Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > August 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 74004 August 10, 1989 - A.M. ORETA & CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 74004. August 10, 1989.]

A.M. ORETA & CO., INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SIXTO GRULLA, JR., Respondents.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAWS; EMPLOYMENT REGULARITY THEREOF HOW DETERMINED. — What determines regularity or casualness is not the employment contract, written or otherwise, but the nature of the job. If the job is usually necessary or desirable to the main business of the employer, then employment is regular.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner admitted that respondent Grulla was employed in the company as a carpenter for a period of twelve months before he was dismissed on October 9, 1980. A perusal of the employment contract reveals that although the period of employment of respondent Grulla is twelve (12) months, the contract period is renewable subject to future agreement of the parties. It is clear from the employment contract that the respondent Grulla was hired by the company as a regular employee and not just a mere probationary employee.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROBATIONARY BASIS; DUTY OF EMPLOYER TO INFORM EMPLOYEE OF STANDARD QUALIFICATION FOR REGULAR EMPLOYMENT. — In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary’ basis, the employer shall make known to the employee at the time he is hired, the standards by which he will qualify as a regular employee.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH JUSTIFIES A CONCLUSION THAT EMPLOYMENT IS ON A REGULAR BASIS; CASE AT BAR. — Nowhere in the employment contract executed between petitioner company and respondent Grulla is there a stipulation that the latter shall undergo a probationary period for three months before he can quality as a regular employee. There is also no evidence on record showing that the respondent Grulla had been apprised of his probationary status and the requirements which he should comply in order to be a regular employee. In the absence of these requisites, there is justification in concluding that respondent Grulla was a regular employee at the time he was dismissed by petitioner. As such, he is entitled to security of tenure during his period of employment and his services cannot be terminated except for just and authorized causes enumerated under the Labor Code and under the employment contract.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEE ENJOYS SECURITY OF TENURE. — Although a probationary or temporary employee has limited tenure, he still enjoys security of tenure. During his tenure of employment or before his contract expires, he cannot be removed except for cause as provided for by law (Euro-Linea Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, No. L-75782, December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 78; Manila Hotel Corporation v. NLRC, No. L-53453, January 22, 1986, 141 SCRA 169).

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION. — Article 282 of the Labor Code sets forth the following just causes for which an employer may terminate an employment, namely:" (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;" (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;" (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;" (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and" (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, NOT A JUST CAUSE. — The alleged ground of unsatisfactory performance relied upon by petitioner for dismissing respondent Grulla is not one of the just causes for dismissal provided in the Labor Code. Neither is it included among the grounds for termination of employment under Article VII of the contract of employment executed by petitioner company and respondent Grulla.

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOTICE AND HEARING, INDISPENSABLE; PURPOSE. — The twin requirements of notice and healing constitute essential elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer’s intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal, while the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s changes against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. Neither of these requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the Constitution (Century Textile Mills, Inc., Et. Al. v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 77859, May 25, 1988).

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF SALARY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF CONTRACT WHERE DISMISSAL VIOLATED HIS SECURITY OF TENURE. — In the case at bar, respondent Grulla was not, in any manner, notified of the charges against him before he was outrightly dismissed. Neither was any hearing or investigation conducted by the company to give the respondent a chance to be heard concerning the alleged unsatisfactory performance of his work. In view of the foregoing, the dismissal of respondent Grulla violated the security of tenure under the contract of employment which specifically provides that the contract term shall be for a period of twelve (12) calendar months. Consequently, the respondent Grulla should be paid his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract of employment which is ten (10) months (See Cuales v. NLRC, at al., No. L-57379, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 812).

10. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ENTITLED NOT ONLY TO RESPECT BUT FINALITY. — Findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. In the instant case, the assailed Resolution of the respondent Commission is not tainted with arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction and therefore, We find no reason to disturb the same.

11. ID.; SUPREME COURT; JUDICIAL REVIEW LIMITED TO ISSUES OF JURISDICTION OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Judicial review by this Court on labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor officer or office based his or its determination but are limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion (Special Events and Central Shipping Office Workers Union v. San Miguel Corporation, Nos. L-61 002-06, May 30, 1983, 122 SCRA 557).


D E C I S I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of the Resolution of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated January 17, 1986 (p. 24, Rollo) in BES Case No. 81-1371 entitled, "SIXTO GRULLA, JR., Complainant, versus A.M. ORETA & COMPANY, INC. and/or ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. (ENDECO), Respondents", affirming the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) awarding to private respondent herein Sixto Grulla the salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

The antecedent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private respondent Grulla was engaged by Engineering Construction and Industrial Development Company (ENDECO) through A.M. Oreta and Co., Inc. as a carpenter in its project in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The contract of employment, which was entered into on June 11, 1980 was for a period of twelve (12) months. Respondent Grulla left the Philippines for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on August 5, 1980.

On August 15, 1980, Grulla met an accident which fractured his lumbar vertebrae while working at the jobsite. He was rushed to the New Jeddah Clinic and was confined there for twelve (12) days. On August 27, 1980, Grulla was discharged from the hospital and was told that he could resume his normal duties after undergoing physical therapy for two weeks.

On September 18, 1980, respondent Grulla reported back to his Project Manager and presented to the latter a medical certificate declaring the former already physically fit for work. Since then, he stated working again until he received a notice of termination of his employment on October 9, 1980.

In December, 1981, respondent Grulla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, recovery of medical benefits, unpaid wages for the unexpired ten (10) months of his contract and the sum of P1,000.00 as reimbursement of medical expenses against A.M. Oreta and Company, Inc. and Engineering Construction and Industrial Development Co. (ENDECO) with the Philippine Overseas and Employment Administration (POEA).

The petitioner A.M. Oreta and Company, Inc. and ENDECO filed their answer and alleged that the contract of employment entered into between petitioners and Grulla provides, as one of the grounds for termination of employment, violation of the rules and regulations promulgated by the contractor; and that Grulla was dismissed because he has not performed his duties satisfactorily within the probationary period of three months.

On August 8,1985, the POEA rendered a decision (pp. 97-107, Rollo), the dispositive portion of which states, inter alia:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing, this Office finds and so holds that complainant’s dismissal was illegal and warrants the award of his wages for the unexpired portion of the contract.

"2. Anent the complainant’s claim for medical expenses, this Office finds the same to be well-taken. Respondent did not deny either specifically or generally said claim. Hence, it is deemed admitted.

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents A.M. Oreta and Company, Inc. and its foreign principal Engineering Construction and Industrial Development Company (ENDECO) jointly and severally to pay complainant within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order the sum of THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED US DOLLAR (US $3,700.00) or its peso equivalent at the time of payment representing complainant’s salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract for ten (10) months and the sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) representing reimbursement of medical expenses.

"Respondent is likewise ordered to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total award.

"SO ORDERED"

Petitioner appealed from the adverse decision to the respondent Commission. On January 17, 1986, respondent Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the decision of the POEA..

On April 1, 1986, the instant petition was filed on the ground that the respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the POEA. A temporary restraining order was issued by this Court on April 23, 1986, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the questioned resolution of the respondent Commission.

The issues to be resolved in the instant case are whether or not the employment of respondent Grulla was illegally terminated by the petitioner; and whether or not the respondent Grulla is entitled to salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

Petitioner contends that the respondent Grulla was validly dismissed because the latter was still a probationary employee; and that his dismissal was justified on the basis of his unsatisfactory performance of his job during the probationary period. This contention has no merit.

Article 280 (formerly Article 281) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employment or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is far the duration of the season.

"An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists."cralaw virtua1aw library

It may be well to cite at this point Policy Instructions No. 12 of the then Minister of Labor (now Secretary of Labor and Employment) which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PD 850 has defined the concept of regular and casual employment. What determines regularity or casualness is not the employment contract, written or otherwise, but the nature of the job. If the job is usually necessary or desirable to the main business of the employer, then employment is regular. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner admitted that respondent Grulla was employed in the company as a carpenter for a period of twelve months before he was dismissed on October 9, 1980. A perusal of the employment contract reveals that although the period of employment of respondent Grulla is twelve (12) months, the contract period is renewable subject to future agreement of the parties. It is clear from the employment contract that the respondent Grulla was hired by the company as a regular employee and not just a mere probationary employee.

On the matter of probationary employment, the law in point is Article 281 (formerly Article 252) of the Labor Code which provides in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 281. Probationary Employment. — . . . . The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered regular employee." (Emphasis ours)

The law is clear to the effect that in all cases involving employees engaged on probationary’ basis, the employer shall make known to the employee at the time he is hired, the standards by which he will qualify as a regular employee. Nowhere in the employment contract executed between petitioner company and respondent Grulla is there a stipulation that the latter shall undergo a probationary period for three months before he can quality as a regular employee. There is also no evidence on record showing that the respondent Grulla had been apprised of his probationary status and the requirements which he should comply in order to be a regular employee. In the absence of these requisites, there is justification in concluding that respondent Grulla was a regular employee at the time he was dismissed by petitioner. As such, he is entitled to security of tenure during his period of employment and his services cannot be terminated except for just and authorized causes enumerated under the Labor Code and under the employment contract.

Granting, in gratia argumenti, that respondent is a probationary employee, he cannot, likewise, be removed except for cause during the period of probation. Although a probationary or temporary employee has limited tenure, he still enjoys security of tenure. During his tenure of employment or before his contract expires, he cannot be removed except for cause as provided for by law (Euro-Linea Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, No. L-75782, December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 78; Manila Hotel Corporation v. NLRC, No. L-53453, January 22, 1986, 141 SCRA 169).

Article 282 of the Labor Code sets forth the following just causes for which an employer may terminate an employment, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

"(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

"(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

"(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and

"(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing."cralaw virtua1aw library

The alleged ground of unsatisfactory performance relied upon by petitioner for dismissing respondent Grulla is not one of the just causes for dismissal provided in the Labor Code. Neither is it included among the grounds for termination of employment under Article VII of the contract of employment executed by petitioner company and respondent Grulla (p. 18, Rollo). Moreover, petitioner has failed to show proof of the particular acts or omissions constituting the unsatisfactory performance of Grulla of his duties, which was allegedly due to his poor physical state after the accident. Contrary to petitioner’s claims, records show that the medical certificate issued by the hospital where respondent Grulla was confined as a result of the accident, clearly and positively stated that Grulla was already physically fit for work after he was released from the hospital (p. 102, Rollo).

Anent the respondent Commission’s finding of lack of due process in the dismissal of Grulla, the petitioner claims that notice and hearing are important only if the employee is not aware of the problems affecting his employment; that the same is not true in the instant case where respondent Grulla knew all along that he could no longer effectively perform his job due to his physical condition. We find that this contention has no legal basis.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The twin requirements of notice and healing constitute essential elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer’s intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal, while the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s changes against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. Neither of these requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the Constitution (Century Textile Mills, Inc., Et. Al. v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 77859, May 25, 1988).

In the case at bar, respondent Grulla was not, in any manner, notified of the charges against him before he was outrightly dismissed. Neither was any hearing or investigation conducted by the company to give the respondent a chance to be heard concerning the alleged unsatisfactory performance of his work.

In view of the foregoing, the dismissal of respondent Grulla violated the security of tenure under the contract of employment which specifically provides that the contract term shall be for a period of twelve (12) calendar months. Consequently, the respondent Grulla should be paid his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract of employment which is ten (10) months (See Cuales v. NLRC, at al., No. L-57379, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 812).

The findings of the POEA and the respondent Commission that the respondent Grulla is entitled to salaries in the amount of US $3,700.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency for the unexpired portion of his contract and the sum of P1,000.00 as reimbursement of medical expenses bear great weight. Well-established is the principle that findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Judicial review by this Court on labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor officer or office based his or its determination but are limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion (Special Events and Central Shipping Office Workers Union v. San Miguel Corporation, Nos. L-61 002-06, May 30, 1983, 122 SCRA 557). In the instant case, the assailed Resolution of the respondent Commission is not tainted with arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction and therefore, We find no reason to disturb the same.

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the instant petition is dismissed for lack of merit and the resolution of the respondent Commission dated January 17, 1986 is hereby AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order issued on April 23, 1986 is lifted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.




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






August-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86564 August 1, 1989 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82849 August 2, 1989 - CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83358 August 2, 1989 - CARIDAY INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84277-78 August 2, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO A. BATAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84637-39 August 2, 1989 - JESUS P. PERLAS, JR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 50335 August 7, 1989 - FLORENTINO CURSINO v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 77647 August 7, 1989 - CETUS DEVELOPMENT INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81954 August 8, 1989 - CESAR Z. DARIO v. SALVADOR M. MISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38498 August 10, 1989 - ISAAC BAGNAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44111 August 10, 1989 - MERCEDES T. RIVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50732 August 10, 1989 - JOSE BAGTAS JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51910 August 10, 1989 - LITONJUA SHIPPING INC. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71527 August 10, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON BERBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74004 August 10, 1989 - A.M. ORETA & CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75413 August 10, 1989 - JOSE P. DEL CASTILLO, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79766 August 10, 1989 - THELMA YNIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79983 August 10, 1989 - BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CRISPIN C. LARON

  • G.R. No. 80770 August 10, 1989 - INTERNATIONAL HARDWARE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83028-29 August 10, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN MAGDAHONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84302 August 10, 1989 - ANGELITO HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84719 August 10, 1989 - YONG CHAN KIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85590 August 10, 1989 - FLAVIANO BALGOS, JR., ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85668 August 10, 1989 - GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88259 August 10, 1989 - BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ET AL. v. DANIEL ALFONSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48576 August 11, 1989 - MANSUETA T. TIBULAN, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. 71604 August 11, 1989 - JOSE B. ATIENZA v. PHILIMARE SHIPPING AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72494 August 11, 1989 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. JACK ROBERT SHERMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72908 August 11, 1989 - EUFEMIA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73070 August 11, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SONGCUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73261 August 11, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BACUS

  • G.R. No. 74229 August 11, 1989 - SHOEMART, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74768 August 11, 1989 - JUANA DE LOS REYES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75368 August 11, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO E. CARINGAL

  • G.R. No. 83334 August 11, 1989 - RENE E. CRISTOBAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83545 August 11, 1989 - ADELFO MACEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85339 August 11, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ERNEST KHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 57999, 58143-53 August 15, 1989 - RESURRECCION SUZARA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 43619 August 16, 1989 - LUZON BROKERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54224-25 August 16, 1989 - ANTONIO TAMBUNTING v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 64255 August 16, 1989 - EVARISTO ABAYA, JR. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 80918 August 16, 1989 - JOSEFINA M. PRINCIPE v. PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82509 August 16, 1989 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORP. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE AND SURETY CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61754 August 17, 1989 - ROBERTO TING, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO E. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70839 August 17, 1989 - REFRACTORIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76936 August 17, 1989 - VIRGILIO RAPOSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78447 August 17, 1989 - RESTITUTO CALMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83206 August 17, 1989 - DANILO WAJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88386 August 17, 1989 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. RUBEN AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 29341 August 21, 1989 - EDITH SUSTIGUER, ET AL. v. JOSE TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48541 August 21, 1989 - BERNABE CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49143 August 21, 1989 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE J. LEIDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62896 August 21, 1989 - CARLOS DAVID, ET AL. v. OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989 - MOISES DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62918 August 23, 1989 - FILIPINAS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-705-RTJ August 23, 1989 - LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77439 August 24, 1989 - DONALD DEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2104 August 24, 1989 - NARCISO MELENDREZ, ET AL. v. REYNERIO I. DECENA

  • G.R. Nos. L-46753-54 August 25, 1989 - ANTONIO SOLIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50459 August 25, 1989 - LEONARDO D. SUARIO v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51206 August 25, 1989 - NORBERTO MASIPEQUIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55520 August 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 71169 August 25, 1989 - JOSE D. SANGALANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71753 August 25, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74730 August 25, 1989 - CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78554 August 25, 1989 - ST. ANNE MEDICAL CENTER v. HENRY M. PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80112 August 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON MACUTO

  • G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 - GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85331 August 25, 1989 - KAPALARAN BUS LINE v. ANGEL CORONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61297 August 28, 1989 - GRACIANO B. VALLES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SAMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73996 August 28, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO TAGLE

  • G.R. No. 75931 August 28, 1989 - CASIANO S. SEDAYA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76537 August 28, 1989 - QUEZON BEARING & PARTS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46192 August 29, 1989 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47696 August 29, 1989 - JOSE MA. ANSALDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78272 August 29, 1989 - MERLIN CONSING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79307 August 29, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81390 August 29, 1989 - NATHANIEL OLACAO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83108 August 29, 1989 - OFFSHORE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84032 August 29, 1989 - ELADIO CH. RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84644 August 29, 1989 - ROLANDO R. LIGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. TERESITA PAYAWAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85278 August 29, 1989 - RTG CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. BARTOLOME C. AMOGUIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71169 August 30, 1988

    JOSE D. SANGALANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54424 August 31, 1989 - NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58847 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BARRANCO

  • G.R. No. L-59876 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 72709 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 73317 August 31, 1989 - THOMAS YANG v. MARCELINO R. VALDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74214 August 31, 1989 - ST. LOUIS COLLEGE OF TUGUEGARAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75289 August 31, 1989 - KAMAYA POINT HOTEL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75838 August 31, 1989 - UERM EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78997 August 31, 1989 - VERONICA B. REYES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79387 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. MACALINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83523 August 31, 1989 - GROLIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARTHUR L. AMANSEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86026 August 31, 1989 - FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES, INC. DAMASTICOR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.