RULE 13 in his office, if known, or else in the residence, also if known.

As the party or
TAK V. MAKASIAR his counsel is not expected to be present at all times in his office or
residence, service is allowed to be made with a person in charge of the
FACTS: office, or with a person of sufficient discretion to receive the same in the
1. Vic Ang Siong issued a check in the amount of P 83,550,000.00 in favor of residence.
Concord-World Properties Inc., a domestic corporation.
2. The check was dishonored when presented for encashment. In the case under consideration, it is not disputed that the controverted
3. Petitioner Tam Wing Tak in his capacity as director of Concord filed an Resolution dismissing the complaint of the petitioner against Vic Ang Siong
affidavit-complaint with the Prosecutors Office charging Vic Ang Siong for was served on the former by registered mail and was actually delivered by
violation of BP 22. the postmaster on April 9, 1994 at said petitioners given address in the
4. Vic Ang Sion sought the dismissal of the case because petitioner had no record at No.5 Kayumanggi Street, West Triangle, Quezon City. The
authority to file the case on behalf of Concord, the payee of the dishonored registered mail was in fact received by S. Ferraro. The service then was
check, since the firms Board of Directors had not empowered him to act on complete and the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal
its behalf. began to toll from that date. It expired on April 24, 1994. Considering that his
5. The City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint. motion for reconsideration was filed only on July 7, 1994, the same was filed
6. A copy of the City Prosecutors resolution was sent be registered mail to beyond the prescribed period, thereby precluding further appeal to the Office
petitioner. of the respondent.[3]
7. Notwithstanding that petitioner was represented by counsel, the latter was
not furnished a copy of the resolution. We agree with petitioner that there is no generally accepted practice in
8. Petitioners counsel was able to secure a copy of the resolution and a the service of orders, resolutions, and processes, which allows service
motion for reconsideration was filed. upon either the litigant or his lawyer. As a rule, notice or service made
9. The City Prosecutor denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. upon a party who is represented by counsel is a nullity.[8] However, said
10. Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his complaint by the City Prosecutor rule admits of exceptions, as when the court or tribunal orders service
to the Chief State Prosecutor but the latter dismissed the same for having upon the party[9] or when the technical defect is waived.[10]
been filed out of time.
11. Respondent Chief State Prosecutor Zenon De Guia denied the motion for To resolve the issue on validity of service, we must make a determination as
reconsideration. to which is the applicable rule the rule on service in the Rules of Court, as
12. Petitioner then filed a civil case for Mandamus with the RTC of Quezon petitioner insists or the rule on service in DOJ Order No. 223?
City to compel the Chief State Prosecutor to file or cause the filing of an
information charging Vic Ang Siong with violation of BP 22. The Rules of Court were promulgated by this Court pursuant to Section 13,
13. RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar denied petition for Mandamus. Article VII of the 1935 Constitution[11] (now Section 5 [5], Article VIII of the
14. Motion for reconsideration filed was also denied. Constitution)[12] to govern pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts of
15. Hence this petition. the Philippines. The purpose of the Rules is clear and does not need any
interpretation.The Rules were meant to govern court (stress supplied)
PETITIONERS CONTENTION: procedures and pleadings. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
Petitioner submits that there is no such generally accepted practice which General, a preliminary investigation, notwithstanding its judicial nature,
gives a tribunal the option of serving pleadings, orders, resolutions, and is not a court proceeding. The holding of a preliminary investigation is
other papers to either the opposing party himself or his counsel. Petitioner a function of the Executive Department and not of the Judiciary.
[13]
insists that the fundamental rule in this jurisdiction is that if a party appears Thus, the rule on service provided for in the Rules of Court cannot
by counsel, then service can only be validly made upon counsel and service be made to apply to the service of resolutions by public prosecutors,
upon the party himself becomes invalid and without effect. Petitioner relies especially as the agency concerned, in this case, the Department of
upon Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court [4] and our ruling in J.M. Javier Justice, has its own procedural rules governing said service.
Logging Corp. v. Mardo, 24 SCRA 776 (1968) to support his stand. In
the J.M. Javier case, we held: A plain reading of Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223 clearly shows that in
preliminary investigation, service can be made upon the party himself or
[W]here a party appears by attorney, notice to the former is not a notice through his counsel. It must be assumed that when the Justice Department
in law, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court... [5] crafted the said section, it was done with knowledge of the pertinent rule in
the Rules of Court and of jurisprudence interpreting it. The DOJ could have
SOLGENs CONTENTION: just adopted the rule on service provided for in the Rules of Court, but did
The Solicitor General, for respondents, contends that the applicable rule on not. Instead, it opted to word Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223 in such a way
service in the present case is Section 2 of the Department of Justice (DOJ) as to leave no doubt that in preliminary investigations, service of resolutions
Order No. 223,[6] which allows service to be made upon either party or his of public prosecutors could be made upon either the party or his counsel.
counsel. Respondents argue that while a preliminary investigation has been Moreover, the Constitution provides that Rules of procedure of special courts
considered as partaking of the nature of a judicial proceeding, [7] nonetheless, and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
it is not a court proceeding and hence, falls outside of the ambit of the Rules Supreme Court.[14] There is naught in the records to show that we have
of Court. disapproved and nullified Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223 and since its
validity is not an issue in the instant case, we shall refrain from ruling upon
ISSUE: its validity.
Won service is valid - YES
We hold that there was valid service upon petitioner pursuant to Section 2 of
DOJ Order No. 223.
Which is the applicable rule: the rule on service in the Rules of Court, as
petitioner insists or the rule on service in DOJ Order No. 223?

HELD:

In upholding respondent Chief State Prosecutor, the court a quo held:

It is a generally accepted principle in the service of orders, resolutions,
processes and other papers to serve them on the party or his counsel, either

1 | Page CIV PRO

MILAGROS SALTING, v JOHN VELEZ and CLARISSA R. VELEZ,
G.R. No. 181930 January 10, 2011
FACTS:
Respondents John Velez and Clarissa Velez filed a complaint (Civil Case
2524) for ejectment against petitioner Milagros Salding. They obtained a
favorable decision from Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC.)The decision
became final and executory, after which respondents filed a motion for
execution which was opposed by petitioner.
Petitioner instituted another action for the annulment of the deed of sale
between her and the heirs of Villamena. Petitioner also claims that the
decision in Civil Case No. 2524 had not attained finality as she was not
properly informed of the MeTC decision.
Petitioner claims that she was denied her right to appeal when the March 28,
2006 MeTC decision was declared final and executory despite the fact that
the copy of the decision was served on her deceased counsel. She further
claims that the MeTC decision had not attained finality due to improper
service of the decision. Moreover, petitioner avers that she has a clear and
existing right and interest over the subject property which should be
protected by injunction. Finally, petitioner argues that jurisprudence allows
the suspension of proceedings in an ejectment case at whatever stage when
warranted by the circumstances of the case.
Petitioner thus prayed that a TRO be issued, restraining respondents and all
persons acting for and in their behalf from executing the MeTC decision
dated March 28, 2006.
RTC granted writ of preliminary injunction. CA reversed.
Respondents fault the petitioner herself for not informing the MeTC of the
death of her former counsel the moment she learned of such death.
ISSUE: Won Service of the MeTC decision was valid and final and executory
HELD: YES
Service of decision to a deceased lawyer is invalid and that the party
must be duly served by the final judgment in order that the final
judgment will become final and executory.
We first determine the validity of the service of the March 28, 2006 MeTC
decision on petitioners counsel who, as of that date, was already deceased.
If a party to a case has appeared by counsel, service of pleadings and
judgments shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless
service upon the party himself is ordered by the court.
Thus, when the MeTC decision was sent to petitioners counsel, such service
of judgment was valid and binding upon petitioner, notwithstanding the death
of her counsel. It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress
of a case, whether the law firm or partnership continues to exist lawfully, the
partners are still alive, or its associates are still connected with the
firm.11 Litigants, represented by counsel, cannot simply sit back, relax, and
await the outcome of their case.12 It is the duty of the party-litigant to be in
contact with her counsel from time to time in order to be informed of
the progress of her case.13 It is likewise the duty of the party to inform
the court of the fact of her counsels death. Her failure to do so means
that she is negligent in the protection of her cause, and she cannot
pass the blame to the court which is not tasked to monitor the changes
in the circumstances of the parties and their counsels.
2 | Page
It is noteworthy that when petitioner came to know of the death of her
counsel and upon obtaining the services of a new counsel, petitioner
instituted another action for the annulment of the deed of sale between her
and the heirs of Villamena, instead of questioning the MeTC decision through
an action for annulment of judgment. Obviously, the annulment case
instituted by petitioner is separate and distinct from the ejectment case filed
by respondents. She cannot, therefore, obtain relief through the second case
for alleged errors and injustices committed in the first case.
With the foregoing disquisition, we find that the March 28, 2006 MeTC
decision had, indeed, become final and executory.
PNB VS CIR.
SHORT FACTS:
The Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc) in C.T.A. E.B. NO. 145,
dismissed outright the Petition for Review filed by the Philippine National
Bank (PNB) for being filed four days beyond the additional 15 days granted
to file such petition. PNB argues that it was filed on time since it was mailed
on the last day of the extended period, which was on December 23,
2005.PNB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the SC to set aside
and reverse said Resolutions.
PNB mailed its petition for review via LBC Express, a private letter-
forwarding company, instead of registered mail. It claims that since the SC
has repeatedly pronounced the primacy of substantive justice over technical
rules, then its procedural lapses should likewise be excused, especially since
no substantial rights of the CIR are affected.
ISSUE: WoN PNBs petition for review with the CTA was filed on time
HELD: NO. Petition was filed late
RATIO: It has been established that a pleading filed by ordinary mail or
by private messengerial service x x x is deemed filed on the day it is
actually received by the court, and not on the day it was mailed or
delivered to the messengerial service
LONGER HELD:
WoN the circumstances warrant the relaxing of the rules in favour of
substancial justice - NO
This Court would like to underscore the fact that PNB failed to
comply with not just one, but three procedural rules when it filed its petition
for review with the CTA En Banc.
Petition was filed late
It is stated under Section 3, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals that the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. Thus,
the manner in which petitions are filed before the CTA is also covered by the
relevant provision of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Rule 13. x x x.
xxxx
Sec. 3. Manner of filing. The filing of
pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders,
judgments and all other papers shall be made by
presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated
as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending
them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of
court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour
of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of
CIV PRO
 motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments
or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on
the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be
considered as the date of their filing, payment, or
deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to
the record of the case. (Emphases ours.)
To recall, PNB filed its petition with the CTA En Banc four days
beyond the extended period granted to it to file such petition. PNB argues
that it was filed on time since it was mailed on the last day of the extended
period, which was on December 23, 2005. It has been established that a
pleading filed by ordinary mail or by private messengerial service x x x
is deemed filed on the day it is actually received by the court, and not
on the day it was mailed or delivered to the messengerial service.[34]
In Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission,[35] we said:
The established rule is that the date of delivery of
pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is
not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in
court, and that in such cases, the date of actual
receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to
the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of
that pleading.[36]
It is worthy to note that PNB already asked for an additional
period of 15 days within which to file its petition for review with the CTA En
Banc. This period expired on December 23, 2005. Knowing fully well that
December 23, 2005 not only fell on a Friday, followed by three consecutive
non-working days, but also belonged to the busiest holiday season of the
year, PNB should have exercised more prudence and foresight in filing its
petition.
It is, however, curious why PNB chose to risk the holiday traffic in
an effort to personally file its petition with the CTA En Banc, when it already
filed a copy to the other party, the CIR, via registered mail.[37] Considering the
circumstances, it would have been more logical for PNB to send its petition
to the CTA En Banc on the same occasion it sent a copy to the CIR,
especially since that day was already the last day given to PNB to file its
petition. Moreover, PNB offered no justification as to why it sent its petition
via ordinary mail instead of registered mail. Service by ordinary mail is
allowed only in instances where no registry service exists.[38] Rule 13,
Section 7 reads:
Sec. 7. Service by mail. Service by
registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in
the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed
to the party or his counsel at his office, if known,
otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully
pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (l0) days if
undelivered. If no registry service is available in the
locality of either the sender or the addressee,
service may be done by ordinary mail. (Emphasis
ours.)
Petition was not accompanied by the
required duplicate originals or certified
true copies of the decision and resolution
being assailed, and Affidavit of Service
The following provisions are instructive:
Section 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax
Appeals:
3 | Page
SEC. 2. Petition for review; contents. The
petition for review shall contain allegations showing the
jurisdiction of the Court, a concise statement of the
complete facts and a summary statement of the issues
involved in the case, as well as the reasons relied
upon for the review of the challenged decision. The
petition shall be verified and must contain a
certification against forum shopping as provided in
Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. A clearly
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of
the decision appealed from shall be attached to the
petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax
Appeals:
Sec. 4(b) An appeal from a decision or
resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for
reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court
by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the
appeal.
Sections 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. The
petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the
parties to the case, without impleading the court or
agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b)
contain a concise statement of the facts and issues
involved and the grounds relied upon for the
review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the
award, judgment, final order or resolution
appealed from, together with certified true copies of
such material portions of the record referred to therein
and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn
certification against forum shopping as provided in the
last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall
state the specific material dates showing that it was
filed within the period fixed herein.(Emphasis ours.)
This Court has already upheld the mandatory character of
attaching duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed decision
to a petition for review. [39] Moreover, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, non-compliance with such mandatory requirement is a
sufficient ground to dismiss the petition, viz:
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with
requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply
with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition,
and the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis ours.)
Anent the failure to attach the Affidavit of Service, Section 13, Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 13. Proof of service. Proof of personal
service shall consist of a written admission of the party
served, or the official return of the server, or the
affidavit of the party serving, containing a full
CIV PRO
 statement of the date, place and manner of service. If addition to the 4,154,353.42 the BIR already gave. The CTA Division
the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall explained why it disallowed the remaining balance of 445,578.92 in its
consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts Decision dated August 11, 2005. When PNB moved to reconsider this
showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If decision, it did not offer the CTA any other evidence or explanation aside
service is made by registered mail, proof shall be from the ones the CTA Division had already evaluated.Nevertheless, the CTA
made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued carefully considered and deliberated anew PNBs grounds, albeit they found
by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be them lacking in merit. Thus, it cannot be said that PNB was deprived of its
filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in day in court, as in fact, it was given all the time it had asked for.
lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the
certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the While PNB may believe that it has a meritorious legal defense,
postmaster to the addressee. this must be weighed against the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of
procedural rules. It is well established that faithful compliance with the Rules
of Court is essential for the prevention and avoidance of unnecessary delays
Although the failure to attach the required affidavit of service is not fatal if the and for the organized and efficient dispatch of judicial business.
registry receipt attached to the petition clearly shows service to the other
party, [40] it must be remembered that this was not the only rule of procedure
PNB failed to satisfy. In Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.[41] we said: BERNARTE V. PBA, ET AL.
G.R. No.192084 September 14, 2011
It is an accepted tenet that rules of
procedure must be faithfully followed except only
FACTS:
when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may
Petitoners Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were hired by the PBA
be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice
as referees. Their contract was not renewed following its expiration. Thus
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
they accused the PBA of illegal dismissal.They won before the Labor Arbiter
prescribed procedure.Concomitant to a liberal
and the NLRC which both held that they were employees who were illegally
interpretation of the rules of procedure, however,
dismissed and, therefore, entitled to backwages, damages and attorneys
should be an effort on the part of the party invoking
fees. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision prompting the
liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by
referees to elevate the case to the Supreme Court where they contended
the rules.[42]
that he is an employee since the PBA exercised control over the
performance of his work.
This Court agrees with the CTA En Banc that PNB has not
Petitioner raises the procedural issue of whether the Labor Arbiters decision
demonstrated any cogent reason for this Court to take an exception
has become final and executory for failure of respondents to appeal with the
and excuse PNBs blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in a
NLRC within the reglementary period.
petition for review. Furthermore, the timely perfection of an appeal is a
mandatory requirement. One cannot escape the rigid observance of this
Petitioner claims that the Labor Arbiters decision was constructively served
rule by claiming oversight, or in this case, lack of foresight. Neither can it be
on respondents as early as August 2005 while respondents appealed the
trifled with as a mere technicality to suit the interest of a party. Verily, the
Arbiters decision only on 31 March 2006, way beyond the reglementary
periods for filing petitions for review and for certiorari are to be observed
period to appeal. Petitioner points out that service of an unclaimed registered
religiously. Just as [the] losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within
mail is deemed complete five days from the date of first notice of the post
the prescribed period, so does the winner have the x x x right to enjoy the
master. In this case three notices were issued by the post office, the last
finality of the decision.[43] In Air France Philippines v. Leachon,[44] we held:
being on 1 August 2005. The unclaimed registered mail was consequently
returned to sender. Petitioner presents the Postmasters Certification to
Procedural rules setting the period for
prove constructive service of the Labor Arbiters decision on respondents.
perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are
The Postmaster certified:
generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that
xxx
appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory
privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail of the
privilege must comply with the statutes or rules That upon receipt of said registered mail matter, our registry in charge,
allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal Vicente Asis, Jr., immediately issued the first registry notice to claim on July
within the reglementary period specified in the law 12, 2005 by the addressee. The second and third notices were issued on
must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements July 21 and August 1, 2005, respectively.
are considered indispensable interdictions against
needless delays, and are necessary for the orderly
discharge of the judicial business. For sure, the That the subject registered letter was returned to the sender (RTS) because
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the the addressee failed to claim it after our one month retention period elapsed.
period set by law is not only mandatory, but Said registered letter was dispatched from this office to Manila CPO (RTS)
jurisdictional as well. Failure to perfect an appeal under bill #6, line 7, page1, column 1, on September 8, 2005.12
renders the judgment appealed from final and
executory.[45]
ISSUE: WoN respondents were constructively served with LAs decision

While it is true that the Court may deviate from the foregoing rule, HELD: NO
this is true only if the appeal is meritorious on its face. The Court has not
hesitated to relax the procedural rules in order to serve and achieve
substantial justice.In the circumstances obtaining in this case however, the Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides:
occasion does not warrant the desired relaxation.[46] PNB has not offered any
meritorious legal defense to justify the suspension of the rules in its SEC. 10. Completeness of service. Personal service is complete upon
favor. The CTA Division has taken into consideration all of the evidence
actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of
submitted by the PNB, and actually allowed it a refund of 1,428,661.66, in

4 | Page CIV PRO

ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service by
registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after
five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier.
The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual
service the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the
addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service the
completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the
date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster.13
Insofar as constructive service is concerned, there must be conclusive
proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the
addressee.14 Not only is it required that notice of the registered mail be
issued but that it should also be delivered to and received by the
addressee.15 Notably, the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed is not applicable in this situation. It is incumbent upon a party who
relies on constructive service to prove that the notice was sent to, and
received by, the addressee.16
The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from
the postmaster, who should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent
but also as to how, when and to whom the delivery and receipt was made.
The mailman may also testify that the notice was actually delivered.17
In this case, petitioner failed to present any concrete proof as to how,
when and to whom the delivery and receipt of the three notices issued
by the post office was made. There is no conclusive evidence showing that
the post office notices were actually received by respondents, negating
petitioners claim of constructive service of the Labor Arbiters decision on
respondents. The Postmasters Certification does not sufficiently prove
that the three notices were delivered to and received by respondents; it
only indicates that the post office issued the three notices. Simply put,
the issuance of the notices by the post office is not equivalent to
delivery to and receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. Thus,
there is no proof of completed constructive service of the Labor Arbiters
decision on respondents.
5 | Page
At any rate, the NLRC declared the issue on the finality of the Labor Arbiters
decision moot as respondents appeal was considered in the interest of
substantial justice. We agree with the NLRC. The ends of justice will be
better served if we resolve the instant case on the merits rather than allowing
the substantial issue of whether petitioner is an independent contractor or an
employee linger and remain unsettled due to procedural technicalities.
LABOR LAW:
REFEREES HIRED BY PBA ARE NOT EMPLOYEES.
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question
of fact. As a general rule, factual issues are beyond the province of this
Court. However, this rule admits of exceptions, one of which is where there
are conflicting findings of fact between the Court of Appeals, on one hand,
and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the other, such as in the present case.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law
has consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods
by which the work is accomplished.
The so-called"control test"is the most important indicator of the presence or
absence of an employer-employee relationship.
The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that
petitioner is an employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an
employee, the hiring party must have control over the means and methods
by which the hired party is to perform his work, which is absent in this case.
The continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of
the contract between PBA and petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory
services rendered by petitioner warranting such contract renewal.
Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner's services at the end of
the term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or violation
of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason, the
same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract, as in the present
case. The non-renewal of the contract between the parties does not
constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents
CIV PRO