Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > August 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 75931 August 28, 1989 - CASIANO S. SEDAYA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75931. August 28, 1989.]

CASIANO S. SEDAYA, Petitioner, v. THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION and the PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Petitioner.

Felipe P. Fuentes, Jr. for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAWS; EMPLOYMENT; TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES, A PREROGATIVE OF MANAGEMENT; CONDITION. — The Court has, in a number of cases, recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided that it does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits and other privileges. This is a function associated with the employer’s inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TRANSFER IN CASE AT BAR, NOT A DEMOTION. — The transfer was not a demotion because petitioner should be maintaining his status as a supervisor and like all supervisors in Bukidnon plantation, would likewise be entitled to free housing with free light and water facilities.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REINSTATEMENT; NOT POSSIBLE WHERE THE POSITION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. — Petitioner has sought reinstatement with backwages. Reinstatement to his former post can no longer be made since that had been abolished.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; BACKWAGES; NOT RECOVERABLE WHERE EMPLOYEE DURING PERIOD CLAIMED WAS NOT ACTUALLY WORKING. — At the same time, respondent company cannot be compelled to pay him backwages during the period when he was not actually working.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; SEPARATION PAY; GRANT THEREOF NOT PROPER WHERE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT LAID OFF BUT MERELY REFUSED TO WORK AT HIS NEW PLACE OF ASSIGNMENT. — The Solicitor General has recommended the grant of separation pay to which an employee "laid off due to retrenchment" is entitled under the law should petitioner no longer wish to remain with the company. The Court is not inclined to extract this last measure of magnanimity from respondent company. It must be stressed that what was considered by the company as unnecessary was petitioner’s research activity in Misamis Oriental, and not petitioner’s services. He was not laid off. He was moved to Bukidnon precisely because the company still needed his services.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, C.J.:


Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated June 30, 1986 which affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter in NLRC RABX Case No. 2-0242, entitled "Casiano Sedaya v. Philippine Packing Corporation," the dispositive portion of which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent to issue a written memorandum to effect the transfer of complainant from Misamis Oriental General Crops operations to pineapple plantation operation(s) in Bukidnon.

"Complainant is likewise directed to comply with the written Memorandum within ten (10) days from receipt thereof otherwise he shall be considered to have abandoned his employment." 1

Petitioner Casiano S. Sedaya was hired by respondent Philippine Packing Corporation on July 12, 1960 as an hourly-paid research field worker at its pineapple plantation operations in Bukidnon. Sometime in 1970, Sedaya was transferred to the general crops plantation operations in Misamis Oriental. Four years later or on January 16, 1974, he was promoted to the position of a monthly-paid regular supervisor. When research activity was however phased out in March, 1982, Sedaya was verbally advised by respondent company on March 29, 1982 of his re-assignment to the Bukidnon plantation. He was to report there on April 1, 1982.

Instead of reporting to his new assignment, petitioner Sedaya filed successive leave applications, the last of which was on April 17, 1982 for an indefinite period of time, allegedly "to settle land problem(s) in Surigao and Agusan." 2 Respondent company disapproved this last application since Sedaya’s leaves of absences had reached the maximum ceiling of forty-five (45) days.

While he was on leave, Sedaya tried to persuade management to reconsider his transfer and if this was not possible, to at least consider his position as redundant so that he could be entitled to severance pay. Respondent company refused, stating that it was not terminating his services and that his position as supervisor was still there for him to hold.

Sedaya persisted in his self-imposed absences despite their being unauthorized. Consequently, on April 29, 1982, respondent company charged him in writing with abandonment of work. Sedaya did not answer the charge within the five-day period allowed him. Neither did he appear at the May 11, 1982 hearing scheduled for him to ventilate his side. Thereupon, respondent company dismissed him from the service effective June 10, 1982 for abandonment.

Feeling aggrieved, Sedaya filed on February 21, 1983 a complaint for illegal dismissal and prayed for separation pay with backwages, if any. 3 He did not ask for reinstatement.

The labor arbiter, in his decision, found that Sedaya did not abandon his employment but concluded that both parties were at fault: petitioner Sedaya, for his refusal to work at his new place of assignment after his application for an indefinite leave was disapproved, and respondent company, for its failure to issue a written memorandum of transfer. Thus, the labor arbiter ordered respondent company to prepare a written memorandum effecting the transfer and gave petitioner a period of ten (10) days from receipt within which to comply, or else he would be held liable for abandonment.

Respondent company did not contest the arbiter’s decision. In compliance therewith, it issued the required memorandum dated June 23, 1983 to petitioner, formally advising the latter of his reassignment and giving him ten (10) days from receipt to report for work. 4

Petitioner received notice of the above memorandum on June 23, 1983. He did not report for duty. Instead, he appealed his case to the National Labor Relations Commission contending that the memorandum order was oppressive. He also questioned the reinstatement because it did not provide for an award of backwages. Petitioner demanded reinstatement with backwages, or in the alternative, separation pay. 5

As earlier mentioned, the labor tribunal sustained the decision of the labor arbiter. Hence, this present petition which raises the main issue of whether or not petitioner could be validly dismissed from his employment by reason of his refusal to accept his new assignment.

The Court has, in a number of cases, recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided that it does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits and other privileges. This is a function associated with the employer’s inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. 6

Petitioner’s reassignment to Bukidnon was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogatives. His field research work in Misamis Oriental had been completely phased out for being unnecessary. But petitioner was not. So instead of terminating his employment, respondent company decided to move him back to Bukidnon where he had been originally assigned and where he could be more useful. This would belie petitioner’s claim that there was illegal constructive dismissal. Surely, respondent company could not be faulted for undertaking means to maximize its existing labor force by deploying its employees to its various areas of operations in order to achieve optimum results for the benefit of the company.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On the other hand, there is nothing in the records to indicate that the projected relocation of petitioner was motivated by considerations other than the exigencies of the service. Indeed, the reasons adduced by petitioner to justify his non-acceptance of the Bukidnon assignment, i.e. his land problems and the anticipated dislocation of his family, appear unconvincing in the face of the management’s inherent right to lay down policies and rules which the employee must abide by.

Neither was the transfer a demotion because petitioner would be maintaining his status as a supervisor and like all supervisors in the Bukidnon plantation, would likewise be entitled to free housing with free light and water facilities.

If for any reason an employee finds himself in that intolerable situation where he is unable to sacrifice his personal interests in favor of the demands of the service, then he has no other option but to separate himself from his employment. And the company is not duty-bound to grant him separation pay for the reason that his removal is of his own choosing.

Verily, the transfer should be upheld.

Petitioner has sought reinstatement with backwages. Reinstatement to his former post can no longer be made since that had been abolished. At the same time, respondent company cannot be compelled to pay him backwages during the period when he was not actually working.

The labor arbiter, in arriving at his decision, accorded much weight to the fact that there was only a verbal and not a written instruction of the transfer. He also considered the very significant fact that in petitioner’s twenty-two years of service with the multinational firm, he has never been cited for any disciplinary infraction. The arbiter’s directive requiring the written memorandum and giving petitioner a reasonable period within which to comply appears to be the most fair and equitable solution to break the impasse between petitioner and respondent company. It should be reiterated if only to give both parties a final opportunity to rectify their mistakes.

The Solicitor General has recommended the grant of separation pay to which an employee "laid off due to retrenchment" is entitled under the law should petitioner no longer wish to remain with the company.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Court is not inclined to extract this last measure of magnanimity from respondent company. It must be stressed that what was considered by the company as unnecessary was petitioner’s research activity in Misamis Oriental, and not petitioner’s services. He was not laid off. He was moved to Bukidnon precisely because the company still needed his services.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion in sustaining the labor arbiter.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Court hereby directs respondent Philippine Packing Corporation to issue within ten (10) days from notice another written memorandum to petitioner Casiano S. Sedaya directing his transfer to its Bukidnon pineapple plantation and to give petitioner a period of ten (10) days from receipt within which to comply. Petitioner has the option to either accept the reassignment without backwages or face dismissal from employment without severance pay, since termination from employment, at this point, shall be for cause.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex H, Rollo, p. 35.

2. Annex C, Rollo, p. 19.

3. Annex F, Rollo, p. 29.

4. Comment, Rollo, p. 61.

5. Annex G, Rollo, p. 33.

6. Dangan v. NLRC and Tierra Factors Corp., G.R. Nos. 63127-28, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 706; Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Et. Al. v. NLRC and Bobadilla, G.R. No. 76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713; Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp., Et. Al. v. NLRC and Quinanola, G.R. No. 83239, March 8, 1989.




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.