ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 112354 August 4, 1997 - LUVIMINO P. CASUELA v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115903 August 4, 1997 - ROBERTO CORDENILLO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106194 August 7, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117188 August 7, 1997 - LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121275 August 7, 1997 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122391 August 7, 1997 - FELIPE L. LAODENIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1303 August 11, 1997 - GLADDY S. BERNABE v. SALVADOR A. MEMORACION

  • G.R. No. 95089 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOMEDES FABRO

  • G.R. No. 97898 August 11, 1997 - FLORANTE F. MANACOP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99355 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO S. SALAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108234 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL RAGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109617 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111824 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA D. BAGUS

  • G.R. No. 120988 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSEMARIE N. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 121210 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL SAGUCIO

  • G.R. No. 121983 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANILLO BAXINELA

  • G.R. No. 123240 August 11, 1997 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107307 August 11, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110129 August 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDELCIANO AMACA

  • G.R. No. 110397 August 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO A. BINAMIRA

  • G.R. Nos. 116307-10 August 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO BACALTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127255 August 14, 1997 - JOKER P. ARROYO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1219 August 15, 1997 - COURT OF APPEALS v. MARCELO ESCALANTE

  • G.R. No. 121466 August 15, 1997 - PMI COLLEGES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 August 15, 1997 - ORTIGAS & CO. LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111066-67 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ORDOÑA

  • G.R. No. 112180 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MILDRED N. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. 115844 August 15, 1997 - CESAR G. VIOLA v. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117398 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES DABBAY

  • G.R. No. 120064 August 15, 1997 - FERDINAND PALOMARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121377 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH GELERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123290 August 15, 1997 - AURORA DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1234 August 18, 1997 - CRISTETA ORFILA v. RONA S. QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. 95523 August 18, 1997 - REYNALDO R. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119252 August 18, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124520 August 18, 1997 - NILO CHA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1350 August 18, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 95449 August 18, 1997 - PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98107 August 18, 1997 - BENJAMIN C. JUCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101832 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE O. TABALESMA

  • G.R. Nos. 113245-47 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DISIPULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115527 August 18, 1997 - ROSSELINI L. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117682 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO SALARZA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 118815 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA MELGAR-MERCADER

  • G.R. No. 119288 August 18, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119368 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO ERARDO

  • G.R. No. 119696 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAZUL GUIAMIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120256 August 18, 1997 - HERMITO CABCABAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123276 August 18, 1997 - MARIO TIU, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108611 August 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ASTO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-9-1237-RTC August 21, 1997 - LOSS OF COURT EXHIBITS AT RTC, BR. 136, MAKATI CITY

  • Adm. Matter No. 96-11-402-RTC August 21, 1997 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • Adm. Matter No. 97-2-12-MTC August 21, 1997 - ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO PRISONER NICANOR DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997 - KAREN E. SALVACION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96176 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA ISLA

  • G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997 - ALFREDO TANO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101829 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ZAMORA

  • G.R. No. 102018 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY GABAYRON

  • G.R. No. 103959 August 21, 1997 - REGALADO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108183-85 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONE PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112513 August 21, 1997 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113032 August 21, 1997 - WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC., ET AL. v. RICARDO T. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116294 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CHAVEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116602-03 August 21, 1997 - CARMELITA SARAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120691 August 21, 1997 - BIONIC HEAVY EQUIPMENTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123053 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. CARIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123492 August 21, 1997 - DANILO A. YAP v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126749 August 21, 1997 - ERIBERTO M. SUSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127896 August 21, 1997 - ADRIANO A. ARELLANO, JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109578 August 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO FABRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97642 August 29, 1997 - AVON INSURANCE PLC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123581 August 29, 1997 - RODRIGO B. BANGAYAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115581 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VACITA LATURA JONES

  • G.R. Nos. 116744-47 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO PANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119332 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACK V. SORREL

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 120064   August 15, 1997 - FERDINAND PALOMARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 120064. August 15, 1997.]

    FERDINAND PALOMARES and TEODULO MUTIA, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (5TH DIVISION) and NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    The issue presented before this Court is whether or not petitioners should be considered regular employees of respondent corporation.cralawnad

    Petitioners Ferdinand Palomares and Teodulo Mutia were hired by respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC) by virtue of contracts of employment for its Five Year Expansion Program or FYEP, Phase I and II-A, for varying lengths of time, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Mr. FERDINAND L. PALOMARES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    DATES PROJECT NATURE POSITION/ REMARKS

    OF WORK DEPARTMENT

    10-03-84 to Project Fixed- Clerk Typist Expiration of

    03-03-85 Undertaking: Period Office Svcs. Contract

    Clerical jobs at Employment Mar. 3, 1985

    Office Svcs.

    03-04-85 to Project Project- Control Expiration of

    09-04-85 Undertaking: Based Clerk/Off. Contract

    Five-Year-Ex- Employment Services Sept. 4, 1985

    pansion Projects

    09-05-85 to Project -do- Control Termination of

    01-15-87 Undertaking: Clerk/Admin.- Contract

    Clerical jobs Club House-Off. Jan. 15, 1987

    related to Services

    dispatching of

    service vehicles

    09-11-87 to Project -do- Production Expiration of

    02-10-88 Undertaking: Recorder/ Contract

    Temporary pro- Accounting Feb. 10, 1988

    duction

    recording jobs at

    5-Stand Project

    02-13-88 to Project -do- Accountant I-

    07-13-88 Undertaking: Construction

    To handle cost Accounting

    monitoring,

    records keeping

    and reporting of

    FYEP II Proj.

    07-14-88 to Project Project- Accountant I-

    08-14-90 Undertaking: Based Project

    To handle cost Employment Accounting,

    monitoring, FYEP Control-

    records keeping lership

    and reporting of

    FYEP II Projects

    08-15-90 to -do- -do- Accountant II Currently

    10-14-94 Project Working

    Accounting,

    FYEP Proj.

    Controllership

    Mr. TEODULO A. MUTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    DATES PROJECT NATURE POSITION/ REMARKS

    OF WORK DEPARTMENT

    11-04-85 to Project Project- Audit Aide/ Termination of

    03-04-86 Undertaking: Based Internal Audit Contract

    Attesting of Employment Mar. 4, 1986

    shipment

    through National

    Marine

    04-05-86 to Project -do- Monitoring Expiration of

    05-15-87 Undertaking: Aide/Ship- Contract

    Monitoring works breaking Opns May 15, 1987

    for ship-breaking

    of MS. ASEAN

    KNOWLEDGE

    and MV ASEAN

    INDEPENDENCE

    09-11-87 to Project -do- Production Expiration of

    02-10-88 Undertaking: Recorder/ Contract

    Temporary job of Accounting Feb. 10, 1988

    Production

    Recording at 5

    Stand TDM

    Project

    02-13-88 to Project -do- Accountant I/ Expiration of

    12-14-88 Undertaking: Acctg. & Contract

    To handle cost Finance- Dec. 14, 1988

    monitoring, Construction

    records keeping Accounting

    and reporting of

    FYEP II Project

    12-15-88 to -do- -do- Accountant & Currently

    08-14-90 Project Accoun- Working

    ting FYEP Con-

    trollership

    08-15-90 to Project Project- Accountant II, Currently

    10-14-94 Undertaking: Based Project Working" 1

    To handle cost Employment Accounting/

    monitoring, FYEP Proj.

    records keeping Controllership

    and reporting of

    FYEP II Projects

    Petitioners, along with other employees, filed a consolidated petition for regularization, wage differential, CBA coverage and other benefits. 2 In his decision dated April 29, 1992, Labor Arbiter Nicodemus G. Palangan ordered the dismissal of the complaint with respect to 26 complainants but ruled in favor of petitioners. Palomares, Mutia and four other complainants were adjudged as regular employees of respondent corporation. The dispositive portion of his decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for regularization as well as the monetary benefits of the above-named complainants are hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit except six complainants stated below.

    However, the respondent shall not terminate their services while the activities they performed still exist, and to give them preference provided they are qualified in cases of vacancies when the expansion program becomes operational.

    For the complainants who were terminated during the pendency of these cases the respondent is hereby ordered to pay them separation pay equivalent to one month salary for those who have rendered one or two years of service and three months salary for those who have served the company for at least 5 years.

    For complainants Edgardo Pongase, Aquiles Colita, Lolinio Solatorio, Ferdinand Palomares, Teodulo Mutia, and Rodolfo Leopoldo, this office consider (sic) them as regular employees for reason that the activities they performed are regular, and necessary in the usual trade or course of business of the company.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    Respondent is likewise ordered to pay these regular employees their salary differential to be computed three years back from the filing of these complaints.

    All other claims are hereby ordered dismissed.

    SO ORDERED." 3 (Emphasis added)

    On appeal, the NLRC reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter in a decision dated November 23, 1994. Respondent Commission held that petitioners were project employees and that their assumption of regular jobs were mainly due to peakloads or the absence of regular employees during the latter’s temporary leave. 4 After their motion for reconsideration was denied on March 30, 1995, 5 petitioners filed this petition.

    The Court finds that petitioners failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in rendering its questioned decision and resolutions of November 23, 1994 and March 30, 1995, respectively.

    Petitioners argue that as regards functions and duration of work, contracted employees should, by operation of law, be considered regular employees. Respondent NSC, on the other hand, maintains that petitioners are mere project employees, engaged to work on the latter’s Five-Year Expansion Projects (FYEP), Phases I and II-A, hence, dismissible upon the expiration of every particular project.

    Article 280 of the Labor Code, the law on the subject of regular employment, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The provisions of the written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement 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 employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for 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." (Emphasis added).

    The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee and not a regular employee is whether he was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time he was engaged for that project. 6

    It is quite evident that petitioners were employed for a specific project or projects undertaken by respondent corporation. The component projects of the latter’s Five Year Expansion Program include the setting up of a Cold Rolling Mill Expansion Project, establishing a Billet Steel Making Plant, installation of a Five Stand TDM and Cold Mill Peripherals Project. In the case of ALU-TUCP v. NLRC, we held that the same Five Year Expansion Program (or more precisely, each of its component projects) constitutes a distinct undertaking identifiable from the ordinary business and activity of NSC, which is the production and marketing of steel products. 7 Further:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Each component project, of course, begins and ends at specified times, which had already been determined by the time petitioners were engaged. We also note that NSC did the work here involved — the construction of buildings and civil and electrical works, installation of machinery and equipment and the commissioning of such machinery — only for itself . Private respondent NSC was not in the business of constructing buildings and installing plant machinery for the general business community, i.e., for unrelated, third party, corporations. NSC did not hold itself out to the public as a construction company or as an engineering corporation." (Emphasis supplied.) 8

    Respondent corporation’s FYEP I was to cover years 1982 to 1988; the FYEP II to cover the years 1989 to 1994; and FYEP III to cover succeeding years. The NLRC added that FYEP III has not yet materialized due to financial and political difficulties. 9

    Mutia was initially assigned in the shipbreaking operations of the NSC. This venture consists of land and sea operations — the latter consisting of breaking salvaged vessels into chunks, while the land-based operation consists of cutting these chunks into small and meltable sizes. The metal scraps are consequently utilized to produce billets at NSC’s Billet Steel-Making Plant (BSP), a completely new installation, and one of the component projects in the FYEP.

    Unfortunately, the operation was found to be an unreliable source of scrap metals due to scarcity of vessels for salvaging, higher cost of operations and unsuitable raw material mix. It was permanently phased out sometime in November 1986. 10 Consequently, Mutia was transferred to other component projects of FYEP.

    Palomares’ assertion, on the other hand, that he was hired even before the FYEP began is misleading. He was actually employed on October 3, 1984, long after the FYEP began its preparatory stages in 1982. Two years from FYEP’s inception, NSC found itself in need of more project workers. It was in this factual context that Palomares was engaged in 1984 as clerk typist detailed at the Office Services department of NSC.

    The records show that petitioners were hired to work on projects for FYEP I and II-A. On account of the expiration of their contracts of employment and/or project completion, petitioners were terminated from their employment. They were, however, rehired for other component projects of the FYEP because they were qualified. Thus, the Court is convinced that petitioners were engaged only to augment the workforce of NSC for its aforesaid expansion program.

    In the case of Philippine National Oil Company - Energy Development Corporation v. NLRC, we set forth the criteria for fixed contracts of employment which do not circumvent security of tenure, to wit: (1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or (2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. 11

    Where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or public order. 12 In the case at bar, however, there is nothing in the records which reveal an attempt to frustrate petitioners’ security of tenure. The fact that petitioners were required to render services necessary or desirable in the operation of NSC’s business for a specified duration did not in any way impair the validity of their contracts of employment which stipulated a fixed duration therefor.

    It should be noted that there were intervals 13 in petitioners’ respective employment contracts with NSC, thus bolstering the latter’s position that, indeed, petitioners are project employees. Since its work depends on availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of its work force is not permanent but co-terminus with the projects to which they are assigned and from whose payrolls they are paid. It would be extremely burdensome for their employer to retain them as permanent employees and pay them wages even if there are no projects to work on. 14 The fact that petitioners worked for NSC under different project employment contracts for several years cannot be made a basis to consider them as regular employees, for they remain project employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked. 15

    Even if, as admitted by the parties, petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired on the basis of a contract of employment for more than one year, they cannot be considered regularized. Length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee. 16 As stated earlier, it is based on whether or not the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. Furthermore, the second paragraph of Article 280, providing that an employee who has rendered service for at least one (1) year, shall be considered a regular employee, pertains to casual employees and not to project employees such as petitioners. 17 cdtech

    Regulation of manpower by the company clearly falls within management prerogative. 18 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, 19 subject to the constitutional requirement for the protection of labor and the promotion of social justice which tilts the scales of justice, whenever there is doubt, in favor of the worker. 20 In the case at bar, we conclude that NSC acted within the parameters of a valid exercise of management prerogative.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated November 23, 1994 and March 23, 1995, respectively, are AFFIRMED.

    Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 49-52.

    2. NLRC Case No. M-000970-92.

    3. Emphasis supplied. Rollo, pp. 58-59.

    4. Rollo, p. 47.

    5. Ibid.

    6. Guinnux Interiors, Inc. Et. Al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115569, May 27, 1997; J. & D.O. Aguilar Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116352, March 13, 1997.

    7. 234 SCRA 678 (August 2, 1994).

    8. Ibid., at 686.

    9. Rollo, p. 304.

    10. Rollo, pp. 305-306.

    11. cited in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC, 239 SCRA 272 (December 16, 1994).

    12. Ibid.

    13. There is an eight-month interval between Palomares’ third and fourth contracts; Mutia had a four-month interval between his second and third contracts.

    14. Cartagenas v. Romago Electric Company, Inc., 177 SCRA 637 (1989), cited in Rada v. NLRC, supra.

    15. Ibid.

    16. Rada v. NLRC, 205 SCRA 69 (January 9, 1992); Sandoval Shipyards Inc. v. NLRC, 136 SCRA 674 (May 31, 1985).

    17. Mercado Sr. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332 (1991) cited in ALU-TUCP v. NLRC, supra.

    18. San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo, 218 SCRA 293 (1993).

    19. Union Carbide Labor Union v. NLRC, 215; SCRA 554 (1992).

    20. Employees Association of the Philippine American Life Insurance Company v. NLRC, 199 SCRA 628 (1991).

    G.R. No. 120064   August 15, 1997 - FERDINAND PALOMARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED