Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 101135. July 14, 1995.]

TEODORO RANCES, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Respondents.

Valentin A. Zozobrado for Petitioner.

Joselito S. Fernandez for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; APPEAL; PERFECTION; REQUISITES; RULE. — Rule V, Book VII of the Rules Governing Overseas Employment provides: "Section 5. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. — The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, and/or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal" Section 7 of the same Rules provides: "No Extension of Period. — No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BELATED FILING; WHEN ALLOWED. — This Court has allowed the belated filing of appeals to NLRC in some cases. This liberal practice is done only when it would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of the court’s equity jurisdiction (Lucero v. NLRC, 203 SCRA 218 [1991]).

3. ID.; MONEY CLAIMS; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — Article 291 of the Labor Code provides: "Money claims. — All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred." Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, it cannot be gainsaid that the cause of action of petitioner accrued on May 1984. Clearly when petitioner filed his complaint for payment of unpaid allotments for the months of March, April and May 1984 on June 9, 1988 (POEA Case No. [M] 88-06-478), more than three years had elapsed. Hence, prescription has already set in. Neither does this Court accepts petitioner’s contention that his filing of a complaint to enforce the Dubai decision on October 10, 1985 has the effect of tolling the running of the prescriptive period. The cause of action in said case was for the enforcement of a decision, while the cause of action in the present case is for the collection of a sum of money. Furthermore, POEA has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for enforcement of a foreign judgment. Such a claim must be brought before the regular courts. In effect, it is as if no action has been filed which could have stopped the running of the prescriptive period.

4. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CAUSE OF ACTION; ELEMENTS. — A cause of action has three elements, to wit: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff (Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Ople, 171 SCRA 250 [1989]).


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition to reverse the Resolutions dated November 28, 1990 and July 19, 1991 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denying petitioner’s appeal for having been filed out of time and denying his motion for reconsideration respectively.

I


Petitioner was hired by private respondent in March 1984 as a radio officer of a vessel belonging to its principal, the Gulf-East Ship Management Limited. Petitioner authorized private respondent to deduct from his monthly salary the amount of US$765.00 and to remit the same to his wife, Clarita Rances.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

It appears that a case filed by petitioner in Dubai was amicably settled, with the payment to petitioner of the sum of US$5,500.00 plus "a return ticket to [petitioner’s] country." The compromise agreement contained a proviso that "the opponent" would pay "to the [petitioner]" US$1,500.00 "in case the wife of [petitioner] doesn’t agree with the amount sent to [her]" (Rollo, p. 99). The decision approving the compromise agreement did not state the names of the parties therein.

Armed with the Dubai decision, petitioner returned to the Philippines after his tour of duty and on October 10, 1985 filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for the enforcement of the Dubai decision against private respondent (POEA Case No.[M] 85-10-0814). POEA and NLRC ruled in favor of petitioner. However, in a petition for review (G.R. No. 76595), we reversed the decision of NLRC, holding that the POEA has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for enforcement of a foreign judgment. However, we ruled that petitioner could initiate another proceeding before the POEA against private respondent on the basis of the contract of employment between petitioner and private respondent or the latter’s foreign principal (Rollo, p. 54).

On June 6, 1988, petitioner filed with the POEA another complaint (POEA Case No. [M] 88-06-478) against private respondent for non payment of salary allotments for the months of March, April and May 1984 due to petitioner’s wife. In his position paper, petitioner contended that only the amount of P13,393.45 or the dollar equivalent of US$765.00 was remitted to his wife, thereby leaving a balance of US$1,530.00.

In answer to petitioner’s complaint, private respondent raised, inter alia, the defenses of payment and prescription.

On November 14, 1989, a decision was rendered by POEA. dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.

Not contented with the POEA decision, petitioner appealed to NLRC on December 15, 1989 by filing a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file his appeal brief. On January 9, 1990, petitioner filed the appeal brief. In a Resolution dated November 28, 1990, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was belatedly filed. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed for lack of merit on July 19, 1991. Hence this petition.

The issues raised by petitioner are: (a) whether the appeal of petitioner was properly dismissed by NLRC on the ground of late filing; and (b) whether petitioner is entitled to recover his money claim covering the months of March, April and May 1984.

Petitioner contends that NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the appeal for failure of petitioner to file his memorandum on appeal within 10 days from receipt of POEA’s decision.

II


Rule V, Book VII of the Rules Governing Overseas Employment provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 5. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. — The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, and/or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal.

A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal" (Emphasis supplied).

Section 7 of the same Rules provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No Extension of Period. — No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have allowed the belated filing of appeals to NLRC in some cases. This liberal practice is done only when it would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of the court’s equity jurisdiction (Lucero v. NLRC, 203 SCRA 218 [1991]). We are not inclined to apply this rule to petitioner, his appeal not being meritorious.

We agree with private respondent that petitioner’s money claim has already prescribed. Article 291 of the Labor Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Money claims. — All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred."cralaw virtua1aw library

A cause of action has three elements, to wit: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff (Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Ople, 171 SCRA 250 [1989]).

In the case at bench, petitioner is claiming the unpaid allotments during the months of March, April and May 1984. Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, it cannot be gainsaid that the cause of action of petitioner accrued on May 1984. Clearly when petitioner filed his complaint for payment of unpaid allotments for the months of March, April and May 1984 on June 9, 1988 (POEA Case No. [M] 88-06-478), more than three years had elapsed. Hence, prescription has already set in.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Neither do we accept petitioner’s contention that his filing of a complaint to enforce the Dubai decision on October 10, 1985 has the effect of tolling the running of the prescriptive period. The cause of action in said case was for the enforcement of a decision, while the cause of action in the present case is for the collection of a sum of money. Furthermore, POEA has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for enforcement of a foreign judgment. Such a claim must be brought before the regular courts. In effect it is as if no action has been filed which could have stopped the running of the prescriptive period.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, the questioned Resolutions dated November 28, 1990 and July 19, 1991 of the National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., is on leave.




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-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-835 July 3, 1995 - GERARDO C. ALVARADO v. LILY A. LAQUINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 107748 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO SAPURCO

  • G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 - GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110558 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995 - WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115304 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND L. MELOSANTOS

  • G.R. No. 110240 July 4, 1995 - ENJAY INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109036 July 5, 1995 - BARTOLOME F. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2747 July 6, 1995 - GODOFREDO A. VILLALON v. JIMENEZ B. BUENDIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1008 July 6, 1995 - FLORENTINA BILAG-RIVERA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1026 July 6, 1995 - VICTOR BASCO v. DAMASO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. 100912 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY A. CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 103560 & 103599 July 6, 1995 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109166 July 6, 1995 - HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112973-76 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PAGCU, JR.

  • G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112629 July 7, 1995 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 - EPIMACO A. VELASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102930 July 10, 1995 - BONIFACIO MONTILLA PEÑA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119055 July 10, 1995 - ROY RODILLAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • CBD Case No. 251 July 11, 1995 - ADELINA T. VILLANUEVA v. TERESITA STA. ANA

  • G.R. No. 109370 July 11, 1995 - ROGELIO PARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 July 11, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ONG CO

  • G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995 - JUANITO C. PILAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

  • G.R. No. 116008 July 11, 1995 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79896 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995 - COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114186 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR R. ERNI

  • Adm. Case No. 3283 July 13, 1995 - RODOLFO MILLARE v. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON

  • Bar Matter No. 712 July 13, 1995 - IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO

  • G.R. No. 106769 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO WEDING

  • G.R. No. 109573 July 13, 1995 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110580 July 13, 1995 - MANUEL BANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110930 July 13, 1995 - OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1048 July 14, 1995 - WELLINGTON REYES v. SALVADOR M. GAA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-400 July 14, 1995 - SUSIMO MOROÑO v. AURELIO J.V. LOMEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-818 July 14, 1995 - ENRIQUITO CABILAO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-932 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. MANGALINDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 - ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1030 July 14, 1995 - GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL. v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075 July 14, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LOLITA A. GRECIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO

  • G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 - PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO

  • G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995 - JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97435 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101286 July 14, 1995 - GIL RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995 - CASIANO A. NAVARRO III v. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102297 July 14, 1995 - NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102993 July 14, 1995 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104639 July 14, 1995 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104682 July 14, 1995 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. VICENTE S. BATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105763 July 14, 1995 - LORENDO QUINONES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109680 July 14, 1995 - DIEGO RAPANUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995 - JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112399 July 14, 1995 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112679 July 14, 1995 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113578 July 14, 1995 - SUPLICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 - JOKER P. ARROYO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-997 July 17, 1995 - CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA, ET AL. v. RICARDO F. TORNILLA

  • G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995 - GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91987 July 17, 1995 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109613 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 109809 July 17, 1995 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111797 July 17, 1995 - CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112060 July 17, 1995 - NORBI H. EDDING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 - CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113917 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIA M. CABACANG

  • G.R. No. 118910 July 17, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. No. 106539 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORTILLANO NAMAYAN

  • G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABE ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114681 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995 - CONRAD AND COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107439 July 20, 1995 - MICHAEL T. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-114382 July 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ACOB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115884 July 20, 1995 - CJC TRADING, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117932 July 20, 1995 - AVON DALE GARMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106425 & 106431-32 July 21, 1995 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110591 July 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO E. BACULI

  • G.R. No. 107495 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO Y. UYCOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110106 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

  • G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.