Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com™
Like 0
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > June 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 217575, June 15, 2016 -
SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND GAUVAIN J. BENZONAN, Petitioners, v. HON.
PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ROLANDO FABRIGAR, MERLYN VELARDE,
VINCE LAMBOC, FELIPE GALINDO, LEONARDO MIGUEL, JULIUS RUBIN, EDEL RODEROS, MERLYN COLIAO, AND
EDGAR JOPSON, Respondents.:
Custom Search Search
G.R. No. 217575, June 15, 2016 - SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND GAUVAIN J.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review BENZONAN, Petitioners, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
ROLANDO FABRIGAR, MERLYN VELARDE, VINCE LAMBOC, FELIPE GALINDO, LEONARDO MIGUEL, JULIUS
RUBIN, EDEL RODEROS, MERLYN COLIAO, AND EDGAR JOPSON, Respondents.
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision1 dated November 28, 2014 and Resolution dated March 5, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00179-MIN, affirming the Orders dated November 8, 2004 and February
24, 2005 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
On January 19, 2004, the Department of Labor and Employment Region-XII (DOLE) conducted a
Complaint Inspection2 at the premises of DXCP Radio Station, which is owned by petitioner South
Cotabato Communications Corporation. The inspection yielded a finding of violation of labor standards
provisions of the Labor Code involving the nine (9) private respondents, such as: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Underpayment of Wages
2. Underpayment of 13th Month Pay
3. Non-payment of the five (5) days Service Incentive Leave Pay
4. Non-payment of Rest Day Premium Pay
5. Non-payment of the Holiday Premium Pay
6. Non-remittance of SSS Contributions
7. Some employees are paid on commission basis aside from their allowance[s]3
Consequently, the DOLE issued a Notice of Inspection Result directing petitioner corporation and/or its
president, petitioner Gauvain J. Benzonan (Benzonan), to effect restitution and/or correction of the
alleged violations within five (5) days from notice. Due to petitioners' failure to comply with its directive,
the DOLE scheduled on March 3, 2004 a Summary Investigation at its Regional Office No. XII, Provincial
Extension Office, in General Santos City. However, petitioners failed to appear despite due notice.
Another hearing was scheduled on April 1, 2004 wherein petitioners' counsel, Atty. Thomas Jacobo (Atty.
Jacobo), failed to attend due to an alleged conflict in schedule. Instead, his secretary, Nona Gido,
appeared on his behalf to request a resetting, which the DOLE Hearing Officer denied.4 Thus, in an Order
ChanRobles Intellectual Property dated May 20, 2004, the DOLE Region-XII OIC Regional Director (DOLE Regional Director) directed
petitioners to pay private respondents the total amount of P759,752, representing private respondents'
Division claim for wage differentials, 13th month pay differentials, service incentive leave pay, holiday premium
pay, and rest day premium Pay-Therefrom, petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Labor, raising two
grounds: (1) denial of due process; and (2) lack of factual and legal basis of the assailed Order.
The denial of due process was predicated on the refusal of the Hearing Officer to reset the hearing set on
April 1, 2004, which thus allegedly deprived petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence.
Likewise, petitioners asserted that the Order of the Regional Director does not state that an employer-
employee relationship exists between petitioners and private respondents, which is necessary to confer
jurisdiction to the DOLE over the alleged violations.
In an Order5 dated November 8, 2004, the Secretary of Labor affirmed the findings of the DOLE Regional
Director on the postulate that petitioners failed to question, despite notice of hearing, the noted
violations or to submit any proof of compliance therewith. And in view of petitioners' failure to present
their evidence before the Regional Director, the Secretary of Labor adopted the findings of the Labor
Inspector and considered the interviews conducted as substantial evidence. The Secretary of Labor
likewise sustained what is considered as the straight computation method adopted by the Regional Office
as regards the monetary claims of private respondents,6 thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, presmises considered, the appeal by DXCP Radio Station and Engr. Gauvain
Benzonan is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Order dated May [20], 2004 of the
Regional Director, directing appellants to pay the nine (9) appellees the aggregate amount
of Seven Hundred Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two Pesos (Php759,752.00),
representing their claims for wage differentials, 13th month pay differentials, service
incentive leave pay, holiday pay premium and rest day premium, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. cralawred
Petitioners moved for, but was denied, reconsideration of the Secretary of Labor's Order.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court. By a Resolution7 dated July 20, 2005, the CA dismissed the petition owing to
procedural infirmities because petitioners failed to attach a Secretary's Certificate evidencing the
authority of petitioner Benzonan, as President, to sign the petition. On appeal,8 this Court remanded the
case back to the CA for determination on the merits.9 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
June-2016 Jurisprudence In its Decision dated November 28, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00179-MIN, the CA upheld the Secretary of
Labor, holding that petitioners cannot claim denial of due process, their failure to present evidence being
G.R. No. 175085, June 01, 2016 - TAN SIOK1 KUAN attributed to their negligence.
AND PUTE CHING, Petitioners, v. FELICISIMO "BOY"
HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA, VICENTE M. SALAS, AND Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the Decision, grounded on similar arguments raised before
LOLITA MALONZO, Respondents. the Secretary of Labor, citing in addition, the pronouncement of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in the related case of NLRC No. MAC-01-010053-2008 entitled Rolando Fabrigar, et. al. v. DXCP
G.R. No. 211672, June 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE Radio Station, et. al. There, the NLRC held that no employer-employee relationship exists between
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN HAPPY petitioners and private respondents Rolando Fabrigar (Fabrigar), Edgar Jopson (Jopson), and Merlyn
DOMINGO Y CARAG, Accused-Appellant. Velarde (Velarde). For clarity, two separate actions were instituted by private respondents Fabrigar,
Jopson, and Velarde against petitioners: the first, for violation of labor standards provisions with the
G.R. No. 204056, June 01, 2016 - GIL MACALINO,
JR., TERESITA MACALINO, ELPIDIO MACALINO, DOLE; and the second, for illegal dismissal filed with the NLRC. The latter case arose from the three
PILAR MACALINO, GILBERTO MACALINO, HERMILINA respondents' claim of constructive dismissal effected by petitioners following the inspection by the DOLE.
MACALINO, EMMANUEL MACALINO, EDELINA In ruling for petitioners, the NLRC, in its Resolution10 dated April 30, 2008, declared that there is no
MACALINO, EDUARDO MACALINO, LEONARDO employer-employee relationship between the parties, thus negating the notion of constructive dismissal.
MACALINO, EDLLANE** MACALINO, APOLLO
MACALINO, MA. FE MACALINO, AND GILDA The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 5, 2014. Hence, this
MACALINO, Petitioners, v. ARTEMIO PIS-AN, petition.
Respondent.
Petitioners presently seek the reversal of the CA's Decision and Resolution and ascribe the following
G.R. No. 211290, June 01, 2016 - OMBUDSMAN-
errors to the court a quo:
MINDANAO, Petitioner, v. LILING LANTO IBRAHIM,
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SUEDAD, Accused-Appellant.
The findings of fact should, however, be supported by substantial evidence from which the said tribunals
G.R. No. 204441, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE can make their own independent evaluation of the facts. In labor cases, as in other administrative and
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL KURT JOHN quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of
BULAWAN Y ANDALES, Respondent.
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.19 Although
G.R. No. 201834, June 01, 2016 - ANDRES L. no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
DIZON, Petitioner, v. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted,20 a finding that the
INC. AND DOLE UK (LTD.), Respondents. relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.21 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
G.R. No. 196962, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE In addition, the findings of fact tainted with grave abuse of discretion will not be upheld. This Court will
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAN SONJACO Y not hesitate to set aside the labor tribunal's findings of fact when it is clearly shown that they were
STA. ANA, Accused-Appellant. arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record or when there is showing of fraud or error
G.R. No. 191936, June 01, 2016 - VIRGINIA D. of law.22ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
G.R. No. 193374, June 08, 2016 - HEIRS OF THE The assailed May 20, 2004 Order of the Regional Director and November 8, 2004 Order of the Secretary
LATE GERRY* ECARMA, NAMELY: AVELINA SUIZA- of Labor were issued pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, to wit: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 214440, June 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE Thus, before the DOLE may exercise its powers under Article 128, two important questions
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX MENDEZ must be resolved: (1) Does the employer-employee relationship still exist, or alternatively,
RAFOLS, Accused-Appellant. was there ever an employer-employee relationship to speak of; and (2) Are there
violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law?
G.R. No. 217732, June 15, 2016 - EMILIO S.
AGCOLICOL, JR., Petitioner, v. JERWIN CASIÑO, The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a statutory prerequisite to
Respondent. and a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor, one which the legislative
branch is entitled to impose. The rationale underlying this limitation is to eliminate the
G.R. No. 172352, June 08, 2016 - LAND BANK OF prospect of competing conclusions of the Secretary of Labor and the NLR.C, on a matter
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ALFREDO HABABAG, fraught with questions of fact and law, which is best resolved by the quasi-judicial body,
SR., SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, CONSOLACION, AND
which is the NRLC, rather than an administrative official of the executive branch of the
CHILDREN, NAMELY: MANUEL, SALVADOR, WILSON,
JIMMY, ALFREDO, JR., AND JUDITH, ALL SURNAMED government. If the Secretary of Labor proceeds to exercise his visitorial and enforcement
HABABAG, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 172387-88 - powers absent the first requisite, as the dissent proposes, his office confers jurisdiction on
ALFREDO HABABAG, SR., SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, itself which it cannot otherwise acquire. (emphasis ours) cralawred
Respondent. Like the NLRC, the DOLE has the authority to rule on the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the parties, considering that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a condition
G.R. No. 217943, June 06, 2016 - J. MELLIZA
ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., sine qua non for the exercise of its visitorial power. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that without an
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ATTY. RAFAEL S. employer-employee relationship, or if one has already been terminated, the Secretary of Labor is without
VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. ROSENDO SIMOY, jurisdiction to determine if violations of labor standards provision had in fact been committed,24 and to
GREGORIO SIMOY AND CONSEJO SIMOY, direct employers to comply with their alleged violations of labor standards.
Respondents.
The Orders of the Regional Director and the Secretary of Labor do not contain clear and
G. R. No. 185169, June 15, 2016 - HEIRS OF distinct factual basis necessary to establish the jurisdiction of the DOLE and to justify the
CATALINO DACANAY, HIS WIFE ERLINDA DACANAY, monetary awards to private respondents
THEIR CHILDREN AURORA D. CONSTANTINO AND
REYNALDO DACANAY; LOLITA DACANAY VDA. DE
For expediency, the May 20, 2004 Order of the Regional Director is pertinently reproduced hereunder:
PARASO; HEIRS OF SOLEDAD APOSTOL, NAMELY:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
INC., Respondent.
Proceeding from the conduct of such inspection was the issuance of the Notice of
G.R. No. 203057, June 06, 2016 - BUREAU OF Inspection Result requiring the respondent DXCP Radio Station and/or Engr. Gauvain
INTERNAL REVENUE AS REPRESENTED BY THE Benzonan, President, to effect restitution and/or correction of the noted violations at the
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, plant/company level within five (5) calendar days from notice thereof. But, Engr. Gauvain
v. MANILA HOME TEXTILE, INC, THELMA LEE AND Benzonan failed to do so.
SAMUEL LE,E, Respondents.
On March 3, 2004, a summary investigation was conducted at the [DOLE], Regional Office
G.R. No. 204769, June 06, 2016 - MAGSAYSAY No. XII, Provincial Extension Office, General Santos City. In that scheduled Summary
MARITIME CORP., CSCS BMTERNATIONAL NV Investigation, only complainants appeared, assisted by Mr. Fred Huervana, National
AND/OR MARLON* RONO, Petitioners, v. RODEL A. President of the Philippine Organization of Labor Unions, x x x while respondent failed to
CRUZ, Respondent.
appear despite due notice.
G.R. No. 203336, June 06, 2016 - SPOUSES
GERARDO AND CORAZON TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. On April 1, 2004, another Summary Investigation was conducted x x x [There]
FAMA REALTY, INC. AND FELIX ASSAD, Respondents. complainants appeared, x x x while respondent was represented by Ms. Nona Gido,
Secretary of Atty. Thomas Jacobo, counsel for the respondent. During the deliberation, Ms.
G.R. No. 208524, June 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE Nona Gido manifested that her presence in that scheduled summary investigation was to
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARDINO request for the re-scheduling of such hearing, however, such request was denied. Mr. Fred
PERALTAJ MORILLO AND MICHAEL AMBAS Y REYES,
Huervana declared that as he gleaned from the Notice of Inspection Result issued by the
Accused, BERNARDINO PERALTA Y MORILLO,
Accused-Appellant. labor inspector, the Non-payment of the Provisional Emergency Relief Allowance (PERA)
was not included from among the discovered violations, hence he requested that it should
G.R. No. 209038, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE be included in the computation. Such request was denied x x x. Further, Mr. Fred
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD Huervana, declared that this case be submitted for decision based on the merit of the case.
BACALAN GABUYA AND RYANNEAL MENESES GIRON,
Accused-Appellants. Failure of the parties to reach a final settlement prompted this Office to compute the
entitlements of the seven (7) affected workers for their salary differential, underpayment
G.R. No. 197393, June 15, 2016 - PHILIPPINE of 13th month pay, non-payment of the five (5) days service incentive leave pay, non-
SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, v. MANUEL P. BARRERA, payment of holiday premium pay and non-payment of rest day premium pay in the total
Respondent.
amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY TWO PESOS
A.C. No. 11246, June 14, 2016 - ARNOLD PACAO, (P759,752.00) x x x.25 cralawred
6TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 13, CULASI, As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Order, the Regional Director merely noted the discovery of
ANTIQUE AND SEMIRARA COAL CORPORATION (NOW
violations of labor standards provisions in the course of inspection of the DXCP premises. No such
SEMIRARA MINING CORPORATION), Respondents.
categorical determination was made on the existence of an employer-employee relationship utilizing any
G.R. No. 217575, June 15, 2016 - SOUTH COTABATO of the guidelines set forth. In a word, the Regional Director had presumed, not demonstrated, the
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND GAUVAIN J. existence of the relationship. Of particular note is the DOLE'S failure to show that petitioners, thus,
BENZONAN, Petitioners, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. exercised control over private respondents' conduct in the workplace. The power of the employee to
TOMAS, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, control the work of the employee, or the control test, is considered the most significant determinant of
ROLANDO FABRIGAR, MERLYN VELARDE, VINCE the existence of an employer-employee relationship.27 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
G.R. No. 210936, June 28, 2016 - TEODORO B. As stressed by this Court in San Jose v. NLRC,34 faithful compliance by the courts and quasi-judicial
CRUZ, JR., MELCHOR M. ALONZO, AND WILFREDO P. bodies, such as the DOLE, with Art. VIII, Sec. 14 is a vital element of due process as it enables the
ALDAY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, parties to know how decisions are arrived at as well as the legal reasoning behind them. Thus:
Respondents.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This Court has previously held that judges and arbiters should draw up their decisions and
G.R. No. 196329, June 01, 2016 - PABLO B. ROMAN, resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and accurately reflect their
JR., AND ATTY. MATIAS V. DEFENSOR, AS OFFICERS conclusions and their final dispositions. A decision should faithfully comply with Section 14,
OF THE CAPITOL HILLS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that no decision shall be rendered by any
INC., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on
COMMISSION, ATTY. FRANKLIN I. CUETO, ATTY. which it is based. If such decision had to be completely overturned or set aside, upon the
EMMANUEL Y. ARTIZA AND MANUEL C. BALDEO, AS modified decision, such resolution or decision should likewise state the factual and legal
MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE;
foundation relied upon. The reason for this is obvious: aside from being required by the
JUSTINA F. CALLANGAN, AS DIRECTOR OF THE
CORPORATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT; ATTY. Constitution, the court should be able to justify such a sudden change of course; it must
NARCISO T. ATIENZA, EUSEBIO A. ABAQUIN, ATTY. be able to convincingly explain the taking back of its solemn conclusions and
CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, SR., ATTY. CLODUALDO pronouncements in the earl indecision. The same thing goes for the findings of fact made
ANTONIO R. DE JESUS, JR., ATTY. IRENEO T. by the NLRC, as it is a settled rule that such findings are entitled to great respect and even
AGUIRRE, JR., SUNDAY O. PINEDA, PORFIRIO M. finality when supported by substantial evidence; otherwise, they shall be struck down for
FLORES, AND ATTY. ZOSIMO PADRO, JR., being whimsical and capricious and arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. It is a
Respondents. requirement of due process and fair play that the parties to a litigation be informed of how
it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016 - JUDGE GREGORIO D. conclusions of the court. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and
PANTANOSAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ELLY L. the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is
PAMATONG, Respondent. especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of
the court for review by a higher tribunal. x x x
G.R. No. 211604, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
cralawred
DULCE, CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, ARTHUR M. CAPIN, Accordingly, this Court will not hesitate to strike down decisions rendered not hewing to the
ALLAN BENTUZAL, AND JEFFREY LLENES,
Constitutional directive, as it did to a Decision rendered by the NLRC in Anino, et al. v. Hinatuan Mining
Respondents.
Corporation37 for non-observance of the said requirement: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU] AND A.M. NO. 04-7-374- The Court is not unmindful of the State's policy to zealously safeguard the rights of our workers, as no
RTC [VIOLATION OF JUDGE ILDEFONSO SUERTE,
less than the Constitution itself mandates the State to afford full protection to labor. Nevertheless, it is
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU
OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 36-2004 DATED equally true that the law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-
MARCH 3, 2004], PROSECUTOR MARY ANN T. destruction of the employer.38 The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to
CASTRO-ROA, Respondent. be a sword to oppress employers.39 Certainly, an employer cannot be made to answer for claims that
have neither been sufficiently proved nor substantiated.
G.R. No. 210673, June 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GILBERT WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 28, 2014 and Resolution dated
CABALLERO Y GARSOLA, Accused-Appellant. March 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00179-MIN are accordingly REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Order of the then Secretary of Labor and Employment dated November 8, 2004 denying
G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRIQUE petitioners' appeal and the Order of the Regional Director, DOLE Regional Office No. XII, dated May 20,
MIRANDA, JR. Y PAÑA @ "ERIKA" AND ALVIN ALGA Y 2004, are ANNULLED, without prejudice to whatever right or cause of action private respondents may
MIRANDA @ "ALVIN," Accused-Appellants. have against petitioners.
G.R. No. 205871, June 27, 2016 - RUEL TUANO Y SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
G.R. No. 211065, June 15, 2016 - HEIRS OF JOSE 12Rollo, pp. 41-42.
EXTREMADURA, REPRESENTED BY ELENA H.
EXTREMADURA, Petitioners, v. MANUEL 13 G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 724.
EXTREMADURA AND MARLON EXTREMADURA,
Respondents.
14 DOLE Comment, p. 6.
G.R. No. 190876, June 15, 2016 - YELLOW BUS LINE
EMPLOYEES UNION (YBLEU), Petitioner, v. YELLOW 15Sarapatv. Salanga, G.R. No. 154110, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 324; citing
BUS LINE, INC. (YBLI), Respondent.
Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samaniego, G.R. Nos. 146653-54 & 147407-408,
February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 611, 619.
A.C. No. 8677, June 15, 2016 - MARITA CABAS,
Petitioner, v. ATTY. RIA NINA L. SUSUSCO AND CHIEF 16Montemayor v. Bundalian, et. al., G.R. No. 140335, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 264.
CITY PROSECUTOR EMELIE FE DELOS SANTOS,
Respondents. 17Rollo, p. 32.
G.R. No. 196557, June 15, 2016 - GREGORIO
"TONGEE" BALAIS, JR., Petitioner, v. SE'LON BY 18Magsaysay Maritime Services and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Laurel, G.R. No. 195518,
AIMEE, AMELITA REVILLA AND ALMA BELARMINO, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 225.
Respondents.
19Tenaza, et. al. v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, G.R. No. 192998, April 2, 2014.
G.R. No. 195224, June 15, 2016 - VIRGINIA
JABALDE Y JAMANDRON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
20Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Realuyo, G.R. No. 153511, July 18, 2012, July 18, 2012, 677
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
SCRA 10, 19; citing Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December
G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016 - COMMISSIONER 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 473.
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. KEPCO ILIJAN
CORPORATION, Respondent. 21Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Realuyo, G.R. No. 153511, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 10.
G.R. No. 189851, June 22, 2016 - INTEC CEBU INC., 22People's
AKIHIKO KAMBAYASHI AND WATARU SATO, Broadcasting (Bornbo Radyo, Phils., Inc.) v. The Secretary of Labor and
Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ROWENA Employment, et. al., supra note 13.
REYES, ROWENA ODIONG, HYDEE AYUDA, TERESITA
BERIDO, CRISTINA LABAPIZ, GEMMA JUMAO-AS, 23 Id.
SIGMARINGA BAROLO, LIGAYA B. ANADON,
DONALINE DELA TORRE, JOY P. LOMOD, JACQUELINE 24People's
Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo, Phils., Inc.) v. The Secretary of Labor and
A. FLORES, SUSAN T. ALIÑO, ANALYN P. ABALLE,
Employment, et. al., G.R. No. 179652, March 6, 2012, 667 SCRA 538.
CAROLINE A. LABATOS, LENITH F. ROMANO, LEONILA
chanrobleslaw
G.R. No. 214473, June 22, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE 34G.R. No. 121227, August 17, 1998, 294 SCRA 336; citing Juan Saballa, et. al. v. NLRC,
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMETERIO
MEDINA Y DAMO, Accused-Appellant. G.R. Nos. 102472-84, August 22, 1996, 260 SCRA 697.
G.R. No. 154069, June 06, 2016 - INTERPORT 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
RESOURCES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
SECURITIES SPECIALIST, INC., AND R.C. LEE
SECURITIES INC., Respondents. 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. 193455, June 13, 2016 - NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
GREGORIO RAMORAN, NAMELY: DELFIN R. PINEDA, 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
ESPERANZA PINEDA MAGPALI, DIGNA PINEDA
ARZADON, CARIDAD R. PINEDA, IMELDA ZIAPNO, 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
TERESITA PINEDA DELFIN, ESTER R. PINEDA, FE Y. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
UZON, PACENCIA ERFE VERSOZA, IMPRESSION V.
CLEMENTE, ALL REPRESENTED BY DELFIN R. PINEDA, 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, Respondents.; SPOUSES 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ARNULFO R. VERSOZA AND PRISCILLA M. VERSOZA;
SPOUSES DOMINGO AND DOMINGA GOMEZ; AND 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ERLINDA GOMEZ-OCAY, IN HER BEHALF AND IN
BEHALF OF CARLITO, MEDELINA, ANGELISTA, 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
SILVERA, LOLITA, & ROMBERTO, ALL SURNAMED
GOMEZ, Intervenor-Respondents.
Copyright © 1998 - 20191998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED