Asian Terminals vs Nlrc

7/29/2019 Asian Terminals vs Nlrc

1/7

ASIAN TERMINALS VS NLRC

G.R. No. 158458 December 19, 2007

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. and ATTY. RODOLFO G. CORVITE, JR., petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINADOR SALUDARES, and ROMEO L.LABRAGUE,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from theJanuary 23, 2003 Decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 53869, affirming withmodification the April 30, 1999 Decision2of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); andthe May 23, 2003 CA Resolution,3denying the motion for reconsideration.

The facts not in dispute are as follows:

Romeo Labrague (respondent) was a stevedore antigo employed with Asian Terminals, Inc. sincethe 1980's. Beginning September 9, 1993, respondent failed to report for work allegedly because hewas arrested and placed in detention for reasons not related to his work.4

After respondent had been absent for more than one year, Asian Terminals, Inc., through Atty.Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr., (petitioners) sent him (respondent) a letter, dated December 27, 1994, at his

last known address at Area H, Parola, Tondo, Manila, requiring him to explain within 72 hours whyhe should not suffer disciplinary penalty for his prolonged absence.5The following month, petitionersent respondent another notice of similar tenor.6

Finally, on February 8, 1995, petitioner issued a memorandum stating:

For having incurred absence without official leave (AWOL) from 03 September 1993 up tothe present after you were put behind bars due to your involvement in a killing incident, youremployment is hereby terminated for cause effective IMMEDIATELY.7

Though addressed to respondent, the foregoing memorandum does not indicate whether it was sentto the latter at his last known address.

Following his acquittal and release from detention, respondent reported for work on July 3, 1996 butwas advised by petitioners to file a new application so that he may be rehired.8Thus, respondentfiled with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, non-payment of labor standardbenefits, damages and attorney's fees.9

In a Decision dated September 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter (LA) held:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt1


2/7

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered ordering respondents,jointly and severally, to pay the total sum of P152,700.00 as separation pay, 13th month andservice incentive leave pay of complainant. Other issues or claims are hereby orderedDISMISSED for want of substantial evidence.

SO ORDERED.10

Petitioners appealed but the NLRC issued the April 30, 1999 Decision which merely modified the LAdecision, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED.Respondents are ordered to pay complainant his separation pay in the sum of P124,800.00.The awards representing 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay are DELETED.

SO ORDERED.11

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution12on June 15, 1999.

It should be noted that respondent did not appeal from the NLRC decision deleting from the LAdecision the award of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.

Petitioners went on to file a petition forcertiorari13with the CA which, however, the latter denied inthe January 23, 2003 Decision now assailed before us, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION inthat:

(a) Labrague's separation pay should be computed on the basis of the aforequoted Section 2of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); and

(b) the petitioners are further ordered to pay Labrague his backwages from the time of hisillegal dismissal in July 1996 up to the date of finality of this decision, computed also inaccordance with Section 2 of the same CBA.

SO ORDERED.14

Respondent did not question the recomputation of his separation pay. Only petitioners filed a motionfor reconsideration but the CA denied the same.

Hence, the present petition on the sole ground that:

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in declaring the dismissal of respondent Romeo L.

Labrague from employment illegal notwithstanding his long and unauthorized absences fromwork which is contrary to law and existing jurisprudence.15

The petition lacks merit.

In declaring the dismissal of respondent illegal, the concurrent view of the CA, NLRC and LA is thatthe latter's prolonged absence was excusable, for it was brought about by his detention for almostthree years for a criminal charge that was later declared baseless. They held that his prolonged
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt10


3/7

absence was not coupled with an intention to relinquish his employment, and therefore did notconstitute abandonment. The CA elaborated:

Verily, the Supreme Court ruled in the Magtoto case, involving detention for seven (7)months by military authorities, pursuant to an Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO),relied upon by the Arbiter, viz.:

"Equitable considerations favor the petitioner. While the respondent employer mayhave shed no tears over the arrest of one of its employees, there is likewise noshowing that it had any role in the arrest and detention of Mr. Magtoto. But neitherwas the petitioner at fault. The charges which led to his detention was later foundwithout basis. x x x."16

Petitioners argue that they were justified in dismissing respondent after the latter incurred a three-year absence without leave, and refused to report for work despite several notices.17Petitionersargue that respondent's prolonged absence was not justified or excused by his so-called detention,which remained a mere allegation that was never quite substantiated by any form of officialdocumentation.18It being uncertain whether respondent was ever placed in detention, petitioners

doubt whether the CA correctly applied the ruling in Magtoto v. National Labor RelationsCommission.19

The foregoing arguments of petitioners are specious.

It cannot be gainsaid that respondent was in detention during the entire period of his absence fromwork and, more importantly, that his situation was known to petitioners. It is of record that in theFebruary 8, 1995 termination notice it issued, petitioners expressly acknowledged that respondentbegan incurring absences without leave "after [he was] put behind bars due to [his] involvement in akilling incident."20It clearly indicates that petitioners knew early on of the situation of respondent. Italso explains why in its reply21before the LA, appeal22before the NLRC and petitionforcertiorari23before CA, petitioners never questioned the truth about respondent's detention.Petitioners' skepticism about respondent's detention is a mere afterthought not proper for

consideration in a petition for review under Rule 45, which bars reappraisal of facts not disputedbefore the lower courts or already settled in their proceedings, and unanimously at that.24

It is beyond dispute then that the underlying reason for respondent's absences was his detention.The question is whether the CA erred in holding that such absences did not amount to abandonmentas to furnish petitioners cause to dismiss respondent.

To justify the dismissal of respondent for abandonment, petitioners should have established byconcrete evidence the concurrence of two elements: first, that respondent had the intention todeliberately and without justification abandon his employment or refuse to resume his work; andsecond, that respondent performed overt acts from which it may be deduced that he no longerintended to work.25

Petitioners failed to discharge such burden of proof. Respondent's absences, even after notice toreturn to work, cannot be equated with abandonment,26especially when we take into account thatthe latter incurred said absences unwillingly and without fault.27

Absences incurred by an employee who is prevented from reporting for work due to his detention toanswer some criminal charge is excusable if his detention is baseless, in that the criminal chargeagainst him is not at all supported by sufficient evidence. In Magtoto v. National Labor RelationsCommission as well as Pedroso v. Castro,28we declared such absences as not constitutive of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt16


4/7

abandonment, and held the dismissal of the employee-detainee invalid. We recently reiterated thisruling in Standard Electric Manufacturing Corporation v. Standard Electric Employees Union-NAFLU-KMU,29viz.:

The facts in Pedroso v. Castro are similar to the set of facts in the present case. Thepetitioners therein were arrested and detained by the military authorities by virtue of a

Presidential Commitment Order allegedly for the commission of Conspiracy to CommitRebellion under Article 136 of the RPC. As a result, their employer hired substitute workersto avoid disruption of work and business operations. They were released when the chargesagainst them were not proven. After incarceration, they reported back to work, but wererefused admission by their employer. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC sustained the validityof their dismissal. Nevertheless, this Court again held that the dismissed employees shouldbe reinstated to their former positions, since their separation from employment was foundedon a false ornon-existentcause; hence, illegal.

Respondent Javier's absence from August 9, 1995 cannot be deemed as an abandonmentof his work. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legallypresumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute as such, two requisites must concur:first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent withoutvalid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part ofthe employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overtacts, with the second element being the more determinative factor. Abandonment as a justground for dismissal requires clear, willful, deliberate, and unjustified refusal of the employeeto resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice toreturn, is not tantamount to abandonment.

Moreover, respondent Javier's acquittal for rape makes it more compelling to view theillegality of his dismissal. The trial court dismissed the case for "insufficiency of evidence,"and such ruling is tantamount to an acquittal of the crime charged, and proof that respondentJavier's arrest and detention were without factual and legal basis in the first place.30

Similarly, respondent herein was prevented from reporting for work by reason of his detention. Thathis detention turned out to be without basis, as the criminal charge upon which said detention wasordered was later dismissed for lack of evidence, made the absences he incurred as a consequencethereof not only involuntary but also excusable. It was certainly not the intention of respondent toabsent himself, or his fault that he was detained on an erroneous charge. In no way may theabsences he incurred under such circumstances be likened to abandonment. The CA, therefore,correctly held that the dismissal of respondent was illegal, for the absences he incurred by reason ofhis unwarranted detention did not amount to abandonment.

His dismissal being illegal, respondent is entitled to backwages as a matter of right provided bylaw.31The CA granted him backwages from July 1996, when he reported back for work but wasinformed of his dismissal, up to the date of finality of its decision. It is noted that the LA and NLRC

decisions did not award backwages and respondent did not appeal from said decision. Nonetheless,such award of backwages may still be sustained consistent with our ruling in St. Michael's Institute v.Santos,[32]to wit:

On the matter of the award of backwages, petitioners advance the view that by awardingbackwages, the appellate court "unwittingly reversed a time-honored doctrine that a partywho has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other thanthe ones granted in the appealed decision." We do not agree.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt29


5/7

The fact that the NLRC did not award backwages to the respondents or that therespondents themselves did not appeal the NLRC decision does not bar the Court ofAppeals from awarding backwages. While as a general rule, a party who has notappealed is not entitled to affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decisionof the court below, the Court of Appeals is imbued with sufficient authority anddiscretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds

that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution ofthe case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.

Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that an illegally dismissed employeeis entitled to the twin reliefs of (a) either reinstatement or separation pay, if reinstatement isno longer viable, and (b) backwages. Both are distinct reliefs given to alleviate the economicdamage suffered by an illegally dismissed employee and, thus, the award of one does notbar the other. Both reliefs are rights granted by substantive law which cannot be defeated bymere procedural lapses. Substantive rights l ike the award of b ackwages resul t ing fromi l legal dismissal must no t be prejudiced by a rigid and technical appl ication of the

rules. The order of the Court of Appeals to award backw ages being a mere legal

consequence of th e finding that respondents w ere il legal ly dismissed by peti t ioners,

there was no error in awarding the same.33(Emphasis supplied.)

However, as to whether petitioner Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr. should be held jointly and severallyliable with petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc., we agree with the latter's view that, absent a distinctfinding of bad faith or evident malice on the part of petitioner Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr. interminating the employment of respondent, the former should not be held solidarily liable for thepayment of whatever monetary award is due respondent.34

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January 23, 2003 andthe May 23, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with thefurtherMODIFICATION that the solidary liability of petitioner Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr.is DELETED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. with the concurrence of AssociateJustices Edgardo P. Cruz and Mario L. Guaria III; rollo, p. 25.

2CA rollo, p. 22.

3Rollo, p. 35.

4CA decision, rollo, 25-26.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#fnt33


6/7

5Id. at 43.

6Id. at 44.

7Id. at 45.

8Position Paper, CA rollo, p. 32.

9Id.

10CA rollo, p. 20.

11Id. at 27.

12Id. at 29.

13Id. at 1.

14Rollo, pp. 32-33.

15Id. at 11.

16CA decision, rollo, p. 29.

17Petition, rollo, pp. 15-16.

18Petition, rollo, pp. 18-17.

19No. L-63370, November 18, 1985, 140 SCRA 58.

20CA rollo, p. 45.

21Id. at 34.

22Id. at 46.

23Id. at 1.

24Pandiman Philippines, Inc. v. Marine Manning Management Corporation,G.R. No.143313, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 418.

25Hodieng Concrete Products v. Emilia,G.R. No. 149180, February 14, 2005, 451 SCRA249, 253.

26Forever Security & General Services v. Flores,G.R. No. 147961, September 7,2007;Seven Star Textile Co. v. Dy,G.R. No. 166846, January 24, 2007, 512 SCRA 486,499;L.C. Ordonez Construction v. Nicdao,G.R. No. 149669, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 745,755.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_143313_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_143313_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_143313_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_143313_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149180_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149180_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149180_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149180_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_147961_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_147961_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_147961_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_147961_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_149669_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_149669_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_149669_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_149669_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_149669_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_149669_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_149669_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_149669_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_149669_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_147961_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149180_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_143313_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt5


7/7

27Cebu Marine Beach Resort v.National Labor Relations Comisin, 460 Phil. 301, 308(2003).

28225 Phil. 210 (1986).

29G.R. No. 166111,August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 316.

30Supra note 29, at 326-327.

31Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission,G.R. No. 161694, June 26, 2006, 492SCRA 686, 699.

32422 Phil. 723 (2001).

33St. Michael's Institute v. Santos, supra note 32, at 735-736. See alsoAurora Land ProjectsCorp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 334 Phil. 44 (1997).

34Carag v. National Labor Relations Commission,G.R. No. 147590, April 2, 2007.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_166111_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_166111_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_166111_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_161694_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_161694_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_161694_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_161694_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_147590_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_147590_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_147590_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_147590_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_147590_2007.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_161694_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_166111_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158458_2007.html#rnt27

Asian Terminals vs Nlrc

Documents

Transcript of Asian Terminals vs Nlrc