Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-69870 November 29, 1988 NATIONAL SER ICE CORPORATION !NASECO" AN# ARTURO L. PERE$, petitioners, vs. T%E %ONORA&LE T%IR# #I ISION, NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTR' O( LA&OR AN# EMPLO'MENT, MANILA AN# EUGENIA C. CRE#O, respondents. G.R. No. 7029) November 29,1988 EUGENIA C. CRE#O, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL SER ICES CORPORATION AN# ARTURO L. PERE$, respondents. The Chief Legal Counsel for respondents NASECO and Arturo L. Perez. Melchor R. Flores for petitioner Eugenia C. Credo.

PA#ILLA, J.: Consolidated special civil actions for certiorari seeking to review the decision * of the hird !ivision, National "abor Relations Co##ission in Case No. $$%&'&&%() dated *( Nove#ber $'(& and its resolution dated $+ ,anuar- $'(. den-ing #otions for reconsideration of said decision. Eugenia C. Credo was an e#plo-ee of the National /ervice Corporation 0NA/EC12, a do#estic corporation which provides securit- guards as well as #essengerial, 3anitorial and other si#ilar #anpower services to the Philippine National Bank 0PNB2 and its agencies. /he was first e#plo-ed with NA/EC1 as a lad- guard on $( ,ul- $'4.. hrough the -ears, she was pro#oted to Clerk -pist, then Personnel Clerk until she beca#e Chief of Propert- and Records, on $5 March $'(5. 1 /o#eti#e before 4 Nove#ber $'(), Credo was ad#inistrativel- charged b- /isinio /. "loren, Manager of 6inance and /pecial Pro3ect and Evaluation !epart#ent of NA/EC1, ste##ing fro# her non%co#pliance with "loren7s #e#orandu#, dated $$ 1ctober $'(), regarding certain entrprocedures in the co#pan-7s /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ent. /aid charges alleged that Credo 8did not co#pl- with "loren7s instructions to place so#e corrections9additional re#arks in the /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ent: and when ;Credo< was called b- "loren to his office to e=plain further the said instructions, ;Credo< showed resent#ent and behaved in a scandalous #anner b- shouting and uttering re#arks of disrespect in the presence of her co%e#plo-ees.8 2 1n 4 Nove#ber $'(), Credo was called to #eet Arturo ". Pere>, then Acting ?eneral Manager of NA/EC1, to e=plain her side before Pere> and NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs in connection with the ad#inistrative charges filed against her. After said #eeting, on the sa#e date, Credo was placed on 86orced "eave8 status for $ . da-s, effective ( Nove#ber $'(). +

Before the e=piration of said $.%da- leave, or on $( Nove#ber $'(), Credo filed a co#plaint, docketed as Case No. $$&'&&%(), with the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, Ministr- of "abor and E#plo-#ent, Manila, against NA/EC1 for placing her on forced leave, without due process. , "ikewise, while Credo was on forced leave, or on ** Nove#ber $'(), NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs deliberated and evaluated a nu#ber of past acts of #isconduct or infractions attributed to her. ) As a result of this deliberation, said co##ittee resolved@ $. hat, respondent ;Credo< co##itted the following offenses in the Code of !iscipline, vi>@ OFFENSE s. Co!pan" #nterest $ Policies No. ) A An- discourteous act to custo#er, officer and e#plo-ee of client co#panor officer of the Corporation. OFFENSE s. Pu%lic Moral No. 4 A E=hibit #arked discourtes- in the course of official duties or use of profane or insulting language to an- superior officer. OFFENSE s. Authorit" No. ) A 6ailure to co#pl- with an- lawful order or an- instructions of a superior officer.
*. hat, Manage#ent has alread- given due consideration to respondent7s ;Credo< scandalous actuations for several ti#es in the past. Records also show that she was repri#anded for so#e offense and did not Buestion it. Manage#ent at this 3uncture, has alread- #et its #a=i#u# tolerance point so it has decided to put an end to respondent7s ;Credo< being an undesirable e#plo-ee. 6

he co##ittee reco##ended Credo7s ter#ination, with forfeiture of benefits.

1n $ !ece#ber $'(), Credo was called age to the office of Pere> to be infor#ed that she was being charged with certain offenses. Notabl-, these offenses were those which NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs alread- resolved, on ** Nove#ber $'() to have been co##itted b- Credo. Cn Pere>7s office, and in the presence of NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs, Credo was #ade to e=plain her side in connection with the charges filed against her: however, due to her failure to do so, 8 she was handed a Notice of er#ination, dated *& Nove#ber $'(), and #ade effective $ !ece#ber $'(). 9 Dence, on + !ece#ber $'(), Credo filed a supple#ental co#plaint for illegal dis#issal in Case No. $$%&'&&%(), alleging absence of 3ust or authori>ed cause for her dis#issal and lack of opportunit- to be heard. 10 After both parties had sub#itted their respective position papers, affidavits and other docu#entarevidence in support of their clai#s and defenses, on ' Ma- $'(&, the labor arbiter rendered a decision@ $2 dis#issing Credo7s co#plaint, and *2 directing NA/EC1 to pa- Credo separation paeBuivalent to one half #onth7s pa- for ever- -ear of service. 11

Both parties appealed to respondent National "abor Relations Co##ission 0N"RC2 which, on *( Nove#ber $'(&, rendered a decision@ $2 directing NA/EC1 to reinstate Credo to her for#er position, or substantiall- eBuivalent position, with si= 0+2 #onths7 backwages and without loss of seniorit- rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and *2 dis#issing Credo7s clai# for attorne-7s fees, #oral and e=e#plar- da#ages. As a conseBuence, both parties filed their respective #otions for reconsideration, 12 which the N"RC denied in a resolution of $+ ,anuar- $'(.. 1+ Dence, the present recourse b- both parties. Cn ?.R. No. +('45, petitioners challenge as grave abuse of discretion the dispositive portion of the *( Nove#ber $'(& decision which ordered Credo7s reinstate#ent with backwages. 1, Petitioners contend that in arriving at said Buestioned order, the N"RC acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that@ $2 petitioners violated the reBuire#ents #andated b- law on ter#ination, *2 petitioners failed in the burden of proving that the ter#ination of Credo was for a valid or authori>ed cause, )2 the alleged infractions co##itted b- Credo were not proven or, even if proved, could be considered to have been condoned b- petitioners, and &2 the ter#ination of Credo was not for a valid or authori>ed cause. 1) 1n the other hand, in ?.R. No. 45*'., petitioner Credo challenges as grave abuse of discretion the dispositive portion of the *( Nove#ber $'(& decision which dis#issed her clai# for attorne-7s fees, #oral and e=e#plar- da#ages and li#ited her right to backwages to onl- si= 0+2 #onths. 16 As guidelines for e#plo-ers in the e=ercise of their power to dis#iss e#plo-ees for 3ust causes, the law provides that@ /ection *. Notice of dis!issal. A An- e#plo-er who seeks to dis#iss a worker shall furnish hi# a written notice stating the particular acts or o#ission constituting the grounds for his dis#issal. === === === /ection .. Ans&er and 'earing. A he worker #a- answer the allegations stated against hi# in the notice of dis#issal within a reasonable period fro# receipt of such notice. he e#plo-er shall afford the worker a#ple opportunit- to be heard and to defend hi#self with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires.
/ection +. (ecision to dis!iss. A he e#plo-er shall i##ediatel- notif- a worker in writing of a decision to dis#iss hi# stating clearl- the reasons therefor. 17

hese guidelines #andate that the e#plo-er furnish an e#plo-ee sought to be dis#issed two 0*2 written notices of dis#issal before a ter#ination of e#plo-#ent can be legall- effected. hese are the notice which apprises the e#plo-ee of the particular acts or o#issions for which his dis#issal is sought and the subseBuent notice which infor#s the e#plo-ee of the e#plo-er7s decision to dis#iss hi#. "ikewise, a reading of the guidelines in consonance with the e=press provisions of law on protection to labor 180which enco#passes the right to securit- of tenure2 and the broader dictates of procedural due process necessaril- #andate that notice of the e#plo-er7s decision to dis#iss an e#plo-ee, with reasons therefor, can onl- be issued after the e#plo-er has afforded the e#plo-ee concerned a#ple opportunit- to be heard and to defend hi#self. Cn the case at bar, NA/EC1 did not co#pl- with these guidelines in effecting Credo7s dis#issal. Although she was apprised and 8given the chance to e=plain her side8 of the charges filed against her, this chance was given so perfunctoril-, thus rendering illusor- Credo7s right to securit- of tenure.

hat Credo was not given a#ple opportunit- to be heard and to defend herself is evident fro# the fact that the co#pliance with the in3unction to apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a chance to prepare for her defense was dispensed in onl- a da-. his is not effective co#pliance with the legal reBuire#ents afore#entioned. he fact also that the Notice of er#ination of Credo7s e#plo-#ent 0or the decision to dis#iss her2 was dated *& Nove#ber $'() and #ade effective $ !ece#ber $'() shows that NA/EC1 was alread- bent on ter#inating her services when she was infor#ed on $ !ece#ber $'() of the charges against her, and that an- hearing which NA/EC1 thought of affording her after *& Nove#ber $'() would #erel- be pro for#a or an e=ercise in futilit-. Besides, Credo7s #ere non%co#pliance with "orens #e#orandu# regarding the entr- procedures in the co#pan-7s /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ent did not warrant the severe penalt- of dis#issal of the N"RC correctl- held that@
... on the charge of gross discourtes-, the CPA found in its Report, dated ** Nove#ber $'() that, 8Cn the process of her testi#on-9e=planations she again e=hibited a conduct unbeco#ing in front of NA/EC1 1fficers and argued to Mr. /. /. "loren in a sarcastic and discourteous #anner, notwithstanding, the fact that she was inside the office of the Acctg. ?eneral Manager.8 "et it be noted, however, that the Report did not even describe how the so called 8conduct unbeco#ing8 or 8discourteous #anner8 was done bco#plainant. Anent the 8sarcastic8 argu#ent of co#plainant, the purported transcript 19 of the #eeting held on 4 Nove#ber $'() does not indicate an- sarcas# on the part of co#plainant. At the #ost, co#plainant #a- have sounded insistent or e#phatic about her work being #ore co#plete than the work of Ms. de Castro, -et, the co#plaining officer signed the work of Ms. de Castro and did not sign hers. As to the charge of insubordination, it #a- be conceded, albeit unclear, that co#plainant failed to place sa#e corrections9additional re#arks in the /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ents as instructed. Dowever, under the circu#stances obtaining, where co#plainant strongl- felt that she was being discri#inated against b- her superior in relation to other e#plo-ees, we are of the considered view and so hold, that a repri#and would have sufficed for the infraction, but certainl- not ter#ination fro# services. 20

As this Court has ruled@

... where a penalt- less punitive would suffice, whatever #issteps #a- be co##itted blabor ought not to be visited with a conseBuence so severe. Ct is not onl- because of the law7s concern for the working #an. here is, in addition, his fa#il- to consider. Ene#plo-#ent brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage% earner. 21

1f course, in 3ustif-ing Credo7s ter#ination of e#plo-#ent, NA/EC1 clai#s as additional lawful causes for dis#issal Credo7s previous and repeated acts of insubordination, discourtes- and sarcas# towards her superior officers, alleged to have been co##itted fro# $'(5 to ,ul- $'(). 22 Cf such acts of #isconduct were indeed co##itted b- Credo, the- are dee#ed to have been condoned b- NA/EC1. 6or instance, so#eti#e in $'(5, when Credo allegedl- 8reacted in a scandalous #anner and raised her voice8 in a discussion with NA/EC17s Acting head of the Personnel Ad#inistration 2+ no disciplinar- #easure was taken or #eted against her. Nor was she even repri#anded when she allegedl- talked 7in a shouting or -elling #anner8 with the Acting Manager of NA/EC17s Building Maintenance and /ervices !epart#ent in $'(5 2, or when she allegedl- 8shouted8 at NA/EC17s Corporate Auditor 8in front of his subordinates displa-ing

arrogance and unrul- behavior8 in $'(5, or when she allegedl- shouted at NA/EC17s Cnternal Control Consultant in $'($. 2)But then, in sharp contrast to NA/EC17s penchant for ignoring the aforesaid acts of #isconduct, when Credo co##itted freBuent tardiness in August and /epte#ber $'(), she was repri#anded. 26 Even if the allegations of i#proper conduct 0discourtes- to superiors2 were satisfactoril- proven, NA/EC17s condonation thereof is gleaned fro# the fact that on & 1ctober $'(), Credo was given a salar- ad3ust#ent for having perfor#ed in the 3ob 8at least ;satisfactoril-<8 27 and she was then rated 8Fer- /atisfactor-8 28as regards 3ob perfor#ance, particularl- in ter#s of Bualit- of work, Buantit- of work, dependabilit-, cooperation, resourcefulness and attendance. Considering that the acts or o#issions for which Credo7s e#plo-#ent was sought to be legallter#inated were insufficientl- proved, as to 3ustif- dis#issal, reinstate#ent is proper. 6or 8absent the reason which gave rise to ;the e#plo-ee7s< separation fro# e#plo-#ent, there is no intention on the part of the e#plo-er to dis#iss the e#plo-ee concerned.8 29 And, as a result of having been wrongfull- dis#issed, Credo is entitled to three 0)2 -ears of backwages without deduction and Bualification. +0 Dowever, while Credo7s dis#issal was effected without procedural fairness, an award of e=e#plarda#ages in her favor can onl- be 3ustified if her dis#issal was effected in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or #alevolent #anner.+1 A 3udicious e=a#ination of the record #anifests no such conduct on the part of #anage#ent. Dowever, in view of the attendant circu#stances in the case, i.e., lack of due process in effecting her dis#issal, it is reasonable to award her #oral da#ages. And, for having been co#pelled to litigate because of the unlawful actuations of NA/EC1, a reasonable award for attorne-7s fees in her favor is in order. Cn NA/EC17s co##ent +2 in ?.R. No. 45*'., it is belatedl- argued that the N"RC has no 3urisdiction to order Credo7s reinstate#ent. NA/EC1 clai#s that, as a govern#ent corporation 0b- virtue of its being a subsidiar- of the National Cnvest#ent and !evelop#ent Corporation 0NC!C2, a subsidiarwholl- owned b- the Philippine National Bank 0PNB2, which in turn is a govern#ent owned corporation2, the ter#s and conditions of e#plo-#ent of its e#plo-ees are governed b- the Civil /ervice "aw, rules and regulations. Cn support of this argu#ent, NA/EC1 cites National 'ousing Corporation s. )*CO, ++ where this Court held that 8 here should no longer be an- Buestion at this ti#e that e#plo-ees of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations are governed b- the civil service law and civil service rifles and regulations.8 Ct would appear that, in the interest of 3ustice, the holding in said case should not be given retroactive effect, that is, to cases that arose before its pro#ulgation on $4 ,anuar- $'(.. o do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other e#plo-ees si#ilarl- situated, because under the sa#e $'4) Constitution ,but prior to the ruling inNational 'ousing Corporation s. )uco, this Court had recogni>ed the applicabilit- of the "abor Code to, and the authorit- of the N"RC to e=ercise 3urisdiction over, disputes involving ter#s and conditions of e#plo-#ent in govern#ent owned or controlled corporations, a#ong the#, the National /ervice Corporation 0NA/EC12. +,
+,re--an./01&2

6urther#ore, in the #atter of coverage b- the civil service of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations, the $'(4 Constitution starkl- varies fro# the $'4) Constitution, upon which National 'ousing Corporation s. )uco is based. Ender the $'4) Constitution, it was provided that@
he civil service e#braces ever- branch, agenc-, subdivision, and instru#entalit- of the ?overn#ent, including ever- govern#ent%owned or controlled corporation. ... +)

1n the other hand, the $'(4 Constitution provides that@

he civil service e#braces all branches, subdivisions, instru#entalities, and agencies of the ?overn#ent, including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations with original charter. +6 0E#phasis supplied2

hus, the situations sought to be avoided b- the $'4) Constitution and e=pressed b- the Court in the National Dousing . Corporation case in the following #anner A
he infir#it- of the respondents7 position lies in its per#itting a circu#vention or e#asculation of /ection $, Article GCC%B of the constitution. Ct would be possible for a regular #inistr- of govern#ent to create a host of subsidiar- corporations under the Corporation Code funded b- a willing legislature. A govern#ent%owned corporation could create several subsidiar- corporations. hese subsidiar- corporations would en3o- the best of two worlds. heir officials and e#plo-ees would be privileged individuals, free fro# the strict accountabilit- reBuired b- the Civil /ervice !ecree and the regulations of the Co##ission on Audit. heir inco#es would not be sub3ect to the co#petitive restrains of the open #arket nor to the ter#s and conditions of civil service e#plo-#ent. Conceivabl-, all govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations could be created, no longer b- special charters, but through incorporations under the general law. he Constitutional a#end#ent including such corporations in the e#brace of the civil service would cease to have application. Certainl-, such a situation cannot be allowed to e=ist. +7

appear relegated to relative insignificance b- the $'(4 Constitutional provision that the Civil /ervice e#braces govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations &ith original charter: and, therefore, bclear i#plication, the Civil /ervice does not include govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations which are organi>ed as subsidiaries of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation law. he proceedings in the $'(+ Constitutional Co##ission also shed light on the Constitutional intent and #eaning in the use of the phrase 8with original charter.8 hus DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. renas2 Co##issioner Ro#ulo is recogni>ed. MR. R1ME"1. C beg the indulgence of the Co##ittee. C was reading the wrong provision. C refer to /ection $, subparagraph C which reads@ he Civil /ervice e#braces all branches, subdivisions, instru#entalities, and agencies of the govern#ent, including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations. M- Buer-@ Cs Philippine Airlines covered b- this provisionH MR. 61I. Jill the Co##issioner please state his previous BuestionH MR. R1ME"1. he phrase on line & of /ection $, subparagraph $, under the Civil /ervice Co##ission, sa-s@ 8including govern#ent% owned or controlled corporations.7 !oes that include a corporation, like the Philippine Airlines which is govern#ent%owned or controlledH MR. 61I. C would like to throw a Buestion to the Co##issioner. Cs the Philippine Airlines controlled b- the govern#ent in the sense that the #a3orit- of stocks are owned b- the govern#entH

MR. R1ME"1. Ct is owned b- the ?/C/. /o, this is what we #ight call a tertiar- corporation. he ?/C/ is owned b- the govern#ent. Jould this be covered because the provision sa-s 8including govern#ent% owned or controlled corporations.8 MR. 61I. he Philippine Airlines was established as a private corporation. "ater on, the govern#ent, through the ?/C/, acBuired the controlling stocks. Cs that not the correct situationH MR. R1ME"1. hat is true as Co##issioner 1ple is about to e=plain. here was apparentl- a /upre#e Court decision that destro-ed that distinction between a govern#ent%owned corporation created under the Corporation "aw and a govern#ent%owned corporation created b- its own charter. MR. 61I. Kes, we recall the /upre#e Court decision in the case of NDA vs. ,uco to the effect that all govern#ent corporations irrespective of the #anner of creation, whether b- special charter or b- the private Corporation "aw, are dee#ed to be covered b- the civil service because of the wide%e#bracing definition #ade in this section of the e=isting $'4) Constitution. But we recall the response to the Buestion of Co##issioner 1ple that our intend#ent in this provision is 3ust to give a general description of the civil service. Je are not here to #ake an- declaration as to whether e#plo-ees of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations are barred fro# the operation of laws, such as the "abor Code of the Philippines. MR. R1ME"1. Kes. MR. 1P"E. Ma- C be recogni>ed, Mr. Presiding 1fficer, since #na#e has been #entioned b- both sides. MR. R1ME"1. C -ield part of #- ti#e. DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. renas2. Co##issioner 1ple is recogni>ed. MR. 1P"E. Cn connection with the coverage of the Civil /ervice "aw in /ection $ 0$2, #a- C volunteer so#e infor#ation that #a- be helpful both to the interpellator and to the Co##ittee. 6ollowing the procla#ation of #artial law on /epte#ber *$, $'4*, this issue of the coverage of the "abor Code of the Philippines and of the Civil /ervice "aw al#ost i##ediatel- arose. C a#, in particular, referring to the period following the co#ing into force and effect of the Constitution of $'4), where the Article on the Civil /ervice was supposed to take i##ediate force and effect. Cn the case of "EI EFEC1, there was a strike at the ti#e. his was a govern#ent%controlled and govern#ent% owned corporation. C think it was owned b- the PN1C with 3ust the #inuscule private shares left. /o, the /ecretar- of ,ustice at that ti#e, /ecretar- Abad /antos, and #-self sat down, and the result of that #eeting was an opinion of the /ecretar- of ,ustice which ' beca#e binding i##ediatel- on the govern#ent that govern#ent

corporations with original charters, such as the ?/C/, were covered b- the Civil /ervice "aw and corporations spun off fro# the ?/C/, which we called second generation corporations functioning as private subsidiaries, were covered b- the "abor Code. /a#ples of such second generation corporations were the Philippine Airlines, the Manila Dotel and the D-att. And that de#arcation worked ver- well. Cn fact, all of these co#panies C have #entioned as e=a#ples, e=cept for the Manila Dotel, had collective bargaining agree#ents. Cn the Philippine Airlines, there were, in fact, three collective bargaining agree#ents: one, for the ground people or the PA"CA one, for the flight attendants or the PA/AC and one for the pilots of the A"PAC Dow then could a corporation like that be covered b- the Civil /ervice lawH But, as the Chair#an of the Co##ittee pointed out, the /upre#e Court decision in the case of NDA vs. ,uco unrobed the whole thing. Accordingl-, the Philippine Airlines, the Manila Dotel and the D-att are now considered under that decision covered b- the Civil /ervice "aw. C also recall that in the e#ergenc- #eeting of the Cabinet convened for this purpose at the initiative of the Chair#an of the Reorgani>ation Co##ission, Ar#and 6abella, the- agreed to allow the CBA7s to lapse before appl-ing the full force and effect of the /upre#e Court decision. /o, we were in the awkward situation when the new govern#ent took over. C can agree with Co##issioner Ro#ulo when he said that this is a proble# which C a# not e=actlsure we should address in the deliberations on the Civil /ervice "aw or whether we should be content with what the Chair#an said that /ection $ 0$2 of the Article on the Civil /ervice is 3ust a general description of the coverage of the Civil /ervice and no #ore. hank -ou, Mr. Presiding 1fficer. MR. R1ME"1. Mr. Presiding 1fficer, for the #o#ent, C would be satisfied if the Co##ittee puts on records that it is not their intent bthis provision and the phrase 8including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations8 to cover such co#panies as the Philippine Airlines. MR. 61I. Personall-, that is #- view. As a #atter of fact, when this draft was #ade, #- proposal was reall- to eli#inate, to drop fro# the provision, the phrase 8including govern#ent% owned or controlled corporations.8 MR. R1ME"1. Jould the Co##ittee indicate that is the intent of this provisionH MR. M1N/1!. Mr. Presiding 1fficer, C do not think the Co##ittee can #ake such a state#ent in the face of an absolute e=clusion of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations. Dowever, this does not preclude the Civil /ervice "aw to prescribe different rules and procedures, including e#olu#ents for e#plo-ees of proprietarcorporations, taking into consideration the nature of their operations. /o, it is a general coverage but it does not preclude a distinction of the rules between the two t-pes of enterprises.

MR. 61I. Cn other words, it is so#ething that should be left to the legislature to decide. As C said before, this is 3ust a general description and we are not #aking an- declaration whatsoever. MR. M1N/1!. Perhaps if Co##issioner Ro#ulo would like a definitive understanding of the coverage and the ?entle#an wants to e=clude govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations like Philippine Airlines, then the recourse is to offer an a#end#ent as to the coverage, if the Co##issioner does not accept the e=planation that there could be a distinction of the rules, including salaries and e#olu#ents. MR. R1ME"1. /o as not to dela- the proceedings, C will reserve #right to sub#it such an a#end#ent. === === === DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCE 0Mr. renas2 Co##issioner Ro#ulo is recogni>ed. MR. R1ME"1. 1n page *, line ., C suggest the following a#end#ent after 8corporations8@ Add a co##a 0,2 and the phrase EGCEP D1/E EGERCC/CN? PR1PRCE ARK 6ENC C1N/. DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. renas2. Jhat does the Co##ittee sa-H /E/PEN/C1N 16 /E//C1N MR. M1N/1!. Ma- we have a suspension of the sessionH DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. renas2. he session is suspended. Ct was 4@$+ p.#. RE/EMP C1N 16 /E//C1N At 4@*$ p.#., the session was resu#ed. DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. renas2. he session is resu#ed. Co##issioner Ro#ulo is recogni>ed. MR. R1ME"1. Mr. Presiding 1fficer, C a# a#ending #- original proposed a#end#ent to now read as follows@ 8including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations JC D 1RC?CNA" CDAR ER/.8 he purpose of this a#end#ent is to indicate that govern#ent corporations such as the ?/C/ and ///, which have original charters, fall within the a#bit of the civil service. Dowever, corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies such as the Philippine Airlines, Manila Dotel and D-att are e=cluded fro# the coverage of the civil service.

DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. renas2. Jhat does the Co##ittee sa-H MR. 61I. ,ust one Buestion, Mr. Presiding 1fficer. B- the ter# 8original charters,8 what e=actl- do we #eanH MR. R1ME"1. Je #ean that the- were created b- law, b- an act of Congress, or b- special law. MR. 61I. And not under the general corporation law. MR. R1ME"1. hat is correct. Mr. Presiding 1fficer. MR. 61I. Jith that understanding and clarification, the Co##ittee accepts the a#end#ent. MR. NA CFC!A!. Mr. Presiding officer, so those created b- the general corporation law are out.
MR. R1ME"1. hat is correct@ +8

1n the pre#ise that it is the $'(4 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the ti#e of decision thereof, the N"RC has 3urisdiction to accord relief to the parties. As an ad#itted subsidiar- of the NC!C, in turn a subsidiar- of the PNB, the NA/EC1 is a govern#ent%owned or controlled corporation without original charter. !r. ,orge Bocobo, in his Cult of "egalis#, cited b- Mr. ,ustice Perfecto in his concurring opinion in 3o!ez s. 3o ern!ent #nsurance 4oard 0"%+5*, March )$, $'&4, && 1.?. No. (, pp. *+(4, *+'&: also published in 4( Phil. **$2 on the effectivit- of the principle of social 3ustice e#bodied in the $'). Constitution, said@ Certainl-, this principle of social 3ustice in our Constitution as generousl- conceived and so tersel- phrased, was not included in the funda#ental law as a #ere popular gesture. Ct was #eant to 0be2 a vital, articulate, co#pelling principle of public polic-. Ct should be observed in the interpretation not onl- of future legislation, but also of all laws alread- e=isting on Nove#ber $., $').. Ct was intended to change the spirit of our laws, present and future. hus, all the laws which on the great historic event when the Co##onwealth of the Philippines was born, were susceptible of two interpretations strict or liberal, against or in favor of social 3ustice, now have to be construed broadl- in order to pro#ote and achieve social 3ustice. his #a- see# novel to our friends, the advocates of legalis# but it is the onl- wa- to give life and significance to the above%Buoted principle of the Constitution. Cf it was not designed to appl- to these e=isting laws, then it would be necessar- to wait for generations until all our codes and all our statutes shall have been co#pletel- charred bre#oving ever- provision ini#ical to social 3ustice, before the polic- of social 3ustice can beco#e reall- effective. hat would be an absurd conclusion. Ct is #ore reasonable to hold that this constitutional principle applies to all legislation in force on Nove#ber $., $')., and all laws thereafter passed. JDERE61RE, in view of the foregoing, the challenged decision of the N"RC is A66CRME! with #odifications. Petitioners in ?.R. No. +'(45, who are the private respondents in ?.R. No. 45*'., are

ordered to@ $2 reinstate Eugenia C. Credo to her for#er position at the ti#e of her ter#ination, or if such reinstate#ent is not possible, to place her in a substantiall- eBuivalent position, with three 0)2 -ears backwages, fro# $ !ece#ber $'(), without Bualification or deduction, and without loss of seniorit- rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and *2 pa- Eugenia C. Credo P.,555.55 for #oral da#ages and P.,555.55 for attorne-7s fees. Cf reinstate#ent in an- event is no longer possible because of supervening events, petitioners in ?.R. No. +'(45, who are the private respondents in ?.R. No. 45*'. are ordered to pa- Eugenia C. Credo, in addition to her backwages and da#ages as above described, separation pa- eBuivalent to one%half #onth7s salar- for ever- -ear of service, to be co#puted on her #onthl- salar- at the ti#e of her ter#ination on $ !ece#ber $'(). /1 1R!ERE!. Fernan5 C.).5 Melencio6'errera5 Paras5 Feliciano5 3anca"co5 4idin5 Sar!iento5 Cortes5 3ri7o6 A8uino5 Medialdea and Regalado5 )).5 concur. Nar asa5 ).5 is on lea e. 3utierrez5 )r.5 ).5 in the result.

Se-.r./e O-010o12

CRU$, J., concurring@ Jhile concurring with Mr. ,ustice Padilla7s well%researched ponencia, C have to e=press once again #- disappoint#ent over still another avoidable a#biguit- in the $'(4 Constitution. Ct is clear now fro# the debates of the Constitutional Co##ission that the govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations included in the Civil /ervice are those with legislative charters. E=cluded are its subsidiaries organi>ed under the Corporation Code. Cf that was the intention, the logical thing, C should i#agine, would have been to si#pl- sa- so. his would have avoided the suggestion that there are corporations with duplicate charters as distinguished fro# those with original charters. All charters are original regardless of source unless the- are a#ended. hat is the acceptable distinction. Ender the provision, however, the charter is still and alwa-s original even if a#ended as long it was granted b- the legislature. Ct would have been clearer, C think, to sa- 8including govern#ent owned or controlled corporations with legislative charters.8 Jh- this thought did not occur to the Constitutional Co##ission places one again in needless pu>>le#ent.

Se-.r./e O-010o12 CRU$, J., concurring@ Jhile concurring with Mr. ,ustice Padilla7s well%researched ponencia, C have to e=press once again #- disappoint#ent over still another avoidable a#biguit- in the $'(4 Constitution. Ct is clear now fro# the debates of the Constitutional Co##ission that the govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations included in the Civil /ervice are those with legislative charters. E=cluded are its subsidiaries organi>ed under the Corporation Code. Cf that was the intention, the logical thing, C should i#agine, would have been to si#pl- sa- so. his would have avoided the suggestion that there are corporations with duplicate charters as distinguished fro# those with original charters. All charters are original regardless of source unless the- are a#ended. hat is the acceptable distinction. Ender the provision, however, the charter is still and alwa-s original even if a#ended as long it was granted b- the legislature. Ct would have been clearer, C think, to sa- 8including govern#ent owned or controlled corporations with legislative charters.8 Jh- this thought did not occur to the Constitutional Co##ission places one again in needless pu>>le#ent.