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
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 191261, March 02 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JENNY TUMAMBING Y TAMAYO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191361, March 02 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE,VS. MARIANITO TERIAPIL Y QUINAWAYAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 192217, March 02 : 2011] DANILO L. PAREL, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182525, March 02 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193482, March 02 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NILO ROCABO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181298, March 02 : 2011] BELLE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167751, March 02 : 2011] HARPOON MARINE SERVICES, INC. AND JOSE LIDO T. ROSIT, PETITIONERS, VS. FERNAN H. FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188705, March 02 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FEDERICO LUCERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178159, March 02 : 2011] SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO AND ANITA DIONISIO, PETITIONER, VS. WILFREDO LINSANGAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2247 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3143-RTJ), March 02 : 2011] JOCELYN DATOON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BETHANY G. KAPILI, PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, MAASIN CITY, SOUTHERN LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181371, March 02 : 2011] CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172161, March 02 : 2011] SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST AND SONNY L. LAGON, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4TH DIVISION, ROLDAN LOPEZ, EDGARDO ZUƑIGA AND DANILO CAƑETE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 194259, March 06 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY ALVERIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191389, March 07 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. LUISITO LALICAN Y ARCE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191561, March 07 : 2011] BANK OF COMMERCE, PETITIONER, VS. GOODMAN FIELDER INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172011, March 07 : 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. TEODORO P. RIZALVO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192856, March 08 : 2011] FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RENO G. LIM, STEPHEN C. BICHARA AND THE SPECIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS CONSTITUTED PER RES. DATED JULY 23, 2010 OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157838, March 08 : 2011] CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. (IN HIS FORMER CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), PETITIONER, VS. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT), RAUL C. FLORES, CELSO D. GANGAN, SOFRONIO B. URSAL AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 08 : 2011] RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT"

  • [G.R. No. 187714, March 08 : 2011] AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., MANUEL B. VILLAR, JOKER P. ARROYO, FRANCIS N. PANGILINAN, PIA S. CAYETANO, AND ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, PETITIONERS, VS. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170071, March 09 : 2011] HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, PETITIONERS, VS.G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163530, March 09 : 2011] PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. RAMON VALENZUELA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 159017-18, March 09 : 2011] PAULINO S. ASILO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES VISITACION AND CESAR C. BOMBASI, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 159059] VICTORIA BUETA VDA. DE COMENDADOR, IN REPRESENTATION OF DEMETRIO T. COMENDADOR, PETITIONER, VS. VISITACION C. BOMBASI AND CESAR C. BOMBASI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185758, March 09 : 2011] LINDA M. CHAN KENT, REPRESENTED BY ROSITA MANALANG, PETITIONER, VS. DIONESIO C. MICAREZ, SPOUSES ALVARO E. MICAREZ & PAZ MICAREZ, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS, DAVAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168523, March 09 : 2011] SPOUSES FERNANDO AND ANGELINA EDRALIN, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191388, March 09 : 2011] ASIA UNITED BANK, CHRISTINE T. CHAN, AND FLORANTE C. DEL MUNDO, PETITIONERS, VS. GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 181566 and 181570, March 09 : 2011] DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177467, March 09 : 2011] PFIZER, INC. AND/OR REY GERARDO BACARRO, AND/OR FERDINAND CORTES, AND/OR ALFRED MAGALLON, AND/OR ARISTOTLE ARCE, PETITIONERS, VS. GERALDINE VELASCO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174034, March 09 : 2011] HEIRS OF MARILOU K. SANTIAGO, REPRESENTED BY DENNIS K. SANTIAGO, LOURDES K. SANTIAGO AND EUFEMIA K. SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. ALFONSO AGUILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181370, March 09 : 2011] JULIAN S. LEBRUDO AND REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO, PETITIONERS, VS. REMEDIOS LOYOLA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192649, March 09 : 2011] HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. R-II BUILDERS INC., AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171189, March 09 : 2011] LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES, INC., LORENZO Y. SUMULONG III, PETITIONERS, VS. VIRGINIA E. PACIA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2677 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2582-P), March 09 : 2011] ANGELINA C. LIM AND VIVIAN M. GADUANG, COMPLAINANTS, VS. MARIBETH G. AROMIN, RECORDS OFFICER I, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-08-2149 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2787-RTJ), March 09 : 2011] LYDIA A. BENANCILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE VENANCIO J. AMILA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, TAGBILARAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 158576, March 09 : 2011] CORNELIA M. HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. CECILIO F. HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2241[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3224-RTJ], March 09 : 2011] FERDINAND C. BACOLOT, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. FRANCISCO D. PAƑO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189981, March 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLAN GABRINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181249, March 14 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BAIDA SALAK Y BANGKULAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190171, March 14 : 2011] ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ AND REGIDOR TULALI, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. BIENVENIDO BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAWAN, BRANCH 52, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178272, March 14 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO SALCEDO ALIAS "DIGOL," APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191392, March 14 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLLY SORIAGA Y STO. DOMINGO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172087, March 15 : 2011] PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), PETITIONER, VS. THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR), REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HON. JOSE MARIO BUƑAG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PUBLIC RESPONDENT, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, WHO ARE PERSONS ACTING FOR, IN BEHALF, OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RESPONDENT. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2010-11-SC, March 15 : 2011] RE: EMPLOYEES INCURRING HABITUAL TARDINESS IN THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 2009

  • [A.C. No. 8253(Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1067), March 15 : 2011] ERLINDA R. TAROG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152033, March 16 : 2011] FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FIBER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. WILFREDO DE LOS SANTOS, BENITO JOSE DE LOS SANTOS, MARIA ELENA DE LOS SANTOS AND CARMINA VDA. DE LOS SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169717, March 16 : 2011] SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER), ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO - UNION PRESIDENT, PETITIONER,VS. CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190341, March 16 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROMY FALLONES Y LABANA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169599, March 16 : 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JUANITO MANIMTIM, JULIO UMALI, REPRESENTED BY AURORA U. JUMARANG, SPOUSES EDILBERTO BAƑANOLA AND SOFIA BAƑANOLA, ZENAIDA MALABANAN, MARCELINO MENDOZA, DEMETRIO BARRIENTOS, FLORITA CUADRA, AND FRANCISCA MANIMTIM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1718, March 16 : 2011] ATTY. RAFAEL T. MARTINEZ, AND SPOUSES DAN AND EDNA REYES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE GRACE GLICERIA F. DE VERA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN CARLOS CITY, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2206, March 16 : 2011] EXECUTIVE JUDGE LEONILO B. APITA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARISSA M. ESTANISLAO, COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, TACLOBAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185390, March 16 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEX PALING, ERNIE VILBAR @ "DODONG" (AT LARGE), AND ROY VILBAR, ACCUSED, ALEX PALING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182239, March 16 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HERMIE M. JACINTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 157476, March 16 : 2011] VENANCIO GIVERO, EDGARDO GIVERO AND FLORIDA GAYANES, PETITIONERS, VS. MAXIMO GIVERO AND LORETO GIVERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168651, March 16 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDITH RAMOS ABAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185683, March 16 : 2011] UNION LEAF TOBACCO CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HILARION P. UY, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 131481, March 16 : 2011] BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. E. M. RAMOS AND SONS, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 131624] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, PETITIONER, VS. E. M. RAMOS AND SONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMANDO CHINGH Y PARCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2914 [FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 09-3159-P], March 16 : 2011] DY TEBAN TRADING CO., INC., COMPLAINANT, VS. ARCHIBALD C. VERGA, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 33 BUTUAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169103, March 16 : 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. MANILA BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171870, March 16 : 2011] SPOUSES ANTONIO F. ALAGAR AND AURORA ALAGAR, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173780, March 21 : 2011] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. MARINA B. CUSTODIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2297 (formerly A.M. No. 07-1-04-MTC -Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTC, Argao, Cebu), March 21 : 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MS. MIRA THELMA V. ALMIRANTE, INTERPRETER AND FORMER OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ARGAO, CEBU, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 165427, March 21 : 2011] BETTY B. LACBAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192821, March 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. APPELLEE, SIXTO PADUA Y FELOMINA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174504, March 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND MANUEL G. BARCENAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182458, March 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REX NIMUAN Y CACHO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1727 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 03-1465-MTJ), March 22 : 2011] MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND OMAR T. MIRANDA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE AND PROCESS SERVER EUGENIO TAGUBA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. SCC-98-4, March 22 : 2011] ASHARY M. ALAUYA, CLERK OF COURT, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, MARAWI CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CASAN ALI L. LIMBONA, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, LANAO DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190529, March 22 : 2011] PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166471, March 22 : 2011] TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, PETITIONER, VS. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193256, March 22 : 2011] ABC (ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS) PARTY LIST, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN, JAMES MARTY LIM, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170446, March 23 : 2011] EDGEWATER REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM AND MANILA WATER COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178096, March 23 : 2011] ROSA DELOS REYES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO ODONES AND ARWENIA ODONES, NOEMI OTALES, AND GREGORIO RAMIREZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164693, March 23 : 2011] JOSEFA S. ABALOS* AND THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. LOMANTONG DARAPA AND SINAB DIMAKUTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169260, March 23 : 2011] SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES AND ANTONIO ANG, PETITIONERS, VS. LORESSA P. ROSALES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189821, March 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO OTOS ALIAS ANTONIO OMOS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176058, March 23 : 2011] PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PETITIONERS, VS. SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151369, March 23 : 2011] ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND THE SPOUSES ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE JUAN TONG, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JOSE Y. ONG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 146839, March 23 : 2011] ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL, JOSE T. CATUNGAL, JR., CAROLYN T. CATUNGAL AND ERLINDA CATUNGAL-WESSEL, PETITIONERS, VS. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160736, March 23 : 2011] AIR ADS INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. TAGUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (TADECO), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156142, March 23 : 2011] SPOUSES ALVIN GUERRERO AND MERCURY M. GUERRERO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LORNA NAVARRO DOMINGO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 201, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIƑAS CITY & PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192416, March 23 : 2011] GRANDTEQ INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS, INC., ABELARDO GONZALES,[1] RONALD A. DE LEON,[2] NOEL AGUIRRE, FELIX ARPIA, AND NICK EUGENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. ANNALIZA M. ESTRELLA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172678, March 23 : 2011] SEA LION FISHING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193664, March 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164321, March 23 : 2011] SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC., PETITIONER, VS. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP., AND/OR INTER PACIFIC TRADING CORP. AND/OR STRONG SPORTS GEAR CO., LTD., AND/OR STRONGSHOES WAREHOUSE AND/OR STRONG FASHION SHOES TRADING AND/OR TAN TUAN HONG AND/OR VIOLETA T. MAGAYAGA AND/OR JEFFREY R. MORALES AND/OR ANY OF ITS OTHER PROPRIETOR/S, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF ITS PREMISES LOCATED AT S-7, ED & JOE'S COMMERCIAL ARCADE, NO. 153 QUIRINO AVENUE, PARAƑAQUE CITY, RESPONDENTS. TRENDWORKS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, VS. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP. AND/OR INTER PACIFIC TRADING CORP. AND/OR STRONG SPORTS GEAR CO., LTD., AND/OR STRONGSHOES WAREHOUSE AND/OR STRONG FASHION SHOES TRADING AND/OR TAN TUAN HONG AND/OR VIOLETA T. MAGAYAGA AND/OR JEFFREY R. MORALES AND/OR ANY OF ITS OTHER PROPRIETOR/S, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF ITS PREMISES LOCATED AT S-7, ED & JOE'S COMMERCIAL ARCADE, NO. 153 QUIRINO AVENUE, PARAƑAQUE CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190001, March 23 : 2011] GENUINO ICE COMPANY, INC., HECTOR S. GENUINO AND EDGAR A. CARRJAGA, PETITIONERS. VS. ERIC Y. LAVA AND EDDIE BOY SODELA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182550, March 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RUEL VELARDE ALIAS DOLOY BELARDE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169895, March 23 : 2011] ISAGANI M. YAMBOT, LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, JOSE MA. D. NOLASCO, ARTEMIO T. ENGRACIA, JR. AND VOLT CONTRERAS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ARTEMIO TUQUERO IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, AND ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2651, March 23 : 2011] EMMANUEL M. GIBAS, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. MA. JESUSA E. GIBAS, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GUIGUINTO, BULACAN, AND FRANCONELLO S. LINTAO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 83, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185454, March 23 : 2011] STAR TWO (SPV-AMC), INC., PETITIONER, VS. HOWARD KO, MIN MIN SEE KO, JIMMY ONG, AND GRACE NG ONG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176596, March 23 : 2011] JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL E. GAITE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; HON. RAUL GONZALES, SECRETARY, AND HON. JOVENCITO ZUƑO, CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ); HON. RAMON R. GARCIA (SUBSTITUTED BY HON. JOSEPH LOPEZ), CITY PROSECUTOR, ACP MARLINA N. MANUEL, AND ACP ADELIZA H. MAGNO-GUINGOYON, ALL OF THE MANILA PROSECUTION SERVICE; AND SSP EMMANUEL VELASCO, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179844, March 23 : 2011] EMERSON B. BAGONGAHASA, GIRLIE B. BAGONGAHASA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM - PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SINOLOAN, LAGUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. JOHANNA L. ROMUALDEZ, RESPONDENT. SPOUSES CESAR M. CAGUIN AND GERTRUDES CAGUIN, SPOUSES TEODORO MADRIDEJOS AND ANICETA IBANEZ MADRIDEJOS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM - PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SINOLOAN, LAGUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. DIETMAR L. ROMUALDEZ, RESPONDENT. SOTELA D. ADEA, SPOUSES ESPERANZA AND LEONCIO MARIO, SPOUSES DELIA AND DANILO CACHOLA, SPOUSES MA. ALICIA AND REYMUNDO CAINTO, EDUARDO B. DALAY, SPOUSES JOSE LEVITICO AND EPIFANIA DALAY, SPOUSES JIFFY AND FAUSTINO DALAY, SPOUSES MA. RUTH AND MELCHOR PACURIB, MA. JERIMA B. DALAY, SPOUSES CLEOFAS AND TERESITA VITOR, SPOUSES CELESTINA AND ALEJANDRO COSICO, SPOUSES AUREA AND ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, SPOUSES JULIA AND RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES RAQUEL AND SEBASTIAN SAN JUAN, SPOUSES MARGARITA AND PABLITO LLANES, SR., FIDEL M. DALAY, SPOUSES JAIME AND MELVITA DALAY, SPOUSES EMILY AND FLORENCIO PANGAN, SPOUSES FELIPE AND ROSALIE DALAY, SPOUSES MARCELO AND CATALINA B. DALAY, AND SPOUSES RENATO AND ELIZABETH DALAY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM - PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SINOLOAN, LAGUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES DANIEL AND ANA ROMUALDEZ, AND JACQUELINE L. ROMUALDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175697, March 23 : 2011] RURAL BANK OF TOBOSO, INC. (NOW UCPB SAVINGS BANK), PETITIONER, VS. JEAN VENIEGAS AGTOTO, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 176103] JEAN VENIEGAS AGTOTO, PETITIONER, VS. RURAL BANK OF TOBOSO, INC. AND ANTONIO ARBIS IN HIS CAPACITY AS EX-OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167518, March 23 : 2011] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, VS. PIO ROQUE S. COQUIA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192877, March 23 : 2011] BR> SPOUSES HERMES P. OCHOA AND ARACELI D. OCHOA, PETITIONERS, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192789, March 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NGANO SUGAN, NGA BEN LATAM, FRANCING, GAGA LATAM, SALIGO KUYAN AND KAMISON AKOY, ACCUSED, GAGA LATAM, SALIGO KUYAN AND KAMISON AKOY, APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1782 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-1807-MTJ], March 23 : 2011] JOSEFINA NAGUIAT, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIO B. CAPELLAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MTCC, BR. 1, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R.No. 170195, March 28 : 2011] SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. TERESA G. FAVILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187425, March 28 : 2011] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONER, VS. AGFHA INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2686 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I NO. 06-2441-P), March 28 : 2011] PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JULIANA Y. BENGSON, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 104, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185556, March 28 : 2011] SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION (NMS-IND-APL), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178454, March 28 : 2011] FILIPINA SAMSON, PETITIONER, VS. JULIA A. RESTRIVERA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2637 (Formerly A.M. No. 08-12-682-RTC), March 29 : 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MAGDALENA L. LOMETILLO, FORMER CLERK OF COURT VII, VICTORIA S. PATOPATEN, CASHIER II, LINDA C. GUIDES, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER I, LENNY GEMMA P. CASTILLO, CLERK III, AND BRENDA M. LINACERO, CLERK III, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191560, March 29 : 2011] HON. LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ALEJANDRO S. URRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE NEW APPOINTEE VICE HEREIN PETITIONER HON. LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL, NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. HON. LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, THRU EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LEANDRO MENDOZA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE APPOINTING POWER, HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND AS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION AND HON. EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, ALEJANDRO S. URRO, AND HON. CONSTANCIA P. DE GUZMAN AS THE MIDNIGHT APPOINTEES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171427, March 30 : 2011] STERLING SELECTIONS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LLDA) AND JOAQUIN G. MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER OF LLDA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159450, March 30 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OLIVIA ALETH GARCIA CRISTOBAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177324, March 30 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 189834, March 30 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAY MANDY MAGLIAN Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169575, March 30 : 2011] IMELDA PANTOLLANO (FOR HERSELF AS SURVIVING SPOUSE AND IN BEHALF OF HER 4 CHILDREN HONEYVETTE, TIERRA BRYN, KIENNE DIONNES, SHERRA VEDA MAE, THEN ALL MINORS, WITH DECEASED SEAMAN VEDASTO PANTOLLANO), PETITIONER, VS. KORPHIL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND MANNING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170351, March 30 : 2011] LEYTE GEOTHERMAL POWER PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYEES UNION - ALU - TUCP, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY - ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [A. M. No. P-10-2803, March 30 : 2011] JUDGE JEOFFRE W. ACEBIDO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, COMPLAINANT,VS. LUDYCISSA A. HALASAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, AND JOEL A. LARGO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181355, March 30 : 2011] BENJAMIN BELTRAN, JR. AND VIRGILIO BELTRAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 169766, March 30 : 2011] ESTRELLITA JULIAJVO-LLAVE, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HAJA PUTRI ZORAYDA A. TAMANO AND ADIB AHMAD A. TAMANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182177, March 30 : 2011] RICHARD JUAN, PETITIONER, VS. GABRIEL YAP, SR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184980, March 30 : 2011] DANILO MORO, PETITIONER, VS. GENEROSO REYES DEL CASTILLO, JR., RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 177260, March 30 : 2011] LOTTO RESTAURANT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SUAT KIM GO, PETITIONER, VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  •  




     
     

    [G.R. No. 167751, March 02 : 2011]   HARPOON MARINE SERVICES, INC. AND JOSE LIDO T. ROSIT, PETITIONERS, VS. FERNAN H. FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT.

     
    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 167751, March 02 : 2011]

    HARPOON MARINE SERVICES, INC. AND JOSE LIDO T. ROSIT, PETITIONERS, VS. FERNAN H. FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    Satisfactory evidence of a valid or just cause of dismissal is indispensably required in order to protect a laborer's right to security of tenure. In the case before us, the employer presented none despite the burden to prove clearly its cause.

    This Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction[1] assails the Decision[2] dated January 26, 2005 and Resolution[3] dated April 12, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 79630, which affirmed the Decision[4] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated March 31, 2003, as well as the NLRC modified Decision[5] dated June 30, 2003, declaring petitioners Harpoon Marine Services, Incorporated (Harpoon) and Jose Lido T. Rosit (Rosit) solidarily liable to pay respondent Fernan H. Francisco (respondent) separation pay, backwages and unpaid commissions for illegally dismissing him.

    Factual Antecedents

    Petitioner Harpoon, a company engaged in ship building and ship repair, with petitioner Rosit as its President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), originally hired respondent in 1992 as its Yard Supervisor tasked to oversee and supervise all projects of the company. In 1998, respondent left for employment elsewhere but was rehired by petitioner Harpoon and assumed his previous position a year after.

    On June 15, 2001, respondent averred that he was unceremoniously dismissed by petitioner Rosit. He was informed that the company could no longer afford his salary and that he would be paid his separation pay and accrued commissions. Respondent nonetheless continued to report for work. A few days later, however, he was barred from entering the company premises. Relying on the promise of petitioner Rosit, respondent went to the office on June 30, 2001 to receive his separation pay and commissions, but petitioner Rosit offered only his separation pay. Respondent refused to accept it and also declined to sign a quitclaim. After several unheeded requests, respondent, through his counsel, sent a demand letter dated September 24, 2001[6] to petitioners asking for payment of P70,000.00, which represents his commissions for the seven boats[7] constructed and repaired by the company under his supervision. In a letter-reply dated September 28, 2001,[8] petitioners denied that it owed respondent any commission, asserting that they never entered into any contract or agreement for the payment of commissions. Hence, on October 24, 2001, respondent filed an illegal dismissal complaint praying for the payment of his backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

    Petitioners presented a different version of the events and refuted the allegations of respondent. They explained that petitioner Rosit indeed talked to respondent on June 15, 2001 not to dismiss him but only to remind and warn him of his excessive absences and tardiness, as evinced by his Time Card covering the period June 1-15, 2001.[9] Instead of improving his work behavior, respondent continued to absent himself and sought employment with another company engaged in the same line of business, thus, creating serious damage in the form of unfinished projects. Petitioners denied having terminated respondent as the latter voluntarily abandoned his work after going on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) beginning June 22, 2001. Petitioners contended that when respondent's absences persisted, several memoranda[10] informing him of his absences were sent to him by ordinary mail and were duly filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on August 13, 2001. Upon respondent's continuous and deliberate failure to respond to these memoranda, a Notice of Termination dated July 30, 2001[11] was later on issued to him.

    Respondent, however, denied his alleged tardiness and excessive absences. He claimed that the three-day absence appearing on his time card cannot be considered as habitual absenteeism. He claimed that he incurred those absences because petitioner Rosit, who was hospitalized at those times, ordered them not to report for work until he is discharged from the hospital. In fact, a co-worker, Nestor Solares (Solares), attested that respondent always goes to work and continued to report until June 20, 2001.[12] Respondent further denied having received the memoranda that were allegedly mailed to him, asserting that said documents were merely fabricated to cover up and justify petitioners' act of illegally terminating him on June 15, 2001. Respondent absolved himself of fault for defective works, justifying that he was illegally terminated even before the company projects were completed. Finally, respondent denied petitioners' asseveration that he abandoned his job without any formal notice in 1998 as he wrote a resignation letter which petitioners received.

    As regards the commissions claimed, respondent insisted that in addition to his fixed monthly salary of P18,200.00, he was paid a commission of P10,000.00 for every ship repaired or constructed by the company. As proof, he presented two check vouchers[13] issued by the company showing payment thereof.

    Petitioners, on the other hand, contended that respondent was hired as a regular employee with a fixed salary and not as an employee paid on commission basis. The act of giving additional monetary benefit once in a while to employees was a form of recognizing employees' efforts and cannot in any way be interpreted as commissions. Petitioners then clarified that the word "commission" as appearing in the check vouchers refer to "additional money" that employees receive as differentiated from the usual "vale" and is written for accounting and auditing purposes only.

    Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

    On May 17, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[14] holding that respondent was validly dismissed due to his unjustified absences and tardiness and that due process was observed when he was duly served with several memoranda relative to the cause of his dismissal. The Labor Arbiter also found respondent entitled to the payment of commissions by giving credence to the check vouchers presented by respondent as well as attorney's fees for withholding the payment of commissions pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the dismissal of complainant Fernan H. Francisco legal; ordering respondents Harpoon Marine Services Inc., and Jose Lido T. Rosit, to pay complainant his commission in the sum of PHP70,000.00; as well as attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) thereof; and dismissing all other claims for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.[15]

    Proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission

    Both parties appealed to the NLRC. Petitioners alleged that the Labor Arbiter erred in ruling that respondent is entitled to the payment of commissions and attorney's fees. They questioned the authenticity of the check vouchers for being photocopies bearing only initials of a person who remained unidentified. Also, according to petitioners, the vouchers did not prove that commissions were given regularly as to warrant respondent's entitlement thereto.[16]

    Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that his dismissal was illegal because there is no sufficient evidence on record of his alleged gross absenteeism and tardiness. He likewise imputed bad faith on the part of petitioners for concocting the memoranda for the purpose of providing a semblance of compliance with due process requirements.[17]

    In its Decision dated March 31, 2003,[18] the NLRC affirmed the Labor

    Arbiter's award of commissions in favor of respondent for failure of petitioners to refute the validity of his claim. The NLRC, however, deleted the award of attorney's fees for lack of evidence showing petitioners' bad faith in terminating respondent.

    As the NLRC only resolved petitioners' appeal, respondent moved before the NLRC to resolve his appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision.[19] For their part, petitioners filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration[20] reiterating that there was patent error in admitting, as valid evidence, photocopies of the check vouchers without substantial proof that they are genuine copies of the originals.

    The NLRC, in its Decision dated June 30, 2003,[21] modified its previous ruling and held that respondent's dismissal was illegal. According to the NLRC, the only evidence presented by the petitioners to prove respondent's habitual absenteeism and tardiness is his time card for the period covering June 1-15, 2001. However, said time card reveals that respondent incurred only three absences for the said period, which cannot be considered as gross and habitual. With regard to the award of commissions, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter because of petitioners' failure to question the authenticity of the check vouchers in the first instance before the Labor Arbiter. It, nevertheless, sustained the deletion of the award of attorney's fees in the absence of proof that petitioners acted in bad faith. Thus, for being illegally dismissed, the NLRC granted respondent backwages and separation pay in addition to the commissions, as contained in the dispositive portion of its Decision, as follows:

    WHEREFORE, the decision dated 31 March 2003 is further MODIFIED. Respondents are found to have illegally dismissed complainant Fernan H. Francisco and are ordered to pay him the following:

    1. Backwages                          =
    P218,066.33
     
    (15 June 2001 - 17 May 2002)
     
    a) Salary - P18,200.00 x 11.06 months =
    P201,292.00
     
    b) 13th month pay: P201,292.00/12 =
    16,774.33
     
    -------------
     
    2. Separation Pay of one month salary for every year of service
     
    (October 1999 - 17 May 2002)
     
    P18,200.00 x 3 yrs. 
    =
    54,600.00
     
    3. Commission  
    =
    70,000.00
     
    TOTAL
    P342,666.33
     
     

    The Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainant and respondents are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.[22]

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals

    Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari[23] with the CA, which on January 26, 2005, affirmed the findings and conclusions of the NLRC. The CA agreed with the NLRC in not giving any probative weight to the memoranda since there is no proof that the same were sent to respondent. It also upheld respondent's right to the payment of commissions on the basis of the check vouchers and declared petitioners solidarily liable for respondent's backwages, separation pay and accrued commissions.

    Petitioners moved for reconsideration which was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

    Issues

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED ERROR IN RENDERING ITS DECISION AND ITS RESOLUTION DISMISSING AND DENYING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI A QUO WHEN IT FAILED TO RECTIFY AND CORRECT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE NLRC (AND OF THE LABOR ARBITER A QUO), WHICH WERE ARRIVED AT WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. IN PARTICULAR:

    I

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE NLRC AND OF THE LABOR ARBITER A QUO BECAUSE THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE[;] ARE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY; GROUNDED UPON SPECULATION, CONJECTURES, AND ASSUMPTIONS; [AND] ARE MERE CONCLUSIONS FOUNDED UPON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS, AMONG OTHERS.

    II

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IN THE SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT OF FERNAN H. FRANCISCO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE WAS HABITUALLY ABSENT, SUBSEQUENTLY WENT ON AWOL, AND HAD ABANDONED HIS WORK AND CORRELATIVELY, WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES AND SEPARATION PAY.

    III

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT FERNAN H. FRANCISCO IS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF P70,000 EVEN THOUGH NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS SHOWN TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM.

    IV

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF PETITIONER ROSIT EVEN THOUGH NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO PROVE THIS AND CORRELATIVELY, WHETHER PETITIONER ROSIT CAN BE HELD SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH PETITIONER HARPOON.[24]

    Petitioners submit that there was no basis for the CA to rule that respondent was illegally dismissed since more than sufficient proof was adduced to show his habitual absenteeism and abandonment of work as when he further incurred additional absences after June 15, 2001 and subsequently went on AWOL; when he completely ignored all the notices/memoranda sent to him; when he never demanded for reinstatement in his September 24, 2001 demand letter, complaint and position paper before the Labor Arbiter; when it took him four months before filing an illegal dismissal complaint; and when he was later found to have been working for another company.

    Petitioners also question the veracity of the documents presented by respondent to prove his entitlement to commissions, to wit: the two check vouchers[25] and the purported list[26] of vessels allegedly constructed and repaired by the company. Petitioners insist that the check vouchers neither prove that commissions were paid on account of a repair or construction of a vessel nor were admissible to prove that a regular commission is given for every vessel that is constructed/repaired by the company under respondent's supervision. The list of the vessels, on the other hand, cannot be used as basis in arriving at the amount of commissions due because it is self-serving, unsigned, unverified and merely enumerates a list of names of vessels which does not prove anything. Therefore, the award of commissions was based on unsupported assertions of respondent.

    Petitioners also insist that petitioner Rosit, being an officer of the company, has a personality distinct from that of petitioner Harpoon and that no proof was adduced to show that he acted with malice or bad faith hence no liability, solidary or otherwise, should be imposed on him.

    Our Ruling

    The petition is partly meritorious.

    Respondent was illegally dismissed for failure
    of petitioners to prove the existence of a just
    cause for his dismissal.


    Petitioners reiterate that respondent was a habitual absentee as indubitably shown by his time card for the period covering June 1-15, 2001,[27] payroll[28] for the same period as well as the memoranda[29] enumerating his absences subsequent to

    June 15, 2001.

    Respondent belies these claims and explained that his absence for three days as reflected in the time card was due to petitioner Rosit's prohibition for them to report for work owing to the latter's hospitalization. He claims that he was illegally terminated on June 15, 2001 and was subsequently prevented from entering company premises. In defense, petitioners deny terminating respondent on June 15, 2001, maintaining that petitioner Rosit merely reminded him of his numerous absences. However, in defiance of the company's order, respondent continued to absent himself, went on AWOL and abandoned his work.

    We find no merit in petitioners' contention that respondent incurred unexplained and habitual absences and tardiness. A scrutiny of the time card and payroll discloses that respondent incurred only three days of absence and no record of tardiness. As aptly held by the NLRC, the time card and payroll presented by petitioners do not show gross and habitual absenteeism and tardiness especially since respondent's explanation of his three-day absence was not denied by petitioners at the first instance before the Labor Arbiter. No other evidence was presented to show the alleged absences and tardiness. On the other hand, Solares, a co-worker of respondent has stated under oath that, as their supervisor, respondent was diligent in reporting for work until June 20, 2001 when they heard the news concerning respondent's termination from his job.

    Likewise, we are not persuaded with petitioners' claim that respondent incurred additional absences, went on AWOL and abandoned his work. It is worthy to note at this point that petitioners never denied having offered respondent his separation pay. In fact, in their letter-reply dated September 28, 2001,[30] petitioners intimated that respondent may pick up the amount of P27,584.37 any time he wants, which amount represents his separation and 13th month pays. Oddly, petitioners deemed it fit to give respondent his separation pay despite their assertion that there is just cause for his dismissal on the ground of habitual absences. This inconsistent stand of petitioners bolsters the fact that they wanted to terminate respondent, thus giving more credence to respondent's protestation that he was barred and prevented from reporting for work.

    Jurisprudence provides for two essential requirements for abandonment of work to exist. The "failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason" and "clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship x x x manifested by some overt acts" should both concur.[31] Further, the employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning should be established and proven by the employer.[32]

    Petitioners failed to prove that it was respondent who voluntarily refused to report back for work by his defiance and refusal to accept the memoranda and the notices of absences sent to him. The CA correctly ruled that petitioners failed to present evidence that they sent these notices to respondent's last known address for the purpose of warning him that his continued failure to report would be construed as abandonment of work. The affidavit of petitioner Harpoon's liaison officer that the memoranda/notices were duly sent to respondent is insufficient and self-serving. Despite being stamped as received, the memoranda do not bear any signature of respondent to indicate that he actually received the same. There was no proof on how these notices were given to respondent. Neither was there any other cogent evidence that these were properly received by respondent.

    The fact that respondent never prayed for reinstatement and has sought employment in another company which is a competitor of petitioner Harpoon cannot be construed as his overt acts of abandoning employment. Neither can the delay of four months be taken as an indication that the respondent's filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is a mere afterthought. Records show that respondent first attempted to get his separation pay and alleged commissions from the company. It was only after his requests went unheeded that he resorted to judicial recourse.

    In fine, both the NLRC and the CA did not commit manifest error in finding that there was illegal dismissal. The award of backwages and separation pay in favor of respondent is therefore proper.

    Respondent is not entitled to the payment of
    commissions since the check vouchers and
    purported list of vessels show vagueness as
    to sufficiently prove the claim.


    The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA unanimously held that respondent is entitled to his accrued commissions in the amount of P10,000.00 for every vessel repaired/constructed by the company or the total amount of P70,000.00 for the seven vessels repaired/constructed under his supervision.

    The Court, however, is inclined to rule otherwise. Examination of the check vouchers presented by respondent reveals that an amount of P30,000.00 and P10,000.00 alleged as commissions were paid to respondent on June 9, 2000 and September 28, 2000, respectively. Although the veracity and genuineness of these documents were not effectively disputed by petitioners, nothing in them provides that commissions were paid to respondent on account of a repair or construction of a vessel. It cannot also be deduced from said documents for what or for how many vessels the amounts stated therein are for. In other words, the check vouchers contain very scant details and can hardly be considered as sufficient and substantial evidence to conclude that respondent is entitled to a commission of P10,000.00 for every vessel repaired or constructed by the company. At most, these vouchers only showed that respondent was paid on two occasions but were silent as to the specific purpose of payment. The list of vessels supposedly repaired/constructed by the company neither validates respondent's monetary claim as it merely contains an enumeration of 17 names of vessels and nothing more. No particulars, notation or any clear indication can be found on the list that the repair or complete construction of seven of the seventeen boats listed therein was supervised or managed by respondent. Worse, the list is written only on a piece of paper and not on petitioners' official stationery and is unverified and unsigned. Verily, its patent vagueness makes it unworthy of any credence to be used as basis for awarding respondent compensations as alleged commissions. Aside from these documents, no other competent evidence was presented by respondent to determine the value of what is properly due him, much less his entitlement to a commission. Respondent's claim cannot be based on allegations and unsubstantiated assertions without any competent document to support it. Certainly, the award of commissions in favor of respondent in the amount of P70,000.00 should not be allowed as the claim is founded on mere inferences, speculations and presumptions.

    Rosit could not be held solidarily liable with Harpoon
    for lack of substantial evidence of bad faith and malice
    on his part in terminating respondent.


    Although we find no error on the part of the NLRC and the CA in declaring the dismissal of respondent illegal, we, however, are not in accord with the ruling that petitioner Rosit should be held solidarily liable with petitioner Harpoon for the payment of respondent's backwages and separation pay.

    As held in the case of MAM Realty Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[33] "obligations incurred by [corporate officers], acting as such corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent."[34] As such, they should not be generally held jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation. The Court, however, cited circumstances when solidary liabilities may be imposed, as exceptions:

    1. When directors and trustees or, in appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation -

      (a) vote for or assent to [patently] unlawful acts of the corporation;
      (b) act in bad faith or with gross negligence in directing the corporate affairs;
      (c) are guilty of conflict of interest to the prejudice of the corporation, its stockholders or members, and other persons.

    2. When the director or officer has consented to the issuance of watered stock or who, having knowledge thereof, did not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto.

    3. When a director, trustee or officer has contractually agreed or stipulated to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the corporation.

    4. When a director, trustee or officer is made, by specific provision of law, personally liable for his corporate action.[35]

    The general rule is grounded on the theory that a corporation has a legal personality separate and distinct from the persons comprising it.[36] To warrant the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction, the officer's bad faith or wrongdoing "must be established clearly and convincingly" as "[b]ad faith is never presumed."[37]

    In the case at bench, the CA's basis for petitioner Rosit's liability was that he acted in bad faith when he approached respondent and told him that the company could no longer afford his salary and that he will be paid instead his separation pay and accrued commissions. This finding, however, could not substantially justify the holding of any personal liability against petitioner Rosit. The records are bereft of any other satisfactory evidence that petitioner Rosit acted in bad faith with gross or inexcusable negligence, or that he acted outside the scope of his authority as company president. Indeed, petitioner Rosit informed respondent that the company wishes to terminate his services since it could no longer afford his salary. Moreover, the promise of separation pay, according to petitioners, was out of goodwill and magnanimity. At the most, petitioner Rosit's actuations only show the illegality of the manner of effecting respondent's termination from service due to absence of just or valid cause and non-observance of procedural due process but do not point to any malice or bad faith on his part. Besides, good faith is still presumed. In addition, liability only attaches if the officer has assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation.

    Thus, it was error for the CA to hold petitioner Rosit solidarily liable with petitioner Harpoon for illegally dismissing respondent.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January 26, 2005 and Resolution dated April 12, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79630 finding respondent Fernan H. Francisco to have been illegally dismissed and awarding him backwages and separation pay are AFFIRMED. The award of commissions in his favor is, however, DELETED. Petitioner Jose Lido T. Rosit is ABSOLVED from the liability adjudged against co-petitioner Harpoon Marine Services, Incorporated.

    SO ORDERED.

    Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and Perez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] Rollo, pp. 52-165.

    [2] Annex "A" of the Petition, id. at 166-178; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao.

    [3] Annex "B" of the Petition, id. at 180.

    [4] Annex "C" of the Petition, id. at 182-185; penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo.

    [5] Annex "D" of the Petition, id. at 187-193; penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Ernesto C. Verceles and Tito F. Genilo.

    [6] Annex "A" of respondent's position paper before the Labor Arbiter, CA rollo, p.109.

    [7] See Annex "C", id. at 111.

    [8] Annex "B," id. at 110.

    [9] Annex "1" of petitioners' reply to respondent's position paper, id. at 99.

    [10] Annexes "1", "2" and "3" of petitioners' position paper before the Labor Arbiter, id. at 85-87.

    [11] Annex "4," id. at 88.

    [12] See Nestor Solares' Sinumpaang Salaysay, Annex "A" of respondent's reply, id. at 117.

    [13] Check Vouchers dated June 9, 2000 and September 28, 2000, Annexes "B" and "C," respectively, id. at 118-119.

    [14] Annex "E" of the Petition, rollo, pp. 195-206; penned by Labor Arbiter Natividad M. Roma.

    [15] Id. at 205-206.

    [16] See Petitioners' Appeal-Memorandum, CA rollo, pp. 126-134.

    [17] See Respondent's Memorandum on Appeal; id. at 139-148.

    [18] Annex "C" of the Petition, rollo, pp. 182-185.

    [19] See Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Resolve Complainant's Appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision Dated June 2, 2002, CA rollo, pp. 62-65.

    [20] Id. at 57-61.

    [21] Annex "D" of the Petition, rollo, pp. 187-193.

    [22] Id. at 191-192.

    [23] Annex "F" of the Petition, id. at 207-249.

    [24] Id. at 87-89.

    [25] Supra note 13.

    [26] Supra note 7.

    [27] Supra note 9.

    [28] Annex "7" of Petitioners' Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, CA rollo, p. 91.

    [29] Supra note 10.

    [30] Supra note 8.

    [31] Henlin Panay Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 180718, October 23, 2009, 604 SCRA 362, 369.

    [32] Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., 459 Phil. 506, 515 (2003).

    [33] 314 Phil. 838 (1995).

    [34] Id. at 844.

    [35] Id. at 844-845.

    [36] Petron Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commissions, G.R. No. 154532, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 596, 613.

    [37] Carag v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147590, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 28, 49.

    [G.R. No. 167751, March 02 : 2011]   HARPOON MARINE SERVICES, INC. AND JOSE LIDO T. ROSIT, PETITIONERS, VS. FERNAN H. FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT.






    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