e&ploye! an' the e&ployee is in'ee' st!aine' as a
necessa!y conseIuence of the Cu'icial cont!o$e!sy)

In ($% +,%&%n( 'a&%, ($% La.o, A,.)(%, -o1nd ($a( a'(1a* an)3o&)(2
%9)&(%d .%(6%%n +%()()on%, AJ1* and ,%&+ond%n( a& a ,%&1*( o- ($% -)*)n/ o- ($%
)**%/a* d)&3)&&a* 'a&%. S1'$ -)nd)n/, %&+%')a**2 6$%n a--),3%d .2 ($% a++%**a(%
'o1,( a& )n ($% 'a&% a( .a,, )& .)nd)n/ 1+on ($% Co1,(, 'on&)&(%n( 6)($ ($%
+,%0a)*)n/ ,1*%& ($a( ($)& Co1,( 6)** no( (,2 -a'(& an%6 and ($a( -)nd)n/& o-
-a'(& o- 41a&)D51d)')a* .od)%& a,% a''o,d%d /,%a( ,%&+%'(, %0%n
-)na*)(2. 9E&phasis supplie'):

%s the C% co!!ectly obse!$e'" @To !einstate petitione! 7%liling8 2oul' only
c!eate an at&osphe!e of antagonis& an' 'ist!ust" &o!e so that he ha' only a sho!t
stint 2ith !espon'ent co&pany)A
73-8
The Cou!t nee' not belabo! the fact that the
patent ani&osity that ha' 'e$elope' bet2een e&ploye! an' e&ployee gene!ate'
2hat &ay be consi'e!e' as the a!bit!a!y 'is&issal of the petitione!)

Gollo2ing the p!onounce&ents of this Cou!t !agales v. Rstan8s
Commercial Corporation"
7358
the co&putation of sepa!ation pay in lieu of
!einstate&ent inclu'es the pe!io' fo! 2hich bac42ages 2e!e a2a!'e'(

Thus" in lieu of !einstate&ent" it is but p!ope! to a2a!'
petitione! &%+a,a()on +a2 'o3+1(%d a( on%D3on($ &a*a,2 -o, %0%,2 2%a, o-
&%,0)'%" a -,a'()on o- a( *%a&( &)9 B=C 3on($& 'on&)d%,%d a& on% 6$o*% 2%a,. In
($% 'o3+1(a()on o- &%+a,a()on +a2, ($% +%,)od 6$%,% .a'86a/%& a,% a6a,d%d
31&( .% )n'*1d%d) 9E&phasis supplie'):

Thus" %liling is entitle' to both bac42ages an' sepa!ation pay 9in lieu of
!einstate&ent: in the a&ount of one 90: &onthFs sala!y fo! e$e!y yea! of se!$ice"
that is" f!o& +une 00" -//3 9'ate of e&ploy&ent cont!act: until the finality of this
'ecision 2ith a f!action of a yea! of at least si1 9>: &onths to be consi'e!e' as one
90: 2hole yea!) %s 'ete!&ine' by the labo! a!bite!" the basis fo! the co&putation of
bac42ages an' sepa!ation pay 2ill be %lilingFs &onthly sala!y at PhP 0="5//)

Ginally" %liling is entitle' to an a2a!' of PhP 5/"/// as no&inal 'a&ages in
consonance 2ith p!e$ailing Cu!isp!u'ence
7338
fo! $iolation of 'ue p!ocess)

P%()()on%, )& no( %n()(*%d (o 3o,a* and %9%3+*a,2 da3a/%&

In Na9areno v. Cit+ o% :magete"
73.8
the Cou!t e1poun'e' on the !eIuisite
ele&ents fo! a litigantFs entitle&ent to &o!al 'a&ages" thus(

Mo!al 'a&ages a!e a2a!'e' if the follo2ing ele&ents e1ist in the case( 90:
an inCu!y clea!ly sustaine' by the clai&antB 9-: a culpable act o! o&ission
factually establishe'B 95: a 2!ongful act o! o&ission by the 'efen'ant as the
p!o1i&ate cause of the inCu!y sustaine' by the clai&antB an' 93: the a2a!' of
'a&ages p!e'icate' on any of the cases state' %!ticle --0< of the Ci$il Co'e) In
a''ition" the pe!son clai&ing &o!al 'a&ages &ust p!o$e the e1istence of ba'
faith by clea! an' con$incing e$i'ence fo! the la2 al2ays p!esu&es goo' faith) It
is not enough that one &e!ely suffe!e' sleepless nights" &ental anguish" an'
se!ious an1iety as the !esult of the actuations of the othe! pa!ty) In$a!iably such
action &ust be sho2n to ha$e been 2illfully 'one in ba' faith o! 2ith ill
&oti$e) Bad -a)($, 1nd%, ($% *a6, do%& no( &)3+*2 'onno(% .ad 51d/3%n( o,
n%/*)/%n'%. I( )3+o,(& a d)&$on%&( +1,+o&% o, &o3% 3o,a* o.*)41)(2 and
'on&')o1& do)n/ o- a 6,on/, a .,%a'$ o- a 8no6n d1(2 ($,o1/$ &o3% 3o()0%
o, )n(%,%&( o, )** 6)** ($a( +a,(a8%& o- ($% na(1,% o- -,a1d. 9E&phasis supplie'):

In alleging that ???EC acte' in ba' faith" %liling has the bu!'en of p!oof
to p!esent e$i'ence in suppo!t of his clai&" as !ule' in Clili v. Eastern
3elecommnications (#ilippines, "nc.(
73>8

%cco!'ing to Cu!isp!u'ence" @basic is the p!inciple that goo' faith is
p!esu&e' an' he 2ho alleges ba' faith has the 'uty to p!o$e the sa&e)A By
i&puting ba' faith to the actuations of ETPI" Culili has the bu!'en of p!oof to
p!esent substantial e$i'ence to suppo!t the allegation of unfai! labo! p!actice)
Culili faile' to 'ischa!ge this bu!'en an' his ba!e allegations 'ese!$e no c!e'it)

This 2as !eite!ate' in ;nited Claimants Association o% NEA $;N"CAN& v.
National Electri%ication Administration $NEA&"
73=8
in this 2ise(

It &ust be note' that the bu!'en of p!o$ing ba' faith !ests on the one
alleging it) %s the Cou!t !ule' in Clili v. Eastern 3elecommnications,
"nc., @%cco!'ing to Cu!isp!u'ence" Qbasic is the p!inciple that goo' faith is
p!esu&e' an' he 2ho alleges ba' faith has the 'uty to p!o$e the sa&e)FA
Mo!eo$e!" in !poses (alada v. !olidban. Corporation" the Cou!t state'"
@%llegations of ba' faith an' f!au' &ust be p!o$e' by clea! an' con$incing
e$i'ence)A

Si&ila!ly" %liling has faile' to o$e!co&e such bu!'en to p!o$e ba' faith on
the pa!t of ???EC) %liling has not p!esente' any clea! an' con$incing e$i'ence
to sho2 ba' faith) The fact that he 2as illegally 'is&isse' is insufficient to p!o$e
ba' faith) Thus" the C% co!!ectly !ule' that @7t8he!e 2as no sufficient sho2ing of
ba' faith o! abuse of &anage&ent p!e!ogati$es in the pe!sonal action ta4en against
petitione!)A
7368
In Lambert (a/nbro.ers and Je/elr+ Corporation v. Binamira"
73<8
the Cou!t !ule'(

% 'is&issal &ay be cont!a!y to la2 but by itself alone" it 'oes not
establish ba' faith to entitle the 'is&isse' e&ployee to &o!al 'a&ages) The a2a!'
of &o!al an' e1e&pla!y 'a&ages cannot be Custifie' solely upon the p!e&ise that
the e&ploye! 'is&isse' his e&ployee 2ithout autho!iEe' cause an' 'ue p!ocess)


T$% o--)'%,& o- WWWEC 'anno( .% $%*d
5o)n(*2 and &%0%,a**2 *)a.*% 6)($ ($% 'o3+an2

The C% hel' the p!esi'ent of ???EC" +ose B) Geliciano" San Mateo an'
*a!iosa Cointly an' se$e!ally liable fo! the &oneta!y a2a!'s of %liling on the
g!oun' that the office!s a!e consi'e!e' @e&ploye!sA acting in the inte!est of the
co!po!ation) The C% cite' N<6 "nternational 6nit/ear
Corporation (#ilippines 9N<6: v. National Labor Relations Commission
7./8
in
suppo!t of its a!gu&ent) otably" N<6 in tu!n cite' A.C. Ransom Labor ;nion,
CCL; v. NLRC)
7.08

Such !uling has been !e$e!se' by the Cou!t in Alba v. <pangco"
7.-8
2he!e
the Cou!t !ule'(

By O!'e! of Septe&be! ." -//=" the *abo! %!bite! 'enie' !espon'entFs
&otion to Iuash the 5!' alias 2!it) B!ushing asi'e !espon'entFs contention that his
liability is &e!ely Coint" the *abo! %!bite! !ule'(

Such issue !ega!'ing the pe!sonal liability of the office!s of a co!po!ation
fo! the pay&ent of 2ages an' &oney clai&s to its e&ployees" as in the instant
case" has long been !esol$e' by the Sup!e&e Cou!t in a long list of cases 7A.C.
Ransom Labor ;nion,CL; vs. NLRC 903- SCR% -><: an' !eite!ate' in the cases
of C#a vs. NLRC 906- SCR% 5.5:" 5de9 vs. NLRC 9065 SCR% >33:8) In the
afo!e&entione' cases" the Sup!e&e Cou!t has e1p!essly hel' that the i!!esponsible
office! of the co!po!ation 9e)g) P!esi'ent: is liable fo! the co!po!ationFs obligations
to its 2o!4e!s) Thus" !espon'ent Jupangco" being the p!esi'ent of the !espon'ent
J* *an' an' Ult!a Moto!s Co!p)" is p!ope!ly Cointly an' se$e!ally liable 2ith the
'efen'ant co!po!ations fo! the labo! clai&s of Co&plainants %lba an' De
;uE&an) 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

%s !eflecte' abo$e" the *abo! %!bite! hel' that !espon'entFs liability is
soli'a!y)

The!e is soli'a!y liability 2hen the obligation e1p!essly so states" 2hen
the la2 so p!o$i'es" o! 2hen the natu!e of the obligation so !eIui!es) MAM Realt+
:evelopment Corporation v. NLRC" on soli'a!y liability of co!po!ate office!s in
labo! 'isputes" enlightens(

1 1 1 % co!po!ation being a Cu!i'ical entity" &ay act only th!ough
its 'i!ecto!s" office!s an' e&ployees) Obligations incu!!e' by the&" acting
as such co!po!ate agents a!e not thei!s but the 'i!ect accountabilities of the
co!po!ation they !ep!esent) T!ue soli'a!y liabilities &ay at ti&es be
incu!!e' but only 2hen e1ceptional ci!cu&stances 2a!!ant such as"
gene!ally" in the follo2ing cases(

0) ?hen 'i!ecto!s an' t!ustees o!" in app!op!iate cases" the
office!s of a co!po!ation(

9a: $ote fo! o! assent to patently unla2ful acts of the
co!po!ationB

9b: act in ba' faith o! 2ith g!oss negligence in 'i!ecting the
co!po!ate affai!sB

1 1 1 1

In labo! cases" fo! instance" the Cou!t has hel' co!po!ate 'i!ecto!s an'
office!s soli'a!ily liable 2ith the co!po!ation fo! the te!&ination of e&ploy&ent
of e&ployees 'one 2ith &alice o! in ba' faith)

% !e$ie2 of the facts of the case 'oes not !e$eal a&ple an' satisfacto!y
p!oof that !espon'ent office!s of ??EC acte' in ba' faith o! 2ith &alice in
effecting the te!&ination of petitione! %liling) E$en assu&ing argendo that the
actions of ???EC a!e ill#concei$e' an' e!!oneous" !espon'ent office!s cannot be
hel' Cointly an' soli'a!ily 2ith it) Hence" the !uling on the Coint an' soli'a!y
liability of in'i$i'ual !espon'ents &ust be !ecalle')

A*)*)n/ )& %n()(*%d (o A((o,n%2A& F%%& and L%/a* In(%,%&(

Petitione! %liling is also entitle' to atto!neyFs fees in the a&ount of ten
pe!cent 90/H: of his total &oneta!y a2a!'" ha$ing been fo!ce' to litigate in o!'e!
to see4 !e'!ess of his g!ie$ances" pu!suant to %!ticle 000 of the *abo! Co'e an'
follo2ing ou! !uling in Exods "nternational Constrction Corporation v.
Biscoc#o"
7.58
to 2it(

In Rta0io v. National Labor Relations Commission" this Cou!t hel' that(
It is settle' that in actions fo! !eco$e!y of 2ages o! 2he!e an e&ployee
2as fo!ce' to litigate an'" thus" incu! e1penses to p!otect his !ights an'
inte!est" the a2a!' of atto!neyFs fees is legally an' &o!ally Custifiable)

In (rodcers Ban. o% t#e (#ilippines v. Cort o% Appeals this Cou!t !ule'
that(

%tto!neyFs fees &ay be a2a!'e' 2hen a pa!ty is co&pelle' to litigate o! to
incu! e1penses to p!otect his inte!est by !eason of an unCustifie' act of the
othe! pa!ty)

?hile in Lambert (a/nbro.ers and Je/elr+ Corporation"
7.38
the Cou!t
specifically !ule'(

Ho2e$e!" the a2a!' of atto!neyFs fee is 2a!!ante' pu!suant to %!ticle 000
of the *abo! Co'e) Ten 90/H: pe!cent of the total a2a!' is usually the !easonable
a&ount of atto!neyFs fees a2a!'e') It is settle' that 2he!e an e&ployee 2as
fo!ce' to litigate an'" thus" incu! e1penses to p!otect his !ights an' inte!est" the
a2a!' of atto!neyFs fees is legally an' &o!ally Custifiable)

Ginally" legal inte!est shall be i&pose' on the &oneta!y a2a!'s he!ein
g!ante' at the !ate of >H pe! annu& f!o& Octobe! >" -//3 9'ate of te!&ination:
until fully pai')

WHEREFORE" the petition is PARTIALLL GRANTED) The +uly 5"
-//6 Decision of the Cou!t of %ppeals in C%#;)R) SP o) 0/05/< is
he!eby MODIFIED to !ea'#

WHEREFORE" the petition is PARTIALLL
GRANTED. The assaile' Resoltions of !espon'ent 9Thi!' Di$ision: ational
*abo! Relations Co&&ission a!e AFFIRMED" 2ith the
follo2ingMODIFICATION<CLARIFICATION( Respon'ent ?i'e ?i'e
?o!l' E1p!ess Co!p) is liable to pay %!&an'o %liling the follo2ing( 9a:
bac42ages !ec4one' f!o& Octobe! >" -//3 up to the finality of this Decision
base' on a sala!y of PhP 0="5// a &onth" 2ith inte!est at >H pe! annu& on the
p!incipal a&ount f!o& Octobe! >" -//3 until fully pai'B 9b: the a''itional su&
eIui$alent to one 90: &onth sala!y fo! e$e!y yea! of se!$ice" 2ith a f!action of at
least si1 9>: &onths consi'e!e' as one 2hole yea! base' on the pe!io' f!o& +une
00" -//3 9'ate of e&ploy&ent cont!act: until the finality of this Decision" as
sepa!ation payB 9c: PhP 5/"/// as no&inal 'a&agesB an' 9': %tto!neyFs Gees
eIui$alent to 0/H of the total a2a!')
SO ORDERED.



PRESBITERO J. "ELASCO, JR.
%ssociate +ustice


?E COCUR(



DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
%ssociate +ustice




ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE CATRAL MENDOMA
%ssociate +ustice %ssociate +ustice




ESTELA M. PERLASDBERNABE
%ssociate +ustice



A T T E S T A T I O N


I attest that the conclusions in the abo$e Decision ha' been !eache' in
consultation befo!e the case 2as assigne' to the 2!ite! of the opinion of the Cou!tFs
Di$ision)



PRESBITERO J. "ELASCO, JR.
%ssociate +ustice
Chai!pe!son







C E R T I F I C A T I O N


Pu!suant to Section 05" %!ticle VIII of the Constitution" an' the Di$ision
Chai!pe!sonFs %ttestation" I ce!tify that the conclusions in the abo$e Decision ha'
been !eache' in consultation befo!e the case 2as assigne' to the 2!ite! of the
opinion of the Cou!tFs Di$ision)




RENATO C. CORONA
Chief +ustice



708
Rollo" pp) --#50) Penne' by %ssociate +ustice Mag'angal M) 'e *eon an' concu!!e' in by %ssociate
+ustices +osefina ;ue$a!a#Salonga an' o!&an'ie B) PiEa!!o)
7-8
I') at 55#53)
758
C% rollo" pp) 56#36)
738
I') at 3<#./)
7.8
I') at 05.#035
7>8
I') at ><#=/)
7=8
I') at =0#=3)
768
I') at =0)
7<8
I') at 0/<)
70/8
I') at =3)
7008
*ette! 'ate' Sept) -=" -//3B i') at =.)
70-8
I') at =>)
7058
I') at ==)
7038
I') at =<#6/)
70.8
I') at 60)
70>8
I') at 65)
70=8
I') at .0)
7068
I') at 6.#6<)
70<8
I') at </#0/0)
7-/8
I') at 0/.)
7-08
I') at 005)
7--8
I') at 00=#0-0)
7-58
I') at 05.#035)
7-38
Rollo" pp) 5/#50)
7-.8
I') at 00#0-)
7->8
I') at 33#.>)
7-=8
;)R) o) =.=6=" +anua!y -0" 0<<0" 0<5 SCR% 0/." 003B citing Maricalm Mining Corporation v.
Brion" ;)R) o) 0.=><>#<=" Geb!ua!y <" -//>" 36- SCR% 6=" <<B Migel v. Cort o% Appeals" o) *#-/-=3" Octobe!
5/" 0<><" -< SCR% =>/" =>=#=>6B !ara "mport = Export Co., "nc. v. (#ilippine "nternational Co., "nc." o) *#0.0"
May 50" 0<>5" 6 SCR% 035" 036)
7-68
C% rollo" p) 03-)
7-<8
;)R) o) =6><5" +anua!y -6" 0<<0" 0<5 SCR% 30/)
75/8
Rollo" p) -6)
7508
;)R) o) 03<6.<" +une <" -//3" 350 SCR% ./6" .03)
75-8
5erman Mac#ineries Corporation v. Enda+a" ;)R) o) 0.>60/" o$e&be! -." -//3" 333 SCR% 5-<"
53/)
7558
;)R) o) 0=65<=" Octobe! -/" -/0/" >53 SCR% -=<" -6<#-</)
7538
:acital v. L. M. Cams Engineering Corporation" ;)R) o) 0=>=36" Septe&be! 0" -/0/" >-< SCR%
=/-" =0.)
75.8
;)R) o) 006353" +uly ->" 0<<>" -.< SCR% 36." 3<>#3<=)
75>8
;)R) o) 0-.5/5 +une 0>" -///" 555 SCR% .6<" .<6#.<<)
75=8
Ago+ v. NLRC" ;)R) o) 00-/<>" +anua!y 5/" 0<<>" -.- SCR% .66" .<.)
7568
;)R) o) 003505" +uly -<" 0<<>" -.< SCR% >>3" >==)
75<8
;)R) o) 0>>-/6" +une -<" -//=" .-> SCR% 00>" 0-.#->)
73/8
;)R) o) 060<05" Ma!ch ." -/0/" >03 SCR% 53-" 5./#5.0)
7308
;)R) o) 06=-//" May /." -/0/" >-/ SCR% -65" -66#-</)
73-8
C% rollo" p) -36)
7358
;)R) o) 0>>..3" o$e&be! -=" -//6" .=- SCR% 6<" 0/>B citing Farrol v. Cort o% Appeals" ;)R) o)
055-.<" Geb!ua!y 0/" -///" 5-. SCR% 550" citing in tu!n Jardine :avies, "nc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission" ;)R) o) =>-=-" +uly -6" 0<<<" 500 SCR% -6<" 5atson "nternational 3ravel and 3ors, "nc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission" ;)R) o) 0//5--" Ma!ch <" 0<<3" -5/ SCR% 60.)
7338
>ilton >eav+ E0ipment Corporation v. :+" ;)R) o) 0>36>/" Geb!ua!y -" -/0/" >00 SCR% 5-<" 55<)
73.8
;)R) o) 0===<." +une 0<" -//<" .</ SCR% 00/" 030#03-)
73>8
;)R) o) 0>.560" Geb!ua!y <" -/00" >3- SCR% 556" 5>0)
73=8
;)R) o) 06=0/=" +anua!y 50" -/0-)
7368
Rollo" p) -<)
73<8
;)R) o) 0=/3>3" +uly 0-" -/0/" >-3 SCR% =/." =-/)
7./8
;)R) o) 03>->=" Geb!ua!y 0=" -//5" 5<= SCR% >/=)
7.08
;)R) o) ><3<3" +une 0/" 0<6>" 03- SCR% -><)
7.-8
;)R) o) 066-55" +une -<" -/0/" >-- SCR% ./5" ./>#./6)
7.58
;)R) o) 0>>0/<" Geb!ua!y -5" -/00" >33 SCR% =>" <0)
7.38
Sup!a note 3<" at =-0)