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
 

   
November-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 151801 November 11, 2002 - HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE COMPANY v. HERNANDO BORRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154512 November 12, 2002 - VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 126462 November 12, 2002 - NATALIA REALTY INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133978 November 12, 2002 - JOSE S. CANCIO, JR. v. EMERENCIANA ISIP

  • G.R. Nos. 139240-43 November 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ASPURIA

  • G.R. Nos. 143689-91 November 12, 2002 - SIXTO M. BAYAS and ERNESTO T. MATUDAY v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146423 November 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORO D. DIVINA

  • G.R. No. 147395 November 12, 2002 - ADZHAR I. JAMAANI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 147806 November 12, 2002 - NERISSA BUENVIAJE ET. AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1569 November 13, 2002 - CARMELITA S. DANAO v. JESUS T. FRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133763 November 13, 2002 - UNITED HARBOR PILOTS’ ASSO. OF THE PHIL. v. ASSO. OF INTL. SHIPPING LINES

  • G.R. No. 140088 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PHOEBE ASTUDILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141943-45 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO P. RECEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146100 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LOTERONO

  • G.R. No. 146468 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ABELLANO

  • G.R. Nos. 146521-22 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARDITO ALEMANIA

  • G.R. No. 153475 November 13, 2002 - MIGUEL M. LINGATING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143005 November 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 143868 November 14, 2002 - OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ v. SPS. CARLOS and NARCISA TARUN

  • A.M. No. 2002-15-SC November 15, 2002 - Re: Habitual Tardiness First Semester 2002

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1663 November 15, 2002 - MAIMONA MANONGGIRING v. JUDGE AMER R. IBRAHIM

  • G.R. Nos. 132484-85 November 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JULLIVER DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 141314 November 15, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 146464-67 November 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 148699 November 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AM WILSON L. MANIJAS

  • G.R. No. 152332 November 15, 2002 - DR. ROBERTO DE LEON v. EDUARDO CALALO

  • G.R. No. 152886 November 15, 2002 - ROSENDO E. CAPIRAL v. SPS. MAXIMA and DANIEL VALENZUELA

  • A.M. No. P-93-960 November 18, 2002 - TERESITA ROMERO v. ENRIQUETA CASTELLANO

  • G.R. No. 113459 November 18, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSEFINA LEAL

  • G.R. No. 129235 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO MORANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130423 November 18, 2002 - VIRGIE SERONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131421 November 18, 2002 - GERONIMO DADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137191 November 18, 2002 - BEN B. RICO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137454 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY D. CANTUBA

  • G.R. Nos. 140004-05 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO C. NEBRIA

  • G.R. No. 140216 November 18, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO C. BACUS

  • G.R. No. 140635 November 18, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO O. TERRIBLE

  • G.R. No. 142244 November 18, 2002 - ATLAS FARMS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146641-43 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICA G. CUYUGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 149414-15 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL AMANTE

  • G.R. No. 151891 November 18, 2002 - MAUYAG B. PAPANDAYAN, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152163 November 18, 2002 - SABDULLAH T. MACABAGO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127060 November 19, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132389 November 19, 2002 - PEDRO CUPCUPIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 139492 November 19, 2002 - LAGUNA CATV NETWORK v. HON. ALEX E. MARAAN

  • G.R. No. 142133 November 19, 2002 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143844-46 November 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 136762 November 21, 2002 - ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS and WIRELESS SERVICES v. FIDELO Q. DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138494 November 21, 2002 - LEOSANDRO MELAYO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 139368 November 21, 2002 - ROBIN M. CANO v. PNP CHIEF EDGAR C. GALVANTE, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 139830 November 21, 2002 - ROLLY ADAME v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139982 November 21, 2002 - JULIAN FRANCISCO ET. AL.. v. PASTOR HERRERA

  • G.R. No. 140731 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO A. ILO

  • G.R. No. 141344 November 21, 2002 - TEMISTOCLES TAPDASAN, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141592 November 21, 2002 - MARCELO CENTENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141914 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. MONDIJAR

  • G.R. No. 144314 November 21, 2002 - SKIPPERS PACIFIC, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL V. MIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146103 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE WAD-AS

  • G.R. No. 146276 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO C. DUROHOM

  • G.R. No. 146425 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD NARCISO

  • G.R. No. 147182 November 21, 2002 - EVELYN M. RELUCIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 147671 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE MENDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 148917-18 November 21, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABSOLON YONTO y UTOM

  • G.R. No. 149800 November 21, 2002 - RICARDO V. QUINTOS v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137533 November 22, 2002 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 144116 November 22, 2002 - CESAR MONTANEZ v. NESTOR MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 146470 November 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MILA RAZUL y BASHIED

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1223 November 26, 2002 - SPS. TEOFILA and GREGORIO MAGALLON v. JUDGE ANTONIO F. PARAGUYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1711 November 26, 2002 - Atty. BENJAMIN RELOVA v. Judge ANTONIO M. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 120014 November 26, 2002 - FRANCISCO Q. AURILLO v. NOEL RABI

  • G.R. No. 132081 November 26, 2002 - JOEL M. SANVICENTE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 138478 November 26, 2002 - PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JOAQUIN TONDA

  • G.R. No. 143196 November 26, 2002 - STI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143376 November 26, 2002 - LENI O. CHOA v. ALFONSO C. CHOA

  • G.R. Nos. 145339-42 November 26, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTHUR MENDOZA and DAVE MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 148514 November 26, 2002 - LUCRATIVE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RICARDO C. BERNABE JR.

  • G.R. No. 149375 November 26, 2002 - MARVIN MERCADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 150164 November 26, 2002 - GLORIOSA V. VALARAO v. CONRADO C. PASCUAL and MANUEL C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. 02-2-12-SC November 27, 2002 - DR. CORA J. VIRATA v. JUDGE FRANCISCO G. SUPNET

  • A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC November 27, 2002 - RE: IMPOSITION OF CORRESPONDING PENALTIES

  • A.M. No. 02-9-24-0 November 27, 2002 - RE: LOSS OF EXTRAORDINARY ALLOWANCE CHECK NO. 1106739 OF JUDGE EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS

  • G.R. No. 133386 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO LLANDA

  • G.R. No. 133827 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COSME L. PASTORETE

  • G.R. Nos. 137766-67 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ILADIO CARALIPIO

  • G.R. No. 138197 November 27, 2002 - MA. ELIZA C. GARCIA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139130 November 27, 2002 - RAMON K. ILUSORIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34) November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO SOLMORO

  • G.R. No. 139472 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL R. GUIMBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139946 November 27, 2002 - RAMON J. FAROLAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140374 November 27, 2002 - JANE C. ABALOS, ET AL. v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 141365 November 27, 2002 - SPS. FELIPE and FLORA YULIENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143369 November 27, 2002 - LEOPOLDO C. LEONARDO v. VIRGINIA TORRES MARAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144266 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILSON ANTONIO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 145727 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONILO FERRERA

  • G.R. No. 146553 November 27, 2002 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. Sps. WILLIE AND JULIE L. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153700 November 27, 2002 - ESTRELLA C. PABALAN v. ANASTACIA B. SANTARIN

  • A.M. No. P-02-1649 November 29, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ELIZABETH T. IBAY

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-01-1639 & 00-9-427-RTC November 29, 2002 - JUDITH B. ERMITANIO v. MA. THERESA DELA TORRE-YADAO

  • G.R. Nos. 141489–90 November 29, 2002 - SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 139946   November 27, 2002 - RAMON J. FAROLAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 139946. November 27, 2002.]

    RAMON J. FAROLAN, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    This is a petition for review of the decision 1 dated August 31, 1999, of the Court of Appeals, in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 48514, dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner, and affirming in toto the order 2 dated June 9, 1998 of the Social Security Commission denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the amended petition to revive judgment against Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation and its officers.chanrobles virtual law library

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

    Cecilio T. Saludar and Carlos Porquez were employed at Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC). They were dismissed from MMIC in 1984.

    Saludar filed a claim for illegal dismissal with the Office of the Labor Arbiter. On the other hand, Porquez’s widow filed a claim for social security benefits with respondent Social Security Commission (SSC) docketed as SSC Case No. 8658.

    On August 17, 1984, the Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Saludar and ordered his reinstatement and payment of backwages. The order became final on September 14, 1984. However, it was not executed as all the assets of MMIC had been foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). These assets were subsequently acquired by Maricalum Mining Corporation (Maricalum) through a Deed of Transfer, while MMIC ceased its operation. Section 3 (1) of the Deed of Transfer provided that Maricalum shall assume MMIC’s liabilities due or owing to any other person. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Section 3.1. From and after the effectivity date, Maricalum shall be solely liable (I) . . .; (II) for any other liability due or owing to any other person (natural or corporate).

    Pursuant to the above provision, this Court, in Maricalum Mining Corporation v. NLRC 298 SCRA 378 (1998), ordered Maricalum to reinstate and pay Saludar backwages, after he filed an action to revive judgment. We held that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . The records show that Maricalum voluntarily absorbed Marinduque’s obligations to its employees. The NLRC found that when the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) transferred Marinduque’s assets to Maricalum, the Deed of Transfer contained the proviso that" (f)rom and after the effectivity date, Maricalum shall be solely liable for any liability due or owing to any other person (natural or corporate)." Marinduque’s liability to respondent Saludar for unpaid backwages adjudicated in RAB Case No. 06-0610-83 way back in 1984 became final when no appeal was interposed by it. This final judgment then formed part of the liabilities of Marinduque which Maricalum assumed in the Deed of Transfer. Thus, it is futile for Maricalum to deny liability it had voluntarily assumed. 3

    Meanwhile, on August 28, 1986, in SSC Case No. 8658, respondent Social Security Commission issued a resolution in favor of Mrs. Porquez. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Commission finds and so holds that the respondent is held liable only for the SS contribution of the petitioner’s husband corresponding to his 12 months backwages.

    The SSS is hereby directed to assess the SS contribution liability of the respondent based on his 12 months backwages at P14.00 a day within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof, and furnish the respondent a copy of its assessment who is in turn directed to pay its said liability within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of assessment from the SSS. 4

    The resolution became final on October 8, 1986, and entry of judgment was made on November 5, 1986. However, no execution was made within the five-year period from date of entry. Thus, on December 11, 1991, the Social Security System filed with the Social Security Commission a petition to revive judgment against MMIC.

    As MMIC had already ceased operation, summons was not served upon it. On April 28, 1997, the SSS filed an amended petition to revive judgment impleading the responsible officers of MMIC, including petitioner Ramon J. Farolan. Summonses were served upon MMIC’s officers but they could not be located, except for petitioner who was served summons on December 11, 1997.

    On December 17, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the Social Security Commission in its orders 5 dated June 9, 1998. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari and prohibition on the ground of prescription and laches.

    On August 31, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, disposing of the case thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the Order of the Social Security Commission dated June 9, 1998 in SSC Case No. 12-13757-91 is AFFIRMED in toto. 6

    The Court of Appeals held that the amended petition to revive judgment was not barred by prescription. True, it was filed way beyond the ten-year period from date of entry of judgment. But the delay could not be attributed to the SSS, but to the cessation of the operation of MMIC, said the appellate court. Citing Camacho v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 611 (1998), it held that where the cause of the delay was beyond the control of a prevailing party, prescription would not set in against him. Further, it said that based on the second paragraph of Section 22 (b) of Republic Act 1161, otherwise known as the Social Security Law, 7 the employee’s widow, Mrs. Porquez, had 20 years within which to file the necessary action against MMIC or its officers. Consequently, the period to file the amended petition to revive judgment has not yet prescribed.

    Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner, as one of the officers of MMIC, could be held liable for employees’ claims, based on Valderrama v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 466, 475 (1996). In that case, we held that where the employer corporation is no longer existing and is unable to satisfy the judgment in favor of the employee, the officer should be held liable for acting on behalf of the corporation.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Lastly, the Court of Appeals held that the Deed of Transfer between MMIC and Maricalum did not exempt petitioner from liability, because said deed was made retroactive only up to October 1984. The claim of Porquez’s widow covered the period from September 1980 to August 1981, when MMIC was still in full operation.

    Dissatisfied, petitioner Farolan filed the instant petition for review on certiorari averring that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    IT WAS GRAVE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO IGNORE [OUR RULING IN MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION VS. NLRC, CECILIO T. SALUDAR, ET AL., 298 SCRA 378 (1998)] AND HOLD HEREIN PETITIONER ANSWERABLE FOR THE UNREMITTED 12 MONTHS’ WORTH OF SS PREMIUMS OF A LIKE EMPLOYEE OF THE MMIC, KNOWING FULL (SIC) WELL THAT SAID LIABILITY HAD BEEN ALREADY ASSUMED WITH JUDICIAL FINALITY BY MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION. 8

    Petitioner argues that MMIC and its directors should not be held liable as it is Maricalum that is liable for the employees’ claim, following the Maricalum case. He contends that to rule otherwise is to contravene its rationale — that of valid contractual succession of employers’ interest under the Deed of Transfer between MMIC and Maricalum.

    Respondents counter that petitioner’s claim is without basis in law and in fact. The adjudged liability in this proceeding pertains to the unremitted SSS contributions of the late Carlos Porquez for the period September 1980 to August 1981, which is outside the ambit of MMIC’s Deed of Transfer since said deed was made retroactive to October 1984 only. They emphasize that the adjudged liability became final and executory when MMIC was still in operation. Also, respondents assert that petitioner is raising said issue of transfer of assets and liabilities only now. According to them, petitioner cannot change the theory of his case on appeal.

    The main issue before us is whether petitioner, as one of the directors of MMIC, should be held liable for the unremitted SSS contributions for the late Carlos Porquez. On this score, we are constrained to agree with petitioner that he should not be liable for said contributions.

    The liability to pay the unpaid premium lies with Maricalum. This is so because when the Social Security Commission, on August 28, 1986, adjudged MMIC liable for the unpaid premiums, Maricalum had already absorbed all the assets and liabilities of MMIC pursuant to a deed of transfer, which was made retroactive to October 1984. Therefore, the judgment became part of MMIC’s liability transferred to Maricalum.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that because the unpaid premiums referred to the period from September 1980 to August 1981, this should be the reckoning dates in determining the person liable for payment of the unpaid premiums. At that time, there was no final determination of this matter yet by the appropriate government agency, hence the liability did not yet accrue. It was only on October 6, 1986 that MMIC was finally declared liable.

    Respondents’ assertion that it is too late for petitioner to raise the matter of transfer of liabilities is far from persuasive. Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties so as to bar the application of the doctrine that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 9 In this case, the matter of transfer of liabilities is not totally foreign to the main issue. It is a corollary issue, the resolution of which is vital to the question of whether petitioner should be held liable to pay the unpaid premiums. Besides, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense. 10

    We note that during the pendency of this case, MMIC already paid the sum of P607.80 representing the unpaid monthly contributions for Carlos Porquez and consequently the Social Security Commission ordered on September 19, 2000 the termination of SSC Case No. 8658. A fortiori, SSC Case No. 12-13757-91, the petition to revive judgment in SSC Case No. 8658, was also terminated.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision dated August 31, 1999 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 48514, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby discharged of any liability under SSC Case No. 12-13757-91. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Acting C.J., Mendoza, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 110-115.

    2. Records, pp. 83-87.

    3. Maricalum Mining Corp. v. NLRC, 298 SCRA 378, 380 (1998).

    4. Records, p. 9.

    5. Id. at 83-87.

    6. CA Rollo, p. 131.

    7. Sec. 22 (b). . . .

    The right to institute the necessary action against the employer may be commenced within twenty (20) years from the time the delinquency is known or the assessment. is made by the SSS, or from the time the benefit accrues, as the case may be. See Rollo, p. 113.

    8. Rollo, pp. 11-12.

    9. Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257, 267 (1998).

    10. Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 864, 868-869 (2000).

    G.R. No. 139946   November 27, 2002 - RAMON J. FAROLAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, 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