10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

ABDULJUAHIDR.PIGCAULAN,
Petitioner,

versus

G.R.No.173648

Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
DELCASTILLO,

ABAD,
and

SECURITYandCREDIT
INVESTIGATION,INC.and/or
RENEAMBYREYES,
Respondents.

VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:
January16,2012

xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Itisnotforanemployeetoprovenonpaymentofbenefitstowhichheisentitledbylaw.Rather,itison
theemployerthattheburdenofprovingpaymentoftheseclaimsrests.

[1]
[2]
ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari assailstheFebruary24,2006Decision oftheCourt
ofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.85515,whichgrantedthepetitionforcertiorarifiledtherewith,set
[3]
[4]
aside the March 23, 2004 and June 14, 2004 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission(NLRC),anddismissedthecomplaintfiledbyOliverR.Canoy(Canoy)andpetitioner
AbduljuahidR.Pigcaulan(Pigcaulan)againstrespondentSecurityandCreditInvestigation,Inc.(SCII)
and its General Manager, respondent Rene Amby Reyes. Likewise assailed is the June 28, 2006
[5]
[6]
Resolution denyingCanoysandPigcaulansMotionforReconsideration.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

1/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

FactualAntecedents

Canoy and Pigcaulan were both employed by SCII as security guards and were assigned to SCIIs
differentclients.Subsequently, however, Canoy and Pigcaulan filed with the Labor Arbiter separate
[7]
complaints for underpayment of salaries and nonpayment of overtime, holiday, rest day, service
incentiveleaveand13thmonthpays.Thesecomplaintswerelateronconsolidatedastheyinvolvedthe
samecausesofaction.

CanoyandPigcaulan,insupportoftheirclaim,submittedtheirrespectivedailytimerecordsreflecting
thenumberofhoursservedandtheirwagesforthesame.Theylikewisepresenteditemizedlistsoftheir
claimsforthecorrespondingperiodsserved.

Respondents,however,maintainedthatCanoyandPigcaulanwerepaidtheirjustsalariesand
otherbenefitsunderthelawthatthesalariestheyreceivedwereabovethestatutoryminimumwage
and the rates provided by the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators
(PADPAO)forsecurityguardsthattheirholidaypaywerealreadyincludedinthecomputationoftheir
monthly salaries that they were paid additional premium of 30% in addition to their basic salary
whenevertheywererequiredtoworkonSundaysand200%oftheirsalaryforworkdoneonholidays
and,thatCanoyandPigcaulanwerepaidthecorresponding13th month pay for the years 1998 and
[8]
1999.Insupportthereof,copiesofpayrolllistings andlistsofemployeeswhoreceivedtheir13th
month pay for the periods December 1997 to November 1998 and December 1998 to November
[9]
1999 were presented. In addition, respondents contended that Canoys and Pigcaulans monetary
claimsshouldonlybelimitedtothepastthreeyearsofemploymentpursuanttotheruleonprescription
ofclaims.

RulingoftheLaborArbiter

Giving credence to the itemized computations and representative daily time records submitted by
CanoyandPigcaulan,LaborArbiterManuelP.Asuncionawardedthemtheirmonetaryclaimsinhis
[10]
Decision
dated June 6, 2002. The Labor Arbiter held that the payroll listings presented by the
respondentsdidnotprovethatCanoyandPigcaulanweredulypaidassamewerenotsignedbythe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

2/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

latterorbyanySCIIofficer.The13thmonthpayrollwas,however,acknowledgedassufficientproofof
payment, for it bears Canoys and Pigcaulans signatures. Thus, without indicating any detailed
computationofthejudgmentaward,theLaborArbiterorderedthepaymentofovertimepay,holiday
pay,serviceincentiveleavepayandproportionate13thmonthpayfortheyear2000infavorofCanoy
andPigcaulan,viz:

WHEREFORE, the respondents are hereby ordered to pay the complainants: 1) their salary
differentialsintheamountofP166,849.60forOliverCanoyandP121,765.44forAbduljuahidPigcaulan
2)thesumofP3,075.20forCanoyandP2,449.71forPigcaulanforserviceincentiveleavepayand[3])
thesumofP1,481.85forCanoyandP1,065.35forPigcaulanasproportionate13thmonthpayfortheyear
2000.Therestoftheclaimsaredismissedforlackofsufficientbasistomakeanaward.

[11]
SOORDERED.

RulingoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission

RespondentsappealedtotheNLRC.Theyallegedthattherewasnobasis
fortheawardsmadebecauseasidefromtheselfservingitemizedcomputations,norepresentativedaily
time record was presented by Canoy and Pigcaulan. On the contrary, respondents asserted that the
payrolllistingstheysubmittedshouldhavebeengivenmoreprobativevalue.Tostrengthentheircause,
[12]
theyattachedtotheirMemorandumonAppealpayrolls
bearingtheindividualsignaturesofCanoy
and Pigcaulan to show that the latter have received their salaries, as well as copies of transmittal
[13]
letters
tothebanktoshowthatthesalariesreflectedinthepayrollsweredirectlydepositedtothe
ATMaccountsofSCIIsemployees.

[14]
TheNLRC,however,inaResolution
datedMarch23,2004,dismissedtheappealandheld
that the evidence show underpayment of salaries as well as nonpayment of service incentive leave
benefit.Accordingly,theLaborArbitersDecisionwassustained.Themotionforreconsiderationthereto
[15]
waslikewisedismissedbytheNLRCinaResolution
datedJune14,2004.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

3/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

Inrespondentspetitionforcertiorariwithprayerfortheissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderand
[16]
preliminaryinjunction
beforetheCA,theyattributedgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthe
NLRCinfindingthatCanoyandPigcaulanareentitledtosalarydifferentials,serviceincentiveleave
payandproportionate13thmonthpayandinarrivingatamountswithoutprovidingsufficientbases
therefor.

[17]
TheCA,initsDecision
datedFebruary24,2006,setasidetherulingsof
boththeLaborArbiterandtheNLRCafternotingthattherewerenofactualandlegalbasesmentioned
inthequestionedrulingstosupporttheconclusionsmade.Consequently,itdismissedallthemonetary
claimsofCanoyandPigcaulanonthefollowingrationale:

First.TheLaborArbiterdisregardedthe NLRC rule that, in cases involving money awardsandatall

events,asfaraspracticable,thedecisionshallembodythedetailedandfullamountawarded.

Second.TheLaborArbiterfoundthatthepayrollssubmittedbySCIIhavenoprobativevalueforbeing
unsignedbyCanoy,when,infact,saidpayrolls,particularlythepayrollsfrom1998to1999indicatethe
individualsignaturesofCanoy.

Third.TheLaborArbiterdidnotstateinhisdecisionthesubstanceoftheevidenceadducedbyPigcaulan
andCanoyaswellasthelawsorjurisprudencethatwouldshowthatthetwoareindeedentitledtothe
salarydifferentialandincentiveleavepays.

Fourth.TheLaborArbiterheldReyesliabletogetherwithSCIIforthepaymentoftheclaimedsalaries
andbenefitsdespitetheabsenceofproofthatReyesdeliberatelyormaliciouslydesignedtoevadeSCIIs
allegedfinancialobligationhencetheLaborArbiterignoredthatSCIIhasacorporatepersonalityseparate
anddistinctfromReyes.Tojustifysolidaryliability,theremustbeanallegationandshowingthatthe
officersofthecorporationdeliberatelyormaliciouslydesignedtoevadethefinancialobligationofthe
[18]
corporation.

Canoy and Pigcaulan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but same was denied by the CA in a
[19]
Resolution
datedJune28,2006.

Hence,thepresentPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.

Issues

ThepetitionascribesupontheCAthefollowingerrors:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

4/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

I.TheHonorableCourtofAppealserredwhenitdismissedthecomplaintonmereallegedfailure
oftheLaborArbiterandtheNLRCtoobservetheprescribedformofdecision,insteadofremandingthe
caseforreformationofthedecisiontoincludethedesireddetailedcomputation.

II.TheHonorableCourtofAppealserredwhenit[made]complainantssuffertheconsequences
of the alleged nonobservance by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC of the prescribed forms of decisions
consideringthattheyhavecompliedwithallneedfulactsrequiredtosupporttheirclaims.

III. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the complaint allegedly due to
[20]
absenceoflegalandfactual[bases]despiteattendanceofsubstantialevidenceintherecords.

It is well to note that while the caption of the petition reflects both the names of Canoy and
Pigcaulanaspetitioners,itappearsfromitsbodythatitisbeingfiledsolelybyPigcaulan.Infact,the
VerificationandCertificationofNonForumShoppingwasexecutedbyPigcaulanalone.

InhisPetition,PigcaulansubmitsthattheLaborArbiterandtheNLRCarenotstrictlyboundby
the rules. And even so, the rules do not mandate that a detailed computation of how the amount
awarded was arrived at should be embodied in the decision.Instead, a statement of the nature or a
descriptionoftheamountawardedandthespecificfigureofthesamewillsuffice.Besides,hisand
Canoys claims were supported by substantial evidence in the form of the handwritten detailed
computationswhichtheLaborArbitertermedasrepresentativedailytimerecords,showingthatthey
were not properly compensated for work rendered. Thus, the CA should have remanded the case
insteadofoutrightlydismissingit.

[21]
In their Comment,
respondents point out that since it was only Pigcaulan who filed the
petition, the CA Decision has already become final and binding upon Canoy. As to Pigcaulans
arguments,respondentssubmitthattheywereabletopresentsufficientevidencetoprovepaymentof
justsalariesandbenefits,whichbitsofevidencewereunfortunatelyignoredbytheLaborArbiterand
the NLRC. Fittingly, the CA reconsidered these pieces of evidence and properly appreciated them.
Hence,itwascorrectindismissingtheclaimsforfailureofCanoyandPigcaulantodischargetheir
burdentodisprovepayment.

[22]
Pigcaulan, this time joined by Canoy, asserts in his Reply
that his filing of the present
petitionredoundslikewisetoCanoysbenefitsincetheircomplaintswereconsolidatedbelow.Assuch,
theymaintainthatanykindofdispositionmadeinfavororagainsteitherofthemwouldinevitably
applytotheother.Hence,theinstitutionofthepetitionsolelybyPigcaulandoesnotrendertheassailed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

5/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

[23]
DecisionfinalastoCanoy.Nonetheless,insaidreplytheyappendedCanoysaffidavit
wherehe
verifiedunderoaththecontentsandallegationsofthepetitionfiledbyPigcaulanandalsoattestedtothe
authenticityofitsannexes.Canoy,however,failedtocertifythathehadnotfiledanyactionorclaimin
another court or tribunal involving the same issues. He likewise explains in said affidavit that his
absenceduringthepreparationandfilingofthepetitionwascausedbyseverefinancialdistressandhis
failuretoinformanyoneofhiswhereabouts.

OurRuling

TheassailedCADecisionisconsideredfinalastoCanoy.

WehaveexaminedthepetitionandfindthatsamewasfiledbyPigcaulansolelyonhisownbehalf.This
isveryclearfromthepetitionsprefatorywhichisphrasedasfollows:

COMESNOWPetitionerAbduljuahidR.Pigcaulan,bycounsel,untothisHonorableCourtx
xx.(Emphasissupplied.)

Also,undertheheadingParties,onlyPigcaulanismentionedaspetitionerandconsistentwiththis,the
bodyofthepetitionrefersonlytoapetitionerandneverinitspluralformpetitioners.Asidefromthe
fact that the Verification and Certification of NonForum Shopping attached to the petition was
executedbyPigcaulanalone,itwasplainlyandparticularlyindicatedunderthenameofthelawyerwho
preparedthesame,Atty.JosefelP.Grageda,thatheistheCounselforPetitionerAdbuljuahidPigcaulan
only.In view of these, there is therefore, no doubt, that the petition was brought only on behalf of
Pigcaulan.SincenoappealfromtheCADecisionwasbroughtbyCanoy,samehasalreadybecome
finalandexecutoryastohim.

Canoycannotnowsimplyincorporateinhisaffidavitaverificationofthecontentsandallegationsof
thepetitionasheisnotoneofthepetitionerstherein.Sufficeittostatethatitwouldhavebeendifferent
had the said petition been filed in behalf of both Canoy and Pigcaulan.In such a case, subsequent
submissionofaverificationmaybeallowedasnoncompliancetherewithoradefectthereindoesnot
[24]
necessarilyrenderthepleading,orthepetitionasinthiscase,fatallydefective.
Thecourtmayorder
itssubmissionorcorrection,oractonthepleadingiftheattendingcircumstancesaresuchthatstrict
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

6/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

thereby. Further, a verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledgetosweartothetruthoftheallegationsinthecomplaintorpetitionsignstheverification,and
[25]
whenmattersallegedinthepetitionhavebeenmadeingoodfaithoraretrueandcorrect.
However,
even if it were so, we note that Canoy still failed to submit or at least incorporate in his affidavit a
certificateofnonforumshopping.

Thefilingofacertificateofnonforumshoppingismandatorysomuchso
[26]
thatnoncompliancecouldonlybetoleratedbyspecialcircumstancesandcompellingreasons.
This
Courthasheldthatwhenthereareseveralpetitioners,allofthemmustexecuteandsignthecertification
[27]
againstforumshoppingotherwise,thosewhodidnotsignwillbedroppedaspartiestothecase.
True, we held that in some cases, execution by only one of the petitioners on behalf of the other
petitionersconstitutessubstantialcompliancewiththeruleonthefilingofacertificateofnonforum
[28]
shoppingonthegroundofcommoninterestorcommoncauseofactionordefense.
We,however,
find that common interest is not present in the instant petition. To recall, Canoys and Pigcaulans
complaintswereconsolidatedbecausetheybothsoughtthesamereliefsagainstthesamerespondents.
Thisdoesnot,however,meanthattheyshareacommoninterestordefense.Theevidencerequiredto
substantiatetheirclaimsmaynotbethesame.AparticularevidencewhichcouldsustainCanoysaction
maynoteffectivelyserveassufficienttosupportPigcaulansclaim.

Besides, assuming that the petition is also filed on his behalf, Canoy failed to show any
reasonable cause for his failure to join Pigcaulan to personally sign the Certification of NonForum
Shopping.Itishisduty,asalitigant,tobeprudentinpursuinghisclaimsagainstSCII,especiallyso,if
he was indeed suffering from financial distress. However, Canoy failed to advance any justifiable
reasonwhyhedidnotinformanyoneofhiswhereaboutswhenheknowsthathehasapendingcase
against his former employer. Sadly, his lack of prudence and diligence cannot merit the courts
consideration or sympathy. It must be emphasized at this point that procedural rules should not be
ignoredsimplybecausetheirnonobservancemayresultinprejudicetoapartyssubstantialrights.The
[29]
RulesofCourtshouldbefollowedexceptonlyforthemostpersuasiveofreasons.
HavingdeclaredthepresentpetitionassolelyfiledbyPigcaulan,thisCourtshallconsiderthe
subsequent pleadings, although apparently filed under his and Canoys name, as solely filed by the
former.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

7/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

There was no substantial evidence to support the grant of

overtimepay.

TheLaborArbiterorderedreimbursementofovertimepay,holidaypay,serviceincentiveleavepayand
13thmonthpayfortheyear2000infavorofCanoyandPigcaulan.TheLaborArbiterreliedheavilyon
theitemizedcomputationstheysubmittedwhichheconsideredasrepresentativedailytimerecordsto
substantiatetheawardofsalarydifferentials.TheNLRCthensustainedtheawardonthegroundthat
therewassubstantialevidenceofunderpaymentofsalariesandbenefits.

We find that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred in this regard. The handwritten itemized
computations are selfserving, unreliable and unsubstantial evidence to sustain the grant of salary
differentials,particularlyovertimepay.Unsignedandunauthenticatedastheyare,thereisnowayof
verifyingthetruthofthehandwrittenentriesstatedtherein.Writtenonlyinpiecesofpaperandsolely
prepared by Canoy and Pigcaulan, these representative daily time records, as termed by the Labor
Arbiter,canhardlybeconsideredascompetentevidencetobeusedasbasistoprovethatthetwowere
underpaidoftheirsalaries.WefindnothingintherecordswhichcouldsubstantiallysupportPigcaulans
contentionthathehadrenderedservicebeyondeighthourstoentitlehimtoovertimepayandduring
Sundays to entitle him to restday pay. Hence, in the absence of any concrete proof that additional
servicebeyondthenormalworkinghoursanddayshadindeedbeenrendered,wecannotaffirmthe
grantofovertimepaytoPigcaulan.

Pigcaulan is entitled to holiday pay, service incentive leave

payandproportionate13thmonthpayforyear2000.

However,withrespecttotheawardforholidaypay,serviceincentiveleave
payand13thmonthpay,weaffirmandrulethatPigcaulanisentitledtothesebenefits.
Article94oftheLaborCodeprovidesthat:

ART.94.RIGHTTOHOLIDAYPAY.(a)Everyworkershallbepaidhisregulardailywage
duringregularholidays,exceptinretailandserviceestablishmentsregularlyemployinglessthanten(10)
workers

xxxx

WhileArticle95oftheLaborCodeprovides:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

8/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

ART.95.RIGHTTOSERVICEINCENTIVELEAVE.(a)Everyemployeewhohasrendered
atleastoneyearofserviceshallbeentitledtoayearlyserviceincentiveoffivedayswithpay.

xxxx

UndertheLaborCode,Pigcaulanisentitledtohisregularrateonholidaysevenifhedoesnot
[30]
work.
Likewise,expressprovisionofthelawentitleshimtoserviceincentiveleavebenefitforhe
[31]
renderedserviceformorethanayearalready.Furthermore,underPresidentialDecreeNo.851,
he
shouldbepaidhis13thmonthpay.Asemployer,SCIIhastheburdenofprovingthatithaspaidthese
[32]
benefitstoitsemployees.

SCII presented payroll listings and transmittal letters to the bank to show that Canoy and
Pigcaulan received their salaries as well as benefits which it claimed are already integrated in the
employeesmonthlysalaries.However,thedocumentspresenteddonotproveSCIIsallegation.SCII
failed to show any other concrete proof by means of records, pertinent files or similar documents
reflectingthatthespecificclaimshavebeenpaid.Withrespectto13thmonthpay,SCIIpresentedproof
that this benefit was paid but only for the years 1998 and 1999. To repeat, the burden of proving
paymentofthesemonetaryclaimsrestsonSCII,beingtheemployer.Itisarulethatonewhopleads
paymenthastheburdenofprovingit.Evenwhentheplaintiffallegesnonpayment,stillthegeneralrule
isthattheburdenrestsonthedefendanttoprovepayment,ratherthanontheplaintifftoprovenon
[33]
payment.
Since SCII failed to provide convincing proof that it has already settled the claims,
Pigcaulanshouldbepaidhisholidaypay,serviceincentiveleavebenefitsandproportionate13thmonth
payfortheyear2000.

TheCAerredindismissingtheclaimsinsteadofremanding
thecasetotheLaborArbiterforadetailedcomputationofthe
judgmentaward.

Indeed,theLaborArbiterfailedtoprovidesufficientbasisforthemonetary
awards granted. Such failure, however, should not result in prejudice to the substantial rights of the
party. While we disallow the grant of overtime pay and restday pay in favor of Pigcaulan, he is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

9/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

neverthelessentitled,asamatterofright,tohisholidaypay,serviceincentiveleavepayand13thmonth
payforyear2000.Hence,theCAisnotcorrectindismissingPigcaulansclaimsinitsentirety.

Consistentwiththerulethatallmoneyclaimsarisingfromanemployeremployeerelationshipshallbe
[34]
filedwithinthreeyearsfromthetimethecauseofactionaccrued,
Pigcaulancanonlydemandthe
amounts due him for the period within three years preceding the filing of the complaint in 2000.
Furthermore,sincetherecordsareinsufficienttouseasbasestoproperlycomputePigcaulansclaims,
thecaseshouldberemandedtotheLaborArbiterforadetailedcomputationofthemonetarybenefits
duetohim.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisiondated
February24,2006andResolutiondatedJune28,2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.
85515 are REVERSEDandSETASIDE. Petitioner Abduljuahid R. Pigcaulan is hereby declared
ENTITLEDtoholidaypayandserviceincentiveleavepayfortheyears19972000andproportionate
13thmonthpayfortheyear2000.

ThecaseisREMANDEDtotheLaborArbiterforfurtherproceedingstodeterminetheexactamount
and to make a detailed computation of the monetary benefits due Abduljuahid R. Pigcaulan which
SecurityandCreditInvestigationInc.shouldpaywithoutdelay.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice
10/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsinthe
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Originally captioned as Oliver Canoy and Abduljuahid Pigcaulan, petitioners vs. Security and Credit Investigation Inc. and/or
ReneAmbyReyes, respondents. The Court, however, drops Oliver Canoy from the caption consistent with the Courts ruling
herein.

PerraffledatedJanuary10,2012.
[1]
Rollo,pp.1026.
[2]
CArollo,pp.219225pennedbyAssociateJusticeSantiagoJavierRanadaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRobertoA.
BarriosandMarioL.GuariaIII.
[3]
Id. at 1825 penned by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and
CommissionerErnestoC.Verceles.
[4]
Id.at2728.
[5]
Id.at250.
[6]
Id.at229234.
[7]
Canoys complaint was docketed as NLRCNCR Case No. 0003014092000 while Pigcaulans complaint was docketed as
NLRCNCRCaseNo.0003017822000.
[8]
Annex1ofSCIIsPositionPaper,CArollo,pp.5963and7076.
[9]
Annex2ofSCIIsPositionPaper,id.at6465and7778.
[10]
Id.at8387.
[11]
Id.at87.
[12]
Annex22OOofSCIIsMemorandumonAppeal,id.at101142.
[13]
Annex431ofSCIIsMemorandumonAppeal,id.at150205.
[14]
Id.at1825.
[15]
Id.at2728.
[16]
Id.at216.
[17]
Id.at219225.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

11/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.173648

[18]
Id.at223224.
[19]
Id.at250.
[20]
Rollo,p.18.
[21]
Id.at4652.
[22]
Id.at5761.
[23]
AnnexAofthepetitionersReply,id.at6263.
[24]
MactanCebuInternationalAirportAuthorityv.HeirsofEstanislaoMioza,G.R.No.186045,February2,2011,641SCRA520,
528citingAltresv.Empleo,G.R.No.180986,December10,2008,573SCRA583,597.
[25]
Id.
[26]
MandaueGalleonTrade,Inc.v.Isidto,G.R.No.181051,July5,2010,623SCRA414,421.
[27]
Traveo v. Bobongon Banana Growers MultiPurpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 164205, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 27, 36
citingAltresv.Empleo,G.R.No.180986,December10,2008,573SCRA583,597.
[28]
NortheasternCollegeTeachersandEmployeesAssociationv.NortheasternCollege,Inc.,G.R.No.152923,January19,2009,
576SCRA149,179HeirsofDomingoHernandez,Sr.v.Mingoa,Sr.,G.R.No.146548,December18,2009,608SCRA394,
406407.
[29]
PyroCopperMiningCorporationv.MinesAdjudicationBoardDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,G.R.No.
179674,July28,2009,594SCRA195,211212.
[30]
Labadanv.ForestHillsAcademy,G.R.No.172295,December23,2008,575SCRA262,268.
[31]
RequiringAllEmployersToPayTheirEmployeesA13th MonthPay.
[32]
Saberolav.Suarez,G.R.No.151227,July14,2008,558SCRA135,146147.
[33]
Id.
[34]
LABORCODE,Article291.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/173648.htm

12/12