Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > July 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. L-60328 July 16, 1987 - KAPISANANG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-60328. July 16, 1987.]

KAPISANANG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE; SECTION 1 (K) OF THE DEPARTMENT’S RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING PD 1123 DECLARED VOID. — The labor arbiter in rendering the questioned decision relied primarily on Section 1 (k) of the Labor Department’s rules and regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 1123, which provides: "Section 1. Coverage. — These rules shall apply to all employees except the following: (k) Those that have granted, in addition to the allowance under P.D. 525, at least P60.00 monthly wage increase on or after January 1, 1977 provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pay the difference." This exemption paragraph (k) was, however, declared void by this Court in Philippine Apparel Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, ruling that: ". . ., it must be pointed out that the Secretary of Labor has exceeded his authority when he included paragraph (k) in Section 1 of the Rules Implementing P.D. 1123. "By virtue of such rule-making authority, the Secretary of Labor issued on May 1, 1977 a set of rules which exempts not only distressed employers (see paragraph 1, Section 1, as well as Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of said rules) but also ‘those who have granted in addition to the allowance under P.D. 525, at least P60.00 monthly wage increase on or after January 1, 1977, provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pay the difference (see paragraph k of said rules).’ "Clearly, the inclusion of paragraph k contravenes the statutory authority granted to the Secretary of Labor, and the same is therefore void, as ruled by this Court in a long line of cases, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; LABOR DISPUTES; APPEAL; FAILURE TO FURNISH EMPLOYER COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, MERE PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY. — The secondary issue of whether or not the failure of appellant to serve a copy of his memorandum of appeal upon the appellee would warrant the dismissal of a meritorious appeal has been squarely raised and resolved by this Court in the case of Estrada v. National Labor Relations Commission. The Court therein ruled that the commission’s dismissal of the employee’s appeal, on a motion for reconsideration (whereby it set aside its original decision on appeal in favor of the employee on the mere ground of his failure to furnish employer-employee with a copy of his memorandum of appeal), was based on mere procedural technicality and not a jurisdictional defect.

3. ID.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; LABOR LAWS MUST HAVE A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. — The dismissal of petitioner’s appeal on a purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor. Where the rules are applied to labor cases, the interpretation must proceed in accordance with the liberal spirit of the labor laws. Indeed, the Court has stressed that "where a decision may be made to rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight . . . labor determinations . . . should be not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; ID.; COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE; NEGOTIATED DAILY WAGE INCREASE NOT DEDUCTIBLE THEREFROM. — It certainly would work against reason and compassion to hold that the hard-earned P1.33 daily wage increase finally negotiated and secured by petitioners-workers in the collective bargaining agreement of March 7, 1977 was meant to be wiped out by the later issuance of P.D. 1123 on April 21, 1977 recognizing the need to grant the workers a P2.00 daily cost of living allowance (ECOLA). What I had written in my separate opinion in the Philippine Apparel case is fully applicable here, mutatis mutandis: "Reason and experience rebel against the contrary assertion. If after all, the negotiated wage increases in such a ‘munificent’ total of P49.50 for the third year of the CBA (and for a total of only P35.75/month for the 2nd year of the CBA) were to be charged against the P60. — ECOLA increase, the long negotiations for the staggered wage increases for the three-year duration of the CBA would be of no use or meaning, for the workers were already receiving the total P60. — increase from May 1, 1977, without need of the CBA." In fine, to sustain respondent employer’s claim that the negotiated wage increase should be credited against and deducted from the decreed cost of living allowance would be to nullify the wage increase granted and enjoyed by the workers under the collective bargaining agreement. P.D. 1123 did not authorize such a credit and deduction. Aside from the clear intent of the decree, that the living allowance decreed therein is over and above any wage increase contracted and agreed by the parties, it is quite clear that any regulation in plain contravention of the decree must fail, as held in the Philippine Apparel case. It need only be pointed out that the Philippine Apparel declaration of nullity of the Labor Secretary’s questioned exemption regulation is controlling in the case at bar. The Court reaffirmed the same in American Wire & Cable Workers Union (TUPAS) v. National Labor Relations Commission and in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong. The Court reiterated in the first cited case that: "Paragraph (k) of the Rules Implementing P.D. 1123 being void, petitioner’s claim must be granted as private respondent would no longer have any basis for exemption."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTIONS; WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL, IT MUST BE TAKEN TO MEAN EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. — The Court stressed in the second cited case, invoking the Philippine Apparel case ruling, that "It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says . . . All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor."


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, C.J.:


The Court grants the petition and, as prayed for also by the Office of the Solicitor General, sets aside the questioned decision of the labor arbiter, which ruled (contrary to the controlling Philippine Apparel Workers Union case 1) that the negotiated daily wage increase of P1.33 granted and embodied in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement of March 7, 1977, retroactive to January 1, 1977, could be credited to and deducted from the P60.00 monthly or P2.00 daily living allowance required by P.D. 1123 (issued on April 21, 1977, to take effect on May 1, 1977), which in effect nullified the hardearned P1.33 daily wage increase negotiated and obtained by petitioners-workers in their collective bargaining agreement. The resolution of respondent commission peremptorily dismissing petitioner’s meritorious timely appeal on the mere procedural technicality that it did not furnish the adverse party with a copy of its memorandum of appeal is likewise set aside.

The labor arbiter in rendering the questioned decision relied primarily on Section 1 (k) of the Labor Department’s rules and regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 1123, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 1. Coverage. — These rules shall apply to all employees except the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(k) Those that have granted, in addition to the allowance under P.D. 525, at least P60.00 monthly wage increase on or after January 1, 1977 provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pay the difference."cralaw virtua1aw library

This exemption paragraph (k) was, however, declared void by this Court in Philippine Apparel Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, 2 ruling that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . ., it must be pointed out that the Secretary of Labor has exceeded his authority when he included paragraph (k) in Section 1 of the Rules Implementing P.D. 1123.

"Section 1 of said decree spells out the scope of its benefits, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Section 1. In the Private Sector. — In the private sector, an across-the-board increase of sixty pesos (P60.00) in emergency allowance as provided in P.D. 525 shall be paid by all employers to their employees effective 1 May 1977. Accordingly, the monthly emergency allowance under P.D. 525 is hereby amended as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘a) For workers being paid P50.00. — P110

‘b) For workers being paid P30.00 — P90

‘c) For workers being paid P15.00 — P75.’

To implement the same, the then Secretary of Labor was authorized in Section 4 of the same decree to issue appropriate rules and regulations. Such authority is quoted hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Section 4. The Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of the Budget shall issue appropriate rules and regulations to implement this Decree for their respective sectors. Under such rules and regulations, distressed employers whether public or private may be exempted while in such condition in the interest of development and employment.’

"By virtue of such rule-making authority, the Secretary of Labor issued on May 1, 1977 a set of rules which exempts not only distressed employers (see paragraph 1, Section 1, as well as Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of said rules) but also ‘those who have granted in addition to the allowance under P.D. 525, at least P60.00 monthly wage increase on or after January 1, 1977, provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pay the difference (see paragraph k of said rules).’

"Clearly, the inclusion of paragraph k contravenes the statutory authority granted to the Secretary of Labor, and the same is therefore void, as ruled by this Court in a long line of cases, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The labor arbiter thus totally ignored petitioner’s logical plea "that the said deduction is contrary to the spirit and intent of P.D. 1123 which is to protect the wages against inflation; that the workers belong to the lowest income group; that what the workers obtained through a CBA should be protected and not be deducted from the decreed additional P60.00 monthly (or P2.00 daily) living allowance."cralaw virtua1aw library

The questioned decision was appealed by petitioner to respondent commission which summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground that the adverse party was not furnished with a copy of its memorandum of appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The secondary issue of whether or not the failure of appellant to serve a copy of his memorandum of appeal upon the appellee would warrant the dismissal of a meritorious appeal has been squarely raised and resolved by this Court in the case of Estrada v. National Labor Relations Commission. 3 The Court therein ruled that the commission’s dismissal of the employee’s appeal, on a motion for reconsideration (whereby it set aside its original decision on appeal in favor of the employee on the mere ground of his failure to furnish employer-employee with a copy of his memorandum of appeal), was based on mere procedural technicality and not a jurisdictional defect, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering that there is no basis for the dismissal of petitioner, it would be inconsistent with the requirement of social justice to terminate his employment on mere grounds of technicality.

x       x       x


Neither can private respondent validly complain that it has been denied its right to due process by having been allegedly deprived of the opportunity to answer petitioner’s appeal on account of the latter’s failure to furnish the former with a copy of his memorandum of appeal. Since the entire record of the case on appeal is open for review by the NLRC, the absence of an answer or opposition to the appeal would not really have a significant bearing on the adjudication of the case, as would otherwise perhaps constitute a denial of private respondent’s right to due process. Besides, private respondent had already the opportunity to answer petitioner’s appeal when he filed a motion for reconsideration of the earlier decision of the NLRC. Significantly, however, said respondent never touched on the merits of the case in his aforementioned motion for reconsideration. Instead, it relied solely on technicality to oppose petitioner’s appeal which thereby reasonably creates the impression that its case is weak as in fact it is."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal on a purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor. Where the rules are applied to labor cases, the interpretation must proceed in accordance with the liberal spirit of the labor laws. Indeed, the Court has stressed that "where a decision may be made to rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight . . . labor determinations . . . should be not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem." 4

It certainly would work against reason and compassion to hold that the hard-earned P1.33 daily wage increase finally negotiated and secured by petitioners-workers in the collective bargaining agreement of March 7, 1977 was meant to be wiped out by the later issuance of P.D. 1123 on April 21, 1977 recognizing the need to grant the workers a P2.00 daily cost of living allowance (ECOLA).

What I had written in my separate opinion in the Philippine Apparel case is fully applicable here, mutatis mutandis: "Reason and experience rebel against the contrary assertion. If after all, the negotiated wage increases in such a ‘munificent’ total of P49.50 for the third year of the CBA (and for a total of only P35.75/month for the 2nd year of the CBA) were to be charged against the P60. — ECOLA increase, the long negotiations for the staggered wage increases for the three-year duration of the CBA would be of no use or meaning, for the workers were already receiving the total P60. — increase from May 1, 1977, without need of the CBA." 5

In fine, to sustain respondent employer’s claim that the negotiated wage increase should be credited against and deducted from the decreed cost of living allowance would be to nullify the wage increase granted and enjoyed by the workers under the collective bargaining agreement. P.D. 1123 did not authorize such a credit and deduction. Aside from the clear intent of the decree, that the living allowance decreed therein is over and above any wage increase contracted and agreed by the parties, it is quite clear that any regulation in plain contravention of the decree must fail, as held in the Philippine Apparel case.

It need only be pointed out that the Philippine Apparel declaration of nullity of the Labor Secretary’s questioned exemption regulation is controlling in the case at bar. The Court reaffirmed the same in American Wire & Cable Workers Union (TUPAS) v. National Labor Relations Commission 6 and in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong. 7 The Court reiterated in the first cited case that: "Paragraph (k) of the Rules Implementing P.D. 1123 being void, petitioner’s claim must be granted as private respondent would no longer have any basis for exemption." The Court stressed in the second cited case, invoking the Philippine Apparel case ruling, that "It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says . . . All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor."cralaw virtua1aw library

ACCORDINGLY, the labor arbiter’s questioned decision and respondent commission’s questioned resolution dismissing the appeal are hereby set aside and private respondent is hereby ordered to comply fully with the obligation imposed upon it by P.D. 1123 and pay to all its workers the living allowance therein provided separately and distinctly from the wage increase agreed by it and embodied in the collective bargaining agreement of March 7, 1977. This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Narvasa, Cruz, Paras and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Phil. Apparel Workers Union v. NLRC and Philippine Apparel, Inc., 106 SCRA 444.

2. Idem; Emphasis supplied.

3. 112 SCRA 688.

4. Meracap v. International Ceramics Mfg. Co., Inc., 92 SCRA 412, 417.

5. 106 SCRA at page 468.

6. 130 SCRA 219.

7. 132 SCRA 663.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47147 July 3, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENEN OLA

  • G.R. No. L-67472 July 3, 1987 - DARIO C. CABIGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48879-82 July 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LASANAS

  • A.C. No. 2655 July 9, 1987 - LEONARD W. RICHARDS v. PATRICIO A. ASOY

  • G.R. No. L-49728 July 15, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO F. AUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-63438 July 15, 1987 - MANUEL OLONDRIZ, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-30637 July 16, 1987 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE

  • G.R. No. L-60328 July 16, 1987 - KAPISANANG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76639 July 16, 1987 - EMILIO SY v. JUAN C. TUVERA

  • G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987 - RAMON S. MILO v. ANGELITO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-69377 July 20, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER ALBOFERA

  • G.R. No. 71813 July 20, 1987 - ROSALINA P. ABELLA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-33050 July 23, 1987 - PABLO V. ZAGALA v. JOSE B. JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-33654 July 23, 1987 - MEYNARDO Q. JAMILIANO v. SERAFIN B. CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-35800 July 23, 1987 - ROSALINDA PA-AC v. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-41171 July 23, 1987 - PATROCINIO BORROMEO-HERRERA v. FORTUNATO BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-46010 July 23, 1987 - CANDIDA B. MUNEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-46903 July 23, 1987 - BUHAY DE ROMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50383 July 23, 1987 - PACKAGING PRODUCTS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56398 July 23, 1987 - ASIA WORLD PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. v. BLAS OPLE

  • G.R. No. L-57338 July 23, 1987 - WILLIAM B. BORTHWICK v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-58292 July 23, 1987 - ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. L-69303 July 23, 1987 - HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73008 July 23, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. BOHOLST

  • G.R. No. 76872 July 23, 1987 - WILFREDO S. TORRES v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-78780 July 23, 1987 - DAVID G. NITAFAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.C. No. 1327 July 27, 1987 - RE: ATTY. OCTAVIO D. FULE

  • G.R. Nos. L-36906-07 July 27, 1987 - ISAAC O. TOLENTINO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 71131-32 July 27, 1987 - REPUBLIC SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 72316-17 July 27, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALMUDE LIZA

  • G.R. No. 76746 July 27, 1987 - DURABUILT RECAPPING PLANT & COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77918 July 27, 1987 - FRANCISCO LECAROZ v. JAIME N. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-46591 July 28, 1987 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. MIGUEL NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-49162 July 28, 1987 - JANICE MARIE JAO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-54045 July 28, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EDUARDO R. BENGZON

  • G.R. No. L-56614 July 28, 1987 - ROMAN SANTOS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-71768 July 28, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO TANAMAN

  • G.R. No. L-32621 July 29, 1987 - ASSOC. OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC. v. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

  • G.R. No. L-51306 July 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CAMAY

  • G.R. No. L-51369 July 29, 1987 - MODESTA BADILLO v. CLARITA FERRER

  • G.R. No. 74041 July 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. LIGON

  • G.R. Nos. 77317-50 July 29, 1987 - MADID MACAGA-AN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-58651 July 30, 1987 - VIRGINIA T. VELASCO v. GRACIANO P. GAYAPA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-63132 July 30, 1987 - ELIAS S. MENDOZA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 71907 July 30, 1987 - EDI-STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72727 July 30, 1987 - BENITO DILAG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74485-86 July 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN GARUFIL

  • G.R. No. 77353 July 30, 1987 - ASSOCIATED BANK v. ARSENIO M. GONONG

  • A.M. No. R-181-P July 31, 1987 - ADELIO C. CRUZ v. QUITERIO L. DALISAY

  • G.R. No. L-31681 July 31, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BR. XII

  • G.R. No. L-31974 July 31, 1987 - NICOLAS LEYTE v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47521 July 31, 1987 - CAROLINA CLEMENTE v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-46724 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO SERANTE

  • G.R. No. L-47661 July 31, 1987 - JUANITO CARIÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48672 July 31, 1987 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-49703 July 31, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON R. FLOJO

  • G.R. No. L-58781 July 31, 1987 - TEOFILO MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58831 July 31, 1987 - ALFREDO R. CORNEJO, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-63862 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. L-65211 July 31, 1987 - EDGARDO P. TOLEDO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-66186 July 31, 1987 - AMANCIO SESE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-66419 July 31, 1987 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. IVAN MENDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-67583 July 31, 1987 - BASILISA S. ESCONDE v. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY

  • G.R. No. L-69542 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO AUDITOR

  • G.R. No. L-69901 July 31, 1987 - ANTONIO RAMON ONGSIAKO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 70287 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO B. RUALO

  • G.R. No. 70648 July 31, 1987 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-72301 July 31, 1987 - ROLANDO PONSICA, ET AL. v. EMILIO M. IGNALAGA

  • G.R. No. L-72555 July 31, 1987 - TABACALERA INSURANCE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74007 July 31, 1987 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. MINISTER OF LABOR.

  • G.R. No. 74289 July 31, 1987 - GOLDEN GATE REALTY CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74562 July 31, 1987 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74625 July 31, 1987 - MATEO P. FRANCISCO v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 75380 July 31, 1987 - VICTORIA M. TOLENTINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76273 July 31, 1987 - FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987 - TERESITA TABLARIN, ET AL. v. ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ