G.R. No. 78909 June 30, 1989 MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, represented by ANTERA L. DORADO, President, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE REGIONAL DlRECTOR OF LABOR, REGION X, respondents. MEDIALDEA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the Decision of the respondent Secretary of Labor dated September 24, 1986, affirming with modification the Order of respondent Regional Director of Labor, Region X, dated August 4, 1986, awarding salary differentials and emergency cost of living allowances (ECOLAS) to employees of petitioner, and the Order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated May 13, 1987, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner is a semi-government hospital, managed by the Board of Directors of the Cagayan de Oro Women's Club and Puericulture Center, headed by Mrs. Antera Dorado, as holdover President. The hospital derives its finances from the club itself as well as from paying patients, averaging 130 per month. It is also partly subsidized by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Cagayan De Oro City government. Petitioner has forty-one (41) employees. Aside from salary and living allowances, the employees are given food, but the amount spent therefor is deducted from their respective salaries (pp. 77-78, Rollo). On May 23, 1986, ten (10) employees of the petitioner employed in different capacities/positions filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and Employment, Region X, for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAS, which was docketed as ROX Case No. CW-71-86. On June 16, 1986, the Regional Director directed two of his Labor Standard and Welfare Officers to inspect the records of the petitioner to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaints (p. 98, Rollo). Payrolls covering the periods of May, 1974, January, 1985, November, 1985 and May, 1986, were duly submitted for inspection. On July 17, 1986, the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers submitted their report confirming that there was underpayment of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, deficiency on wage and ecola as verified and confirmed per review of the respondent payrolls and interviews with the complainant workers and all other information gathered by the team, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Regional Director, this office, that Antera Dorado, President be ORDERED to pay the amount of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX & 01/100 (P654,756.01), representing underpayment of wages and ecola to the THIRTY SIX (36) employees of the said hospital as appearing in the attached Annex "F" worksheets and/or whatever action equitable under the premises. (p. 99, Rollo) Based on this inspection report and recommendation, the Regional Director issued an Order dated August 4, 1986, directing the payment of P723,888.58, representing underpayment of wages and ECOLAs to all the petitioner's employees, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Maternity and Children Hospital is hereby ordered to pay the above-listed complainants the total amount indicated opposite each name, thru this Office within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Thenceforth, the respondent hospital is also ordered to pay its employees/workers the prevailing statutory minimum wage and allowance. SO ORDERED. (p. 34, Rollo) Petitioner appealed from this Order to the Minister of Labor and Employment, Hon. Augusto S. Sanchez, who rendered a Decision on September 24, 1986, modifying the said Order in that deficiency wages and ECOLAs should be computed only from May 23, 1983 to May 23, 1986, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the August 29, 1986 order is hereby MODIFIED in that the deficiency wages and ECOLAs should only be computed from May 23, 1983 to May 23, 1986. The case is remanded to the Regional Director, Region X, for recomputation specifying the amounts due each the complainants under each of the applicable Presidential Decrees. (p. 40, Rollo) On October 24, 1986, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary of Labor in his Order dated May 13, 1987, for lack of merit (p. 43 Rollo). The instant petition questions the all-embracing applicability of the award involving salary differentials and ECOLAS, in that it covers not only the hospital employees who signed the complaints, but also those (a) who are not signatories to the complaint, and (b) those who were no longer in the service of the hospital at the time the complaints were filed. Petitioner likewise maintains that the Order of the respondent Regional Director of Labor, as affirmed with modifications by respondent Secretary of Labor, does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which the award was based. In its "Rejoinder to Comment", petitioner further questions the authority of the Regional Director to award salary differentials and ECOLAs to private respondents, (relying on the case of Encarnacion vs. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-16883, March 27, 1961, 1 SCRA 860, as authority for raising the additional issue of lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings, p. 52, Rollo), alleging that the original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims is properly lodged in the Labor Arbiter, based on Article 217, paragraph 3 of the Labor Code.

The primary issue here is whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case and if so, the extent of coverage of any award that should be forthcoming, arising from his visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code. The matter of whether or not the decision states clearly and distinctly statement of facts as well as the law upon which it is based, becomes relevant after the issue on jurisdiction has been resolved. This is a labor standards case, and is governed by Art. 128-b of the Labor Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111. Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules, and regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary and welfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards (Section 7, Rule I, Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office, dated September 16, 1987). 1 Under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims, provided there still exists an employeremployee relationship, and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer concerned. Prior to the promulgation of E.O. No. 111 on December 24, 1986, the Regional Director's authority over money claims was unclear. The complaint in the present case was filed on May 23, 1986 when E.O. No. 111 was not yet in effect, and the prevailing view was that stated in the case of Antonio Ong, Sr. vs. Henry M. Parel, et al., G.R. No. 76710, dated December 21, 1987, thus: . . . the Regional Director, in the exercise of his visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code, has no authority to award money claims, properly falling within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. . . . . . . If the inspection results in a finding that the employer has violated certain labor standard laws, then the regional director must order the necessary rectifications. However, this does not include adjudication of money claims, clearly within the ambit of the labor arbiter's authority under Article 217 of the Code. The Ong case relied on the ruling laid down in Zambales Base Metals Inc. vs. The Minister of Labor, et al., (G.R. Nos. 73184-88, November 26, 1986, 146 SCRA 50) that the "Regional Director was not empowered to share in the original and exclusive jurisdiction conferred on Labor Arbiters by Article 217." We believe, however, that even in the absence of E. O. No. 111, Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over money claims, effective under P.D. No. 850, issued on December 16, 1975, which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system. To clarify matters, it is necessary to enumerate a series of rules and provisions of law on the disposition of labor standards cases. Prior to the promulgation of PD 850, labor standards cases were an exclusive function of labor arbiters, under Article 216 of the then Labor Code (PD No. 442, as amended by PD 570-a), which read in part: Art. 216. Jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Labor Arbiters and compulsory arbitrators. The Labor Arbiters shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers whether agricultural or non-agricultural. xxx xxx xxx (c) All money claims of workers, involving non-payment or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation, separation pay, maternity leave and other money claims arising from employee-employer relations, except claims for workmen's compensation, social security and medicare benefits; (d) Violations of labor standard laws; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) The Regional Director exercised visitorial rights only under then Article 127 of the Code as follows: ART. 127. Visitorial Powers. The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives, including, but not restricted, to the labor inspectorate, shall have access to employers' records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or in aid in the enforcement of this Title and of any Wage Order or regulation issued pursuant to this Code. With the promulgation of PD 850, Regional Directors were given enforcement powers, in addition to visitorial powers. Article 127, as amended, provided in part: SEC. 10. Article 127 of the Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Art. 127. Visitorial and enforcement powers.

xxx xxx xxx (b) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code based on the findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their order. xxx xxx xxx Labor Arbiters, on the other hand, lost jurisdiction over labor standards cases. Article 216, as then amended by PD 850, provided in part: SEC. 22. Article 216 of the Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Art. 216. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: xxx xxx xxx (3) All money claims of workers involving non-payment or underpayment of wages, overtime or premium compensation, maternity or service incentive leave, separation pay and other money claims arising from employer-employee relations, except claims for employee's compensation, social security and medicare benefits and as otherwise provided in Article 127 of this Code. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) Under the then Labor Code therefore (PD 442 as amended by PD 570-a, as further amended by PD 850), there were three adjudicatory units: The Regional Director, the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Arbiter. It became necessary to clarify and consolidate all governing provisions on jurisdiction into one document. 2 On April 23, 1976, MOLE Policy Instructions No. 6 was issued, and provides in part (on labor standards cases) as follows: POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. 6 TO: All Concerned SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION OVER LABOR CASES xxx xxx xxx 1. The following cases are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Director. a) Labor standards cases arising from violations of labor standard laws discovered in the course of inspection or complaints where employer-employee relations still exist; xxx xxx xxx 2. The following cases are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Conciliation Section of the Regional Office: a) Labor standards cases where employer-employee relations no longer exist; xxx xxx xxx 6. The following cases are certifiable to the Labor Arbiters: a) Cases not settled by the Conciliation Section of the Regional Office, namely: 1) labor standard cases where employer-employee relations no longer exist; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

MOLE Policy Instructions No. 7 (undated) was likewise subsequently issued, enunciating the rationale for, and the scope of, the enforcement power of the Regional Director, the first and second paragraphs of which provide as follows: POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. 7 TO: All Regional Directors SUBJECT: LABOR STANDARDS CASES Under PD 850, labor standards cases have been taken from the arbitration system and placed under the enforcement system, except where a) questions of law are involved as determined by the Regional Director, b) the amount involved exceeds P100,000.00 or over 40% of the equity of the employer, whichever is lower, c) the case requires evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified in the normal course of inspection, or d) there is no more employer-employee relationship. The purpose is clear: to assure the worker the rights and benefits due to him under labor standards laws without having to go through arbitration. The worker need not litigate to get what legally belongs to him. The whole enforcement machinery of the Department of Labor exists to insure its expeditious delivery to him free of charge. (Emphasis supplied) Under the foregoing, a complaining employee who was denied his rights and benefits due him under labor standards law need not litigate. The Regional Director, by virtue of his enforcement power, assured "expeditious delivery to him of his rights and benefits free of charge", provided of course, he was still in the employ of the firm. After PD 850, Article 216 underwent a series of amendments (aside from being re-numbered as Article 217) and with it a corresponding change in the jurisdiction of, and supervision over, the Labor Arbiters: 1. PD 1367 (5-1-78) gave Labor Arbiters exclusive jurisdiction over unresolved issues in collective bargaining, etc., and those cases arising from employer-employee relations duly indorsed by the Regional Directors. (It also removed his jurisdiction over moral or other damages) In other words, the Labor Arbiter entertained cases certified to him. (Article 228, 1978 Labor Code.) 2. PD 1391 (5-29-78) all regional units of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) were integrated into the Regional Offices Proper of the Ministry of Labor; effectively transferring direct administrative control and supervision over the Arbitration Branch to the Director of the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor. "Conciliable cases" which were thus previously under the jurisdiction of the defunct Conciliation Section of the Regional Office for purposes of conciliation or amicable settlement, became immediately assignable to the Arbitration Branch for joint conciliation and compulsory arbitration. In addition, the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction even over termination and labor-standards cases that may be assigned to them for compulsory arbitration by the Director of the Regional Office. PD 1391 merged conciliation and compulsory arbitration functions in the person of the Labor Arbiter. The procedure governing the disposition of cases at the Arbitration Branch paralleled those in the Special Task Force and Field Services Division, with one major exception: the Labor Arbiter exercised full and untrammelled authority in the disposition of the case, particularly in the substantive aspect, his decisions and orders subject to review only on appeal to the NLRC. 3 3. MOLE Policy Instructions No. 37 Because of the seemingly overlapping functions as a result of PD 1391, MOLE Policy Instructions No. 37 was issued on October 7, 1978, and provided in part: POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. 37 TO: All Concerned SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO LABOR ARBITERS Pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1391 and to insure speedy disposition of labor cases, the following guidelines are hereby established for the information and guidance of all concerned. 1. Conciliable Cases. Cases which are conciliable per se i.e., (a) labor standards cases where employer-employee relationship no longer exists; (b) cases involving deadlock in collective bargaining, except those falling under P.D. 823, as amended; (c) unfair labor practice cases; and (d) overseas employment cases, except those involving overseas seamen, shall be assigned by the Regional Director to the Labor Arbiter for conciliation and arbitration without coursing them through the conciliation section of the Regional Office. 2. Labor Standards Cases.

Cases involving violation of labor standards laws where employer- employee relationship still exists shall be assigned to the Labor Arbiters where: a) intricate questions of law are involved; or b) evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified in the normal course of inspection by labor regulations officers are required for their proper disposition. 3. Disposition of Cases. When a case is assigned to a Labor Arbiter, all issues raised therein shall be resolved by him including those which are originally cognizable by the Regional Director to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In other words, the whole case, and not merely issues involved therein, shall be assigned to and resolved by him. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) 4. PD 1691(5-1-80) original and exclusive jurisdiction over unresolved issues in collective bargaining and money claims, which includes moral or other damages. Despite the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters over money claims, however, the Regional Director nonetheless retained his enforcement power, and remained empowered to adjudicate uncontested money claims. 5. BP 130 (8-21-8l) strengthened voluntary arbitration. The decree also returned the Labor Arbiters as part of the NLRC, operating as Arbitration Branch thereof. 6. BP 227(6-1- 82) original and exclusive jurisdiction over questions involving legality of strikes and lock-outs. The present petition questions the authority of the Regional Director to issue the Order, dated August 4, 1986, on the basis of his visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 (formerly Article 127) of the present Labor Code. It is contended that based on the rulings in the Ong vs. Parel (supra) and the Zambales Base Metals, Inc. vs. The Minister of Labor (supra) cases, a Regional Director is precluded from adjudicating money claims on the ground that this is an exclusive function of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the present Code. On August 4, 1986, when the order was issued, Article 128(b) 4 read as follows: (b) The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code based on the findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their order, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, Article 217 of the Labor Code as amended by P.D. 1691, effective May 1, 1980; Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, effective August 21, 1981; and Batas Pambansa Blg. 227, effective June 1, 1982, inter alia, provides: ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-payment or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation, separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement, except claims for employees' compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits; 4. Cases involving household services; and 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lock-outs. (Emphasis supplied)

The Ong and Zambales cases involved workers who were still connected with the company. However, in the Ong case, the employer disputed the adequacy of the evidentiary foundation (employees' affidavits) of the findings of the labor standards inspectors while in the Zambales case, the money claims which arose from alleged violations of labor standards provisions were not discovered in the course of normal inspection. Thus, the provisions of MOLE Policy Instructions Nos. 6, (Distribution of Jurisdiction Over Labor Cases) and 37 (Assignment of Cases to Labor Arbiters) giving Regional Directors adjudicatory powers over uncontested money claims discovered in the course of normal inspection, provided an employer-employee relationship still exists, are inapplicable. In the present case, petitioner admitted the charge of underpayment of wages to workers still in its employ; in fact, it pleaded for time to raise funds to satisfy its obligation. There was thus no contest against the findings of the labor inspectors. Barely less than a month after the promulgation on November 26, 1986 of the Zambales Base Metals case, Executive Order No. 111 was issued on December 24, 1986, 5 amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, to read as follows: (b) THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 217 OF THIS CODE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING AND IN CASES WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEREMPLOYEE STILL EXISTS, the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code AND OTHER LABOR LEGISLATION based on the findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. (Emphasis supplied) As seen from the foregoing, EO 111 authorizes a Regional Director to order compliance by an employer with labor standards provisions of the Labor Code and other legislation. It is Our considered opinion however, that the inclusion of the phrase, " The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists" ... in Article 128(b), as amended, above-cited, merely confirms/reiterates the enforcement adjudication authority of the Regional Director over uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. 6 Viewed in the light of PD 850 and read in coordination with MOLE Policy Instructions Nos. 6, 7 and 37, it is clear that it has always been the intention of our labor authorities to provide our workers immediate access (when still feasible, as where an employer-employee relationship still exists) to their rights and benefits, without being inconvenienced by arbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve-wracking, but financially burdensome in the long run. Note further the second paragraph of Policy Instructions No. 7 indicating that the transfer of labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system is . . to assure the workers the rights and benefits due to him under labor standard laws, without having to go through arbitration. . . so that . . the workers would not litigate to get what legally belongs to him. .. ensuring delivery . . free of charge. Social justice legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our workers, must not be hampered in its application by long-winded arbitration and litigation. Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least inconvenience. Labor laws are meant to promote, not defeat, social justice. This view is in consonance with the present "Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standard Cases in the Regional Offices " 7 issued by the Secretary of Labor, Franklin M. Drilon on September 16, 1987. Thus, Sections 2 and 3 of Rule II on "Money Claims Arising from Complaint Routine Inspection", provide as follows: Section 2. Complaint inspection. All such complaints shall immediately be forwarded to the Regional Director who shall refer the case to the appropriate unit in the Regional Office for assignment to a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer (LSWO) for field inspection. When the field inspection does not produce the desired results, the Regional Director shall summon the parties for summary investigation to expedite the disposition of the case. . . . Section 3. Complaints where no employer-employee relationship actually exists. Where employer-employee relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact that it has already been severed, claims for payment of monetary benefits fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. . . . (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, it is also clear that the limitation embodied in MOLE Policy Instructions No. 7 to amounts not exceeding P100,000.00 has been dispensed with, in view of the following provisions of pars. (b) and (c), Section 7 on "Restitution", the same Rules, thus: xxx xxx xxx

(b) Plant-level restitutions may be effected for money claims not exceeding Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00). ... (c) Restitutions in excess of the aforementioned amount shall be effected at the Regional Office or at the worksite subject to the prior approval of the Regional Director. which indicate the intention to empower the Regional Director to award money claims in excess of P100,000.00; provided of course the employer does not contest the findings made, based on the provisions of Section 8 thereof: Section 8. Compromise agreement. Should the parties arrive at an agreement as to the whole or part of the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced in writing and signed by the parties in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly authorized representative. E.O. No. 111 was issued on December 24, 1986 or three (3) months after the promulgation of the Secretary of Labor's decision upholding private respondents' salary differentials and ECOLAs on September 24, 1986. The amendment of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Director (Article 128-b) by said E.O. 111 reflects the intention enunciated in Policy Instructions Nos. 6 and 37 to empower the Regional Directors to resolve uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. This intention must be given weight and entitled to great respect. As held in Progressive Workers' Union, et. al. vs. F.P. Aguas, et. al. G.R. No. 59711-12, May 29, 1985, 150 SCRA 429: . . The interpretation by officers of laws which are entrusted to their administration is entitled to great respect. We see no reason to detract from this rudimentary rule in administrative law, particularly when later events have proved said interpretation to be in accord with the legislative intent. .. The proceedings before the Regional Director must, perforce, be upheld on the basis of Article 128(b) as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24, 1986, this executive order "to be considered in the nature of a curative statute with retrospective application." (Progressive Workers' Union, et al. vs. Hon. F.P. Aguas, et al. ( Supra); M. Garcia vs. Judge A. Martinez, et al., G.R. No. L- 47629, May 28, 1979, 90 SCRA 331). We now come to the question of whether or not the Regional Director erred in extending the award to all hospital employees. We answer in the affirmative. The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect to those employees who signed the complaint, as well as those who did not sign the complaint, but were still connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed (See Order, p. 33 dated August 4, 1986 of the Regional Director, Pedrito de Susi, p. 33, Rollo). The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is relevant to, and exercisable over establishments, not over the individual members/employees, because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the observance of, and/or compliance by, such firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations. Necessarily, in case of an award resulting from a violation of labor legislation by such establishment, the entire members/employees should benefit therefrom. As aptly stated by then Minister of Labor Augusto S. Sanchez: . . It would be highly derogatory to the rights of the workers, if after categorically finding the respondent hospital guilty of underpayment of wages and ECOLAs, we limit the award to only those who signed the complaint to the exclusion of the majority of the workers who are similarly situated. Indeed, this would be not only render the enforcement power of the Minister of Labor and Employment nugatory, but would be the pinnacle of injustice considering that it would not only discriminate but also deprive them of legislated benefits. . . . (pp. 38-39, Rollo). This view is further bolstered by the provisions of Sec. 6, Rule II of the "Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards cases in the Regional Offices" (supra) presently enforced, viz: SECTION 6. Coverage of complaint inspection. A complaint inspection shall not be limited to the specific allegations or violations raised by the complainants/workers but shall be a thorough inquiry into and verification of the compliance by employer with existing labor standards and shall cover all workers similarly situated. (Emphasis supplied) However, there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were no longer connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed, having resigned therefrom in 1984, viz: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Jean (Joan) Venzon (See Order, p. 33, Rollo) Rosario Paclijan Adela Peralta Mauricio Nagales Consesa Bautista Teresita Agcopra Felix Monleon Teresita Salvador Edgar Cataluna; and

10. Raymond Manija ( p.7, Rollo) The enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot legally be upheld in cases of separated employees. Article 129 of the Labor Code, cited by petitioner (p. 54, Rollo) is not applicable as said article is in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director; hence, not applicable where the employee seeking to be paid underpayment of wages is already separated from the service. His claim is purely a money claim that has to be the subject of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner has likewise questioned the order dated August 4, 1986 of the Regional Director in that it does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which the award is based. We invite attention to the Minister of Labor's ruling thereon, as follows: Finally, the respondent hospital assails the order under appeal as null and void because it does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which the awards were based. Contrary to the pretensions of the respondent hospital, we have carefully reviewed the order on appeal and we found that the same contains a brief statement of the (a) facts of the case; (b) issues involved; (c) applicable laws; (d) conclusions and the reasons therefor; (e) specific remedy granted (amount awarded). (p. 40, Rollo) ACCORDINGLY, this petition should be dismissed, as it is hereby DISMISSED, as regards all persons still employed in the Hospital at the time of the filing of the complaint, but GRANTED as regards those employees no longer employed at that time. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-68147 June 30, 1988 AMADA RANCE, MERCEDES LACUESTA, MELBA GUTIERREZ, ESTER FELONGCO, CATALINO ARAGONES, CONSOLACION DE LA ROSA, AMANCIA GAY, EDUARDO MENDOZA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, POLYBAG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, VIRGINIA MALLARI, JOHNNY LEE, ROMAS VILLAMIN, POLYBAG WORKERS UNION, PONCIANO FERNANDEZ, AND ANTONIO ANTIQUERA, respondents. PARAS, J.: A review of the records shows that a Collective Bargaining Agreement was entered into on April 30, 1981 by and between respondents Polybag Manufacturing Corporation and Polybag Workers Union which provides among others: ARTICLE V UNION SECURITY Any employee within the bargaining agreement who is a member of the union at the time of the effectivity of this agreement or becomes a member of the UNION thereafter, shall during the term thereof or any extention, continue to be a member in good standing of the UNION as a condition of continued employment in the COMPANY. Any employee hired during the effectivity of this agreement shall, within 30 days after becoming regular join the UNION and continue to be a member in good standing thereof as a condition of continued employment in the COMPANY. On the basis of a board resolution of the UNION, the COMPANY shall dismiss from the service any member of the UNION who loses his membership in good standing either by resignation therefrom or expulsion therefrom for any of the following causes: 1. Disloyalty to the UNION; 2. Commission of acts inimical to the interest of the UNION; 3. Failure and refusal to pay UNION dues and other assessments; 4. Conviction for any offense or crime; or 5. Organizing and/or joining another labor organization claiming jurisdiction similar to that of the UNION.

Provided, however, that in case expulsion proceedings are instituted against any member of the UNION, pending such proceedings, the COMPANY, on the basis of a board resolution of the UNION, shall suspend the member concerned; and provided further, that the UNION, jointly and severally with the officers and members of the board voting for the dismissal or suspension, shall hold and render the COMPANY, its executive, owners, and officers free from any and all claims and liabilities. (Rollo, p. 64). Petitioners herein were among the members of the respondent union who were expelled by the latter for disloyalty in that they allegedly joined the NAFLU a large federation. Because of the expulsion, petitioners were dismissed by respondent Corporation. Petitioners sued for reinstatement and backwages stating their dismissal was without due process. Losing both in the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), they elevated their cause to the Supreme Court. Respondent Polybag Workers Union as already stated expelled 125 members on the ground of disloyalty and acts inimical to the interests of the Union (Resolution No. 84, series of 1982, Rollo, p. 16) based on the findings and recommendations of the panel of investigators. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the "Union Security Clause" valid and considered the termination of the petitioners justified thereunder, for having committed an act of disloyalty to the Polybag Workers Union by having affiliated with and having joined the NAFLU, another labor union claiming jurisdiction similar to the former, while still members of respondent union (Rollo, pp. 45-46). Among the disputed portions of the NLRC decision is its finding that it has been substantially proven that the petitioners committed acts of disloyalty to their union as a consequence of the filing by NAFLU for and in their behalf of the complaint in question (Rollo, p. 46). Petitioners insist that their expulsion from the Union and consequent dismissal from employment have no basis whether factual or legal, because they did not in fact affiliate themselves with another Union, the NAFLU. On the contrary, they claim that there is a connivance between respondents Company and Union in their illegal dismissal in order to avoid the payment of separation pay by respondent company. Petitioners' contention that they did not authorize NAFLU to file NLRC-AB Case No. 6-4275-82 for them is borne out by the records which show that they did not sign the complaint, neither did they sign any document of membership application with NAFLU (Rollo, p. 323). Significantly, none of private respondents was able to present any evidence to the contrary except for one employee who admitted having authorized NAFLU to file the complaint but only for the purpose of questioning the funds of the Union (Rollo, p. 216). Placed in proper perspective, the mere act of seeking help from the NAFLU cannot constitute disloyalty as contemplated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. At most it was an act of self-preservation of workers who, driven to desperation found shelter in the NAFLU who took the cudgels for them. It will be recalled that 460 employees were temporarily laid off; some were laid-off as early as March 22, 1982 although the actual official announcement and notice of the intended shutdown was made only on May 27, 1982 (Rollo, p. 151). The laid-off employees did not receive any separation pay because as alleged by respondent company their dismissal was due to serious business reverses suffered by it. The only aid offered by the company which was offered when the disgruntled employees began to discuss among themselves their plight, was a 1/2 sack of rice monthly and P 50.00 weekly. Most of the employees did not avail themselves of the aid as those who did were allegedly made to sign blank papers. To aggravate matters, petitioners complained that their pleas for their union officers to fight for their right to reinstatement, fell on deaf ears. Their union leaders continued working and were not among those laid-off, which explains the lack of positive action on the part of the latter to help or even sympathize with the plight of the members. All they could offer was a statement "marunong pa kayo sa may-ari ng kumpanya" ("you know more than the company owners") (Rollo, p. 80). Under the circumutances, petitioners cannot be blamed for seeking help wherever it could be found. In fact even assuming that petitioners did authorize NAFLU to file the action for them, it would have been pointless because NAFLU cannot file an action for members of another union. The proper remedy would be to drop the union as party to the action and place the names of the employees instead (Lakas v. Marcelo Enterprises, 118 SCRA 422 [1982]) as what appears to have been done in this case before the Court. Petitioners claim that the NLRC erred in ruling that the expulsion proceeding conducted by the Union was in accordance with its by-laws. Respondent Union had notified and summoned herein petitioners to appear and explain why they should not be expelled from the union for having joined and affiliated with NAFLU. Petitioners contend that the requisites of due process were not complied with in that, there was no impartial tribunal or union body vested with authority to conduct the disciplinary proceeding under the union constitution and by-laws, and, that complainants were not furnished notice of the charge against them, nor timely notices of the hearings on the same (Rollo, p. 48). According to the minutes of the special meeting of the Board of Directors of respondent Union held on September 14, 1982, the Chairman of the Board of Directors showed the members of the board, copies of the minutes of the investigation proceedings of each individual member, together with a consolidated list of Union members found guilty as charged and recommended for expulsion as members of the respondent Union. The Board members examined the minutes and the list (Rollo, p. 219). It is to be noted, however, that only two (2) of the expelled petitioners appeared before the investigation panel (Rollo, pp. 203, 235). Most of the petitioners boycotted the investigation proceedings. They alleged that most of them did not receive the notice of summons from respondent Union because they were in the provinces. This fact was not disproved by private respondents who were able to present only a sample copy of proof of service, Annex "14" (Rollo, p. 215). Petitioners further claim that they had no Idea that they were charged with disloyalty; those who came were not only threatened with persecution but also made to write the answers to questions as dictated to them by the Union and company representatives. These untoward incidents prompted petitioners to request for a general investigation with all the petitioners present but their request was ignored by the panel of investigators (Rollo, pp. 280, 307). Again, these allegations were not denied by private respondents.

In any event, even if petitioners who were complainants in NLRC-AB Case No. 6-4275-82 appeared in the supposed investigation proceedings to answer the charge of disloyalty against them, it could not have altered the fact that the proceedings were violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play. The Board of Directors of respondent union would have acted as prosecutor, investigator and judge at the same time. The proceeding would have been a farce under the circumstances (Lit Employees Association v. Court of Industrial Relations, 116 SCRA 459 [1982] citing Kapisanan ng Mga Manggagawa sa MRR v. Rafael Hernandez, 20 SCRA 109). The filing of the charge of disloyalty against petitioners was instigated by the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Acting Union President, Ponciano Fernandez, in the special meeting of the members of the Board of Directors as convened by the Union President on August 16, 1982 (Rollo, p. 213). The Panel of Investigators created under the Board's Resolution No. 83, s. 1982 was composed of the Chairman of the Board, Ponciano Fernandez, and two (2) members of the Board, Samson Yap and Carmen Garcia (Rollo, p. 214). It is the same Board that expelled its 125 members in its Resolution No. 84, s. of 1982 (Rollo, p. 219). All told, it is obvious, that in the absence of any full blown investigation of the expelled members of the Union by an impartial body, there is no basis for respondent Union's accusations. It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure" (Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution, Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his job. Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed security of tenure as meaning that "the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by" the code (Bundoc v. People's Bank and Trust Company, 103 SCRA 599 [1981]). Dismissal is not justified for being arbitrary where the workers were denied due process (Reyes v. Philippine Duplicators, Inc., 109 SCRA 489 [1981] and a clear denial of due process, or constitutional right must be safeguarded against at all times, (De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 100 SCRA 691 [1980]). This is especially true in the case at bar where there were 125 workers mostly heads or sole breadwinners of their respective families. Time and again, this Court has reminded employers that while the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer, the same is not without limitations. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as in the instant case. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. Employers should, therefore, respect and protect the rights of their employees, which include the right to labor (Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., 90 SCRA 393 [1979], Resolution). In the case at bar, the scandalous haste with which respondent corporation dismissed 125 employees lends credence to the claim that there was connivance between respondent corporation and respondent Union. It is evident that private respondents were in bad faith in dismissing petitioners. They, the private respondents, are guilty of unfair labor practice. PREMISES CONSIDERED, (1) the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR-11-6881-82 dated April 26, 1984 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and (2) respondent corporation is ordered: (1) to reinstate petitioners to their former positions without reduction in rank, seniority and salary; (b) to pay petitioners three-year backwages, without any reduction or qualification, jointly and solidarily with respondent Union; and (c) to pay petitioners exemplary damages of P500.00 each. Where reinstatement is no longer feasible, respondent corporation and respondent union are solidarily ordered to pay, considering their length of service their corresponding separation pay and other benefits to which they are entitled under the law. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-43835 March 31, 1981 DOMINGO F. BONDOC, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE'S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS (Surviving Bank) and JACOBO C. CLAVE (as Presidential Executive Assitant), respondents.

AQUINO, J.: This certiorari case involves the issue of whether respondent Presidential Executive Assistant committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in confirming the abolition of petitioner's position as a department manager in a bank and the payment to him of separation pay instead of reinstating him with backwages. Domingo F. Bondoc, who used to be an assistant of Jaime C. Velazquez in the Ayala Secutrities Corporation (p. 116, Rollo), joined the People's Bank and Trust Company on October 1, 1966 upon the recommendation of Velazquez, a director, to Roman Azanza, the bank president (p. 35, Rollo). He replaced Ariston Estrada, Jr. (p. 37, Rollo). Bondoc was chosen by the bank's board of directors on February 21, 1967 as the first manager of the bank's department of economic research and statistics which was organized in January, 1967 (Exh. 4 and 5).

That department had only four employees: a stenographer and three clerks who were formerly employed in the comtroller's office, accounting department and office of the corporate secretary (p. 117-118, Rollo). Every year, from 1968 to 1973, Bondoc was elected to the position of department manager and assistant vice-president by the bank's board of directors at its annual organizational meeting (Exh. 1-B to 1-F). On May 15, 1973, Bondoc reported in writing to Manuel Chuidian, a bank director, certain anomalies committed by the officers of the bank. The Central Bank found that some officers of the bank utilized its found for their own interests. Because of those anomalies, the Monetary Board suspendedBenito R. Araneta, a director and vice-president, and reprimanded the other officers involved, namely, Severino Coronacion, Nicanor O. Corpus, Guillermo D. Teodoro, Feldres G. San Pedro, Carlos Villaluz, Godofredo Galindez, Fernando Macalanlayand Manuel P. Elepao (pp. 6-8 Rollo). On September 19, 1973, the board of directors of the People's Bank, in the course of its deliberation on the bank's projected merger with the Bank of the Philippine islands, resolved to abolish itts department of economic research and statistics which, as already noted, was headed by Bondoc (p. 35, Rollo). The board regarded the said department as a rededant unit whose functions could be performed by other departments. The Bank of P.I., like twenty-three other commercial banks, has no such department (p. 117, Rollo). Bondoc's four subordinates were absorbed by the accounting department. Bondoc was advised of the abolition ofhis department in the later part of September, 1973. He asked the personnel manager to compute his separations pay. Bondoc was told that his separation pay was equivalent to seventy-five percent of his salary for every year of service. It amounted to P10,481.33 under its car finacing plan. (p. 118, Rollo). Bondoc allegedly told the personnel manager that he would use his separation pay to liquidate his debt and issue a check for P3,012.08 to cover the balance of his debt. He requested the personnel manager to expedite the preparation of the bill of sale for the Toyota car so that he could get the document on the following day. But he did not show up that day (p. 118, Rollo). It is relevant to state that the merger of the two banks was effected in accompliance with the Central Bank's requirement that commercial banks should increase their capital stock to a minimum of one hundred million pesos through mergers and consolidations or other lawful means. The merger was approved by the Monetary Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The merger agreement was signed in January, 1974. It was consummated on June 1, 1974. On November 2, 1973, the People's Bank, pursuant to section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 21 (creating the ad hoc National Labor Relations Commission), applied with the Secretary of Labor for clearnce to terminate Bondoc's services effective on November 5 (p. 35, Rollo). He lost no time in filing with the NLRC his opposition to the termination his services. He alleged in his opposition that he was dismissed without cause (p. 114, Rollo). As all efforts for the amicable settlement of the case were fruitless, it was submitted for compulsory arbitration. During the hearing, Bondoc tried to prove that the abolition of his position was a reprisal for his aforementioned exposure of some anomalies in the bank which resulted in the suspension or reprimand by the Monetary Board of certain senior officers of the bank headed by Benito R. Araneta, a nephew of J. Antonio Araneta, the chairman of the board (p. 48, Rollo). After hearing, the NLRC arbitrator recommended to the Secretary of Labor the denial of the application to terminate Bondoc's employment and ordered the People's Bank to reinstate him with backwages from November 16, 1973 and with allowances and other benefits guaranteed by law and without loss of status and seniority rights (pp. 42-43, Rollo). On appeal, the NLRC (Commissioners Castro, Borromeo ans Seno) in its decision of January 21, 1975 reversed the decision of the arbitrartor, approved the clearance for Bondoc's dismissal and ordered the People's Bank to pay him seventy five percent (75%) of his monthly salary for every year of service in lieu of one-half month salary for every year of service fixed in the Termination Pay Law, Republic Act No. 1052, as amended by Republic Act no. 1787 (p. 45, Rollo). The NLRC adduced as reason to justify the abolition of Bondoc's position (1) the fact that his position as manager being confidential in character, the bank had the rperogative to terminate his employment anytimel (2) Bondoc's department was nolonger necessary to the efficient operation of the bank in view of the merger; (3) the management is not precluded from undertakings a reorganization or making changes to meet the demands of the present and (4) in case of mergers, departments or position may be abolished or new ones created, as the necessity for them requires (p. 4445, Rollo). Bondoc appealed tot he Secretary of Labor. That high official in the resolution of September 29, 1975 reversed the NLRC's decision on the grounds that the motivation for the termination of Bondoc's services was not taken into account by the NLRC and that the People's Bank should not have abolished Bondoc's department without prior clearance. He denied the application for clearance to dismiss Bondocs (p. 50, Rollo). He ordered the People's Bank to reinstate Bondoc to his former position or any substantially equivalent position with backwages equivalent to his salary for six months, it being undrstood that the Bank of the P.I. has assumred all the liabilities and obligations of the People's Bank. The Secretary denied the application for clearance to dismiss Bondoc. (pp. 48-50, Rollo). From the resolution, the Bank of P.I., as successor of the People's Bank, appealed tot he president of the Philippines.

One the grounds relied upon in that appeal was that Bondoc was convicted of bigamy, a crime involving moral turpitude (Criminal Case No. 7185, Manila CFI, Exh. 1). The Bank of P.I. cited Central Bank Circular No. 356, which disqualifies a person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude from becoming an officer of a bank (pp. 213-4, Rollo). In a decision dated May 17, 1976, Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave set aside the decisions of the arbitrator and the Secretary and confirmed in toto the NLRC's decision (p. Rollo). The office of the President held that under the Termination Pay Law an employment without a definite period may be terminated with or without a cause, thatthe abolition of Bondoc's position was a necesary incident of the merger of the two banks and that his services were no longer indispensable to them. hence, the clearance for his removal was authorized for his removal was authorized (pp. 52-54, Rollo). The review of the Presidential decision was sought by Bondoc in the petition which he filed in this Courton May 27, 1976. This is the fifth decision to be rendered in this case. We hold that under the peculiar or particular facts of this case the termination of bondoc's employment was lawful and justified and that no grave abuse of discretion was lawful and justified and that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction was committed by the Presidential Executive Assistant in affirming the NLRC's decision sustaining ther termination of his employment. Bondoc was not employed for a fixed period. He held his position of department manager at the pleasure of the bank's board of directors. He occupied a managerial position and his stay in therein depended on his retention of the trust and confidence of the management and whether there was any need for his services. Although some vindictive motivation might have impelled the aboliton of his position, yet, it is undeniable that the bank's board of directors possessed the power to remove him and to determine whether the interest of the bank justified the existence of his department. Under the old Termination Pay Law, it was held that in the absence of a contract of employment for a specific period the employer has the right to dismiss his employees at anytime with or without just cause (De Dios vs. Bristol Laboratories (Phils.), Inc., L-25530, January 29, 1974, 55 SCRA 349, 358; Jaguar Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Cornista, L-32959, May 11, 1978, 83 SCRA 77). It may be noted that under Policy Instructions No. 8 of the Secretary of Labor "the employer is not required to obtain a previous written clearnace to terminate managerial employees in order to enable him to manage effectively". (SEe Associated Citizens Bank vs. Ople, L-48896, February 24, 1981.) The petitioner invokes the policy of the State to assure the right of "workers" to security of tenure (Sec. 9, Art. II, Constitution). That guarantee is an act of social justice. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary and unjust deprivation of his job. Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed security of tenure as referring to regular employment and as meaning that "the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by" the Code. As already noted above, the facts of this case do not warrant the conclusion that Bondoc's right to security of tenure was oppressively abridged. He knew all along that his tenure as a department manager rested in the discretion of the bank's board of directors and that at anytime his services might be dispensed with or his position might be abolished. On equitable considerations, we hold that Bondoc should be paid as separation pay his salary and allowances, if any, for seven months. WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Presidential Executive Assistant is affirmed with the modification that the Bank of the P.I. should pay to the petitioner separation pay equivalent to his salary and allowances (if any) for seven months. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 144664

March 15, 2004

ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS, Thirteenth Division, HON. FROILAN M. BACUNGAN as Voluntary Arbitrator, KISHIN A. LALWANI, Union, Union representative to the Panel Arbitrators; BISIG NG ASIAN TRANSMISSION LABOR UNION (BATLU); HON. BIENVENIDO T. LAGUESMA in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment; and DIRECTOR CHITA G. CILINDRO in her capacity as Director of Bureau of Working Conditions, respondents. DECISION

CARPIO-MORALES, J.: Petitioner, Asian Transmission Corporation, seeks via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1995 Rules of Civil Procedure the nullification of the March 28, 2000 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals denying its petition to annul 1) the March 11, 1993 "Explanatory Bulletin" 2 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) entitled "Workers Entitlement to Holiday Pay on April 9, 1993, Araw ng Kagitingan and Good Friday", which bulletin the DOLE reproduced on January 23, 1998, 2) the July 31, 1998 Decision 3 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruling that the said explanatory bulletin applied as well to April 9, 1998, and 3) the September 18, 1998 4 Resolution of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitration denying its Motion for Reconsideration. The following facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are undisputed: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11, 1993 wherein it clarified, inter alia, that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked, which[,] apart from being Good Friday [ and, therefore, a legal holiday], is also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday]. The bulletin reads: "On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9, 1993 which apart from being Good Friday is also Araw ng Kagitingan, i.e., two regular holidays falling on the same day, this Department is of the view that the covered employees are entitled to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic wage even if said holiday is unworked. The first 100% represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9, 1993 as Good Friday and the second 100% is the payment of holiday pay for the same date as Araw ng Kagitingan. Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan x x x x Despite the explanatory bulletin, petitioner [Asian Transmission Corporation] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existing between petitioner and BATLU, the controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration. x x x x On July 31, 1998, the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay its covered employees "200% and not just 100% of their regular daily wages for the unworked April 9, 1998 which covers two regular holidays, namely, Araw ng Kagitignan and Maundy Thursday." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the Labor Code which reads: ART. 94. Right to holiday pay. - (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and (c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes: New Years Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding a general election, which was amended by Executive Order No. 203 issued on June 30, 1987, such that the regular holidays are now: 1. New Years Day January 1 2. Maundy Thursday Movable Date 3. Good Friday Movable Date 4. Araw ng Kagitingan April 9 (Bataan and Corregidor Day) 5. Labor Day May 1 6. Independence Day June 12 7. National Heroes Day Last Sunday of August 8. Bonifacio Day November 30 9. Christmas Day December 25 10. Rizal Day December 30 In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU), the Voluntary Arbitrator held that Article 94 of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday, the computation of which is determined by a legal formula which is not changed by the fact

that there are two holidays falling on one day, like on April 9, 1998 when it was Araw ng Kagitingan and at the same time was Maundy Thursday; and that that the law, as amended, enumerates ten regular holidays for every year should not be interpreted as authorizing a reduction to nine the number of paid regular holidays "just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain years, like 1993 and 1998, is also Holy Friday or Maundy Thursday." In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and BATLU, the law governing the relations between them, clearly recognizes their intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday, on whatever date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid legal holidays during the effectivity of the CBA and that "[t]here is no condition, qualification or exception for any variance from the clear intent that all holidays shall be compensated."5 The Court of Appeals further held that "in the absence of an explicit provision in law which provides for [a] reduction of holiday pay if two holidays happen to fall on the same day, any doubt in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code provisions on holiday pay must be resolved in favor of labor." By the present petition, petitioners raise the following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETING THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN PLACE OF THE AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES THEMSELVES II WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE POLICIES ENUNCIATED IN THE EXPLANATORY BULLETIN WAS LAID TO REST BY THE REISSUANCE OF THE SAID EXPLANATORY BULLETIN III WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE EXPLANATORY BULLETIN EVEN WHILE ADMITTING THAT THE SAID BULLEITN WAS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL, OR ONE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT [Department of Labor and Employment] DOLE MAY PROMULGATE IV WHETHER OR NOT THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) BY ISSUING EXPLANATORY BULLETIN DATED MARCH 11, 1993, IN THE GUISE OF PROVIDING GUIDELINES ON ART. 94 OF THE LABOR CODE, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AS IT LEGISLATED AND INTERPRETED LEGAL PROVISIONS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CREATE OBLIGATIONS WHERE NONE ARE INTENDED BY THE LAW V WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN REITERATING ITS EXPLANATORY BULLETIN DATED MARCH 11, 1993 AND IN ORDERING THAT THE SAME POLICY OBTAINED FOR APRIL 9, 1998 DESPITE THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO THE CONTRARY VI WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ACTS WILL DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS BY THE "EXPLANATORY BULLETIN" AS WELL AS EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS The petition is devoid of merit. At the outset, it bears noting that instead of assailing the Court of Appeals Decision by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner lodged the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65. [S]ince the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition under Rule 65, any alleged errors committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction would be errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari. If the aggrieved party fails to do so within the reglementary period, and the decision accordingly becomes final and executory, he cannot avail himself of the writ of certiorari, his predicament being the effect of his deliberate inaction. The appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, now Rule 45 and Rule 65, respectively, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 is clear that the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this

Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Under Rule 45 the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration. xxx For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a petitioner must show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.6 The records of the case show that following petitioners receipt on August 18, 2000 of a copy of the August 10, 2000 Resoluti on of the Court of Appeals denying its Motion for Reconsideration, it filed the present petition for certiorari on September 15, 2000, at which time the Court of Appeals decision had become final and executory, the 15-day period to appeal it under Rule 45 having expired. Technicality aside, this Court finds no ground to disturb the assailed decision. Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor.7 Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay." 8 It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance. Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9), National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), Bonifacio Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people, promote national identity, and deepen the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the working class to the development of the nation, while the religious holidays designated in Executive Order No. 203 allow the worker to celebrate his faith with his family. As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays.9 The provision is mandatory,10 regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. 11 Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative,12 holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. It is elementary, under the rules of statutory construction, that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says.13 In the case at bar, there is nothing in the law which provides or indicates that the entitlement to ten days of holiday pay shall be reduced to nine when two holidays fall on the same day. Petitioners assertion that Wellington v. Trajano14 has "overruled" the DOLE March 11, 1993 Explanatory Bulletin does not lie. In Wellington, the issue was whether monthly-paid employees are entitled to an additional days pay if a holiday falls on a Sunday. This Court, in answering the issue in the negative, observed that in fixing the monthly salary of its employees, Wellington took into account "every working day of the year including the holidays specified by law and excluding only Sunday." In the instant case, the issue is whether daily-paid employees are entitled to be paid for two regular holidays which fall on the same day. 15 In any event, Art. 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. For the working mans welfare should be the primordi al and paramount consideration.16 Moreover, Sec. 11, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides that "Nothing in the law or the rules shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any benefits, supplements or payments for unworked regular holidays as provided in existing individual or collective agreement or employer practice or policy."17 From the pertinent provisions of the CBA entered into by the parties, petitioner had obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as required by law. Thus, the 1997-1998 CBA incorporates the following provision: ARTICLE XIV PAID LEGAL HOLIDAYS The following legal holidays shall be paid by the COMPANY as required by law: 1. New Years Day (January 1st) 2. Holy Thursday (moveable) 3. Good Friday (moveable) 4. Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9th) 5. Labor Day (May 1st)

6. Independence Day (June 12th) 7. Bonifacio Day [November 30] 8. Christmas Day (December 25th) 9. Rizal Day (December 30th) 10. General Election designated by law, if declared public non-working holiday 11. National Heroes Day (Last Sunday of August) Only an employee who works on the day immediately preceding or after a regular holiday shall be entitled to the holiday pay. A paid legal holiday occurring during the scheduled vacation leave will result in holiday payment in addition to normal vacation pay but will not entitle the employee to another vacation leave. Under similar circumstances, the COMPANY will give a days wage for November 1st and December 31st whenever declared a holida y. When required to work on said days, the employee will be paid according to Art. VI, Sec. 3B hereof. 18 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984 INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES' UNION (IBAAEU), petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, respondents. Sisenando R. Villaluz, Jr. for petitioner. Abdulmaid Kiram Muin colloborating counsel for petitioner. The Solicitor General Caparas, Tabios, Ilagan Alcantara & Gatmaytan Law Office and Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez Law Office for respondents. MAKASIAR, J.:+.wph!1 This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order dated November 10, 1979, of respondent Deputy Minister of Labor, Amado G. Inciong, in NLRC case No. RB-IV-1561-76 entitled "Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (complainant-appellee), vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America" (respondent-appellant), the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be, as it is hereby, set aside and a new judgment. promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. 109 rec.). The antecedent facts culled from the records are as follows: On June 20, 1975, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Office No. IV in Manila. Conciliation having failed, and upon the request of both parties, the case was certified for arbitration on July 7, 1975 (p. 18, NLRC rec. On August 25, 1975, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered a decision in the above-entitled case, granting petitioner's complaint for payment of holiday pay. Pertinent portions of the decision read: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx

The records disclosed that employees of respondent bank were not paid their wages on unworked regular holidays as mandated by the Code, particularly Article 208, to wit: t.hqw Art. 208. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers. (b) The term "holiday" as used in this chapter, shall include: New Year's Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and the thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding a general election. xxx xxx xxx This conclusion is deduced from the fact that the daily rate of pay of the bank employees was computed in the past with the unworked regular holidays as excluded for purposes of determining the deductible amount for absences incurred Thus, if the employer uses the factor 303 days as a divisor in determining the daily rate of monthly paid employee, this gives rise to a presumption that the monthly rate does not include payments for unworked regular holidays. The use of the factor 303 indicates the number of ordinary working days in a year (which normally has 365 calendar days), excluding the 52 Sundays and the 10 regular holidays. The use of 251 as a factor (365 calendar days less 52 Saturdays, 52 Sundays, and 10 regular holidays) gives rise likewise to the same presumption that the unworked Saturdays, Sundays and regular holidays are unpaid. This being the case, it is not amiss to state with certainty that the instant claim for wages on regular unworked holidays is found to be tenable and meritorious. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (a) xxx xxxx xxx (b) Ordering respondent to pay wages to all its employees for all regular h(olidays since November 1, 1974 (pp. 97-99, rec., underscoring supplied). Respondent bank did not appeal from the said decision. Instead, it complied with the order of Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano by paying their holiday pay up to and including January, 1976. On December 16, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 850 was promulgated amending, among others, the provisions of the Labor Code on the right to holiday pay to read as follows: t.hqw Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wages during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate and (c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes New Year's Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and the thirtieth of December, and the day designated by law for holding a general election. Accordingly, on February 16, 1976, by authority of Article 5 of the same Code, the Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor) promulgated the rules and regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay. The controversial section thereof reads: t.hqw Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve" (italics supplied). On April 23, 1976, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by the then Secretary of Labor (now Minister) interpreting the above-quoted rule, pertinent portions of which read: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily employees. In the case of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are entitled to the benefit. Under the rules implementing P.D. 850, this policy has been fully clarified to eliminate controversies on the entitlement of monthly paid employees, The new determining rule is this: If the monthly paid employee is receiving not less than P240, the

maximum monthly minimum wage, and his monthly pay is uniform from January to December, he is presumed to be already paid the ten (10) paid legal holidays. However, if deductions are made from his monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur, then he is still entitled to the ten (10) paid legal holidays. ..." (emphasis supplied). Respondent bank, by reason of the ruling laid down by the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor Code and by Policy Instruction No. 9, stopped the payment of holiday pay to an its employees. On August 30, 1976, petitioner filed a motion for a writ of execution to enforce the arbiter's decision of August 25, 1975, whereby the respondent bank was ordered to pay its employees their daily wage for the unworked regular holidays. On September 10, 1975, respondent bank filed an opposition to the motion for a writ of execution alleging, among others, that: (a) its refusal to pay the corresponding unworked holiday pay in accordance with the award of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated August 25, 1975, is based on and justified by Policy Instruction No. 9 which interpreted the rules implementing P. D. 850; and (b) that the said award is already repealed by P.D. 850 which took effect on December 16, 1975, and by said Policy Instruction No. 9 of the Department of Labor, considering that its monthly paid employees are not receiving less than P240.00 and their monthly pay is uniform from January to December, and that no deductions are made from the monthly salaries of its employees on account of holidays in months where they occur (pp. 64-65, NLRC rec.). On October 18, 1976, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano, instead of issuing a writ of execution, issued an order enjoining the respondent bank to continue paying its employees their regular holiday pay on the following grounds: (a) that the judgment is already final and the findings which is found in the body of the decision as well as the dispositive portion thereof is res judicata or is the law of the case between the parties; and (b) that since the decision had been partially implemented by the respondent bank, appeal from the said decision is no longer available (pp. 100-103, rec.). On November 17, 1976, respondent bank appealed from the above-cited order of Labor Arbiter Soriano to the National Labor Relations Commission, reiterating therein its contentions averred in its opposition to the motion for writ of execution. Respondent bank further alleged for the first time that the questioned order is not supported by evidence insofar as it finds that respondent bank discontinued payment of holiday pay beginning January, 1976 (p. 84, NLRC rec.). On June 20, 1978, the National Labor Relations Commission promulgated its resolution en banc dismissing respondent bank's appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: t.hqw In view of the foregoing, we hereby resolve to dismiss, as we hereby dismiss, respondent's appeal; to set aside Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano's order of 18 October 1976 and, as prayed for by complainant, to order the issuance of the proper writ of execution (p. 244, NLRC rec.). Copies of the above resolution were served on the petitioner only on February 9, 1979 or almost eight. (8) months after it was promulgated, while copies were served on the respondent bank on February 13, 1979. On February 21, 1979, respondent bank filed with the Office of the Minister of Labor a motion for reconsideration/appeal with urgent prayer to stay execution, alleging therein the following: (a) that there is prima facie evidence of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission, in dismissing the respondent's appeal on pure technicalities without passing upon the merits of the appeal and (b) that the resolution appealed from is contrary to the law and jurisprudence (pp. 260-274, NLRC rec.). On March 19, 1979, petitioner filed its opposition to the respondent bank's appeal and alleged the following grounds: (a) that the office of the Minister of Labor has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal pursuant to the provisions of P. D. 1391; (b) that the labor arbiter's decision being final, executory and unappealable, execution is a matter of right for the petitioner; and (c) that the decision of the labor arbiter dated August 25, 1975 is supported by the law and the evidence in the case (p. 364, NLRC rec.). On July 30, 1979, petitioner filed a second motion for execution pending appeal, praying that a writ of execution be issued by the National Labor Relations Commission pending appeal of the case with the Office of the Minister of Labor. Respondent bank filed its opposition thereto on August 8, 1979. On August 13, 1979, the National Labor Relations Commission issued an order which states: t.hqw The Chief, Research and Information Division of this Commission is hereby directed to designate a Socio-Economic Analyst to compute the holiday pay of the employees of the Insular Bank of Asia and America from April 1976 to the present, in accordance with the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated August 25, 1975" (p. 80, rec.). On November 10, 1979, the Office of the Minister of Labor, through Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong, issued an order, the dispositive portion of which states: t.hqw ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be, as it is hereby, set aside and a new judgment promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. 436, NLRC rec.). Hence, this petition for certiorari charging public respondent Amado G. Inciong with abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The issue in this case is: whether or not the decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding payment of regular holiday pay can still be set aside on appeal by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has already become final and had been partially executed, the finality of which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission sitting en banc, on the basis of an Implementing Rule and Policy Instruction promulgated by the Ministry of Labor long after the said decision had become final and executory. WE find for the petitioner. I WE agree with the petitioner's contention that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion (p. 1 1, rec.). Article 94 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 850, provides: t.hqw Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers. ... The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's holiday pay provisions is spelled out under Article 82 thereof which reads: t.hqw Art. 82. Coverage. The provision of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations . ... (emphasis supplied). From the above-cited provisions, it is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid employees from the said benefits by inserting, under Rule IV, Book Ill of the implementing rules, Section 2, which provides that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. " Public respondent maintains that "(T)he rules implementing P. D. 850 and Policy Instruction No. 9 were issued to clarify the policy in the implementation of the ten (10) paid legal holidays. As interpreted, 'unworked' legal holidays are deemed paid insofar as monthly paid employees are concerned if (a) they are receiving not less than the statutory minimum wage, (b) their monthly pay is uniform from January to December, and (c) no deduction is made from their monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur. As explained in Policy Instruction No, 9, 'The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily paid employees. In case of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are entitled to the benefit' " (pp. 340-341, rec.). This contention is untenable. It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit - it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code, which states that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most beneficial effect that its language permits (Orlosky vs. Haskell, 155 A. 112.) Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Public respondent vehemently argues that the intent and spirit of the holiday pay law, as expressed by the Secretary of Labor in the case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. The Chartered Bank (NLRC Case No. RB-1789-75, March 24, 1976), is to correct the disadvantages inherent in the daily compensation system of employment holiday pay is primarily intended to benefit the daily paid workers whose employment and income are circumscribed by the principle of "no work, no pay." This argument may sound meritorious; but, until the provisions of the Labor Code on holiday pay is amended by another law, monthly paid employees are definitely included in the benefits of regular holiday pay. As earlier stated, the presumption is always in favor of law, negatively put, the Labor Code is always strictly construed against management. While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, as in the instant case, the same must be declared as null and void. It is the role of the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary, correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in the context of the interactions of the three branches of the government, almost always in situations where some agency of the State has engaged in action that stems ultimately from some legitimate area of governmental power (The Supreme Court in Modern Role, C. B. Swisher 1958, p. 36). Thus. in the case of Philippine Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission (106 SCRA 444, July 31, 1981) where the Secretary of Labor enlarged the scope of exemption from the coverage of a Presidential Decree granting increase in emergency allowance, this Court ruled that: t.hqw

... the Secretary of Labor has exceeded his authority when he included paragraph (k) in Section 1 of the Rules implementing P. D. 1 1 23. xxx xxx xxx Clearly, the inclusion of paragraph k contravenes the statutory authority granted to the Secretary of Labor, and the same is therefore void, as ruled by this Court in a long line of cases . . . .. t.hqw The recognition of the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the administration of the statute, necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment, may be found in the early case of United States vs. Barrios decided in 1908. Then came in a 1914 decision, United States vs. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil. 119) delineation of the scope of such competence. Thus: "Of course the regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid." In 1936, in People vs. Santos, this Court expressed its disapproval of an administrative order that would amount to an excess of the regulatory power vested in an administrative official We reaffirmed such a doctrine in a 1951 decision, where we again made clear that where an administrative order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the Act, 'the mandate of the Act must prevail and must be followed. Justice Barrera, speaking for the Court in Victorias Milling inc. vs. Social Security Commission, citing Parker as well as Davis did tersely sum up the matter thus: "A rule is binding on the Courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature, even if the courts are not in agreement with the policy stated therein or its innate wisdom. ... On the other hand, administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine chat the law means." "It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can, contrary to the express language of the Constitution assert for itself a more extensive prerogative. Necessarily, it is bound to observe the constitutional mandate. There must be strict compliance with the legislative enactment. Its terms must be followed the statute requires adherence to, not departure from its provisions. No deviation is allowable. In the terse language of the present Chief Justice, an administrative agency "cannot amend an act of Congress." Respondents can be sustained, therefore, only if it could be shown that the rules and regulations promulgated by them were in accordance with what the Veterans Bill of Rights provides" (Phil. Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, 463, 464, citing Teozon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators, PVA 33 SCRA 585; see also Santos vs. Hon. Estenzo, et al, 109 Phil. 419; Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil. 295; Sy Man vs. Jacinto & Fabros, 93 Phil. 1093; Olsen & Co., Inc. vs. Aldanese and Trinidad, 43 Phil. 259). This ruling of the Court was recently reiterated in the case of American Wire & Cable Workers Union (TUPAS) vs. The National Labor Relations Commission and American Wire & Cable Co., Inc., G.R. No. 53337, promulgated on June 29, 1984. In view of the foregoing, Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to implement the Labor Code and Policy instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor must be declared null and void. Accordingly, public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. Inciong had no basis at all to deny the members of petitioner union their regular holiday pay as directed by the Labor Code. II It is not disputed that the decision of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated August 25, 1975, had already become final, and was, in fact, partially executed by the respondent bank. However, public respondent maintains that on the authority of De Luna vs. Kayanan, 61 SCRA 49, November 13, 1974, he can annul the final decision of Labor Arbiter Soriano since the ensuing promulgation of the integrated implementing rules of the Labor Code pursuant to P.D. 850 on February 16, 1976, and the issuance of Policy Instruction No. 9 on April 23, 1976 by the then Secretary of Labor are facts and circumstances that transpired subsequent to the promulgation of the decision of the labor arbiter, which renders the execution of the said decision impossible and unjust on the part of herein respondent bank (pp. 342-343, rec.). This contention is untenable. To start with, unlike the instant case, the case of De Luna relied upon by the public respondent is not a labor case wherein the express mandate of the Constitution on the protection to labor is applied. Thus Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that, "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor and Article 1702 of the Civil Code provides that, " In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. Consequently, contrary to public respondent's allegations, it is patently unjust to deprive the members of petitioner union of their vested right acquired by virtue of a final judgment on the basis of a labor statute promulgated following the acquisition of the "right".

On the question of whether or not a law or statute can annul or modify a judicial order issued prior to its promulgation, this Court, through Associate Justice Claro M. Recto, said: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx We are decidedly of the opinion that they did not. Said order, being unappealable, became final on the date of its issuance and the parties who acquired rights thereunder cannot be deprived thereof by a constitutional provision enacted or promulgated subsequent thereto. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes, except penal laws favorable to the accused, have retroactive effect in the sense of annulling or modifying vested rights, or altering contractual obligations" (China Ins. & Surety Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Manila, 63 Phil. 324, emphasis supplied). In the case of In re: Cunanan, et al., 19 Phil. 585, March 18, 1954, this Court said: "... when a court renders a decision or promulgates a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force, the subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision, order, or resolution already promulgated, in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and of no effect." Thus, the amendatory rule (Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code) cannot be given retroactive effect as to modify final judgments. Not even a law can validly annul final decisions (In re: Cunanan, et al., Ibid). Furthermore, the facts of the case relied upon by the public respondent are not analogous to that of the case at bar. The case of De Luna speaks of final and executory judgment, while iii the instant case, the final judgment is partially executed. just as the court is ousted of its jurisdiction to annul or modify a judgment the moment it becomes final, the court also loses its jurisdiction to annul or modify a writ of execution upon its service or execution; for, otherwise, we will have a situation wherein a final and executed judgment can still be annulled or modified by the court upon mere motion of a panty This would certainly result in endless litigations thereby rendering inutile the rule of law. Respondent bank counters with the argument that its partial compliance was involuntary because it did so under pain of levy and execution of its assets (p. 138, rec.). WE find no merit in this argument. Respondent bank clearly manifested its voluntariness in complying with the decision of the labor arbiter by not appealing to the National Labor Relations Commission as provided for under the Labor Code under Article 223. A party who waives his right to appeal is deemed to have accepted the judgment, adverse or not, as correct, especially if such party readily acquiesced in the judgment by starting to execute said judgment even before a writ of execution was issued, as in this case. Under these circumstances, to permit a party to appeal from the said partially executed final judgment would make a mockery of the doctrine of finality of judgments long enshrined in this jurisdiction. Section I of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "... execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal ... or if no appeal has been duly perfected." This rule applies to decisions or orders of labor arbiters who are exercising quasi-judicial functions since "... the rule of execution of judgments under the rules should govern all kinds of execution of judgment, unless it is otherwise provided in other laws" Sagucio vs. Bulos 5 SCRA 803) and Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that "... decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such awards, orders, or decisions. ..." Thus, under the aforecited rule, the lapse of the appeal period deprives the courts of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment and the judgment becomes final ipso jure (Vega vs. WCC, 89 SCRA 143, citing Cruz vs. WCC, 2 PHILAJUR 436, 440, January 31, 1978; see also Soliven vs. WCC, 77 SCRA 621; Carrero vs. WCC and Regala vs. WCC, decided jointly, 77 SCRA 297; Vitug vs. Republic, 75 SCRA 436; Ramos vs. Republic, 69 SCRA 576). In Galvez vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., 3 SCRA 422, 423, October 31, 1961, where the lower court modified a final order, this Court ruled thus: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx The lower court was thus aware of the fact that it was thereby altering or modifying its order of January 8, 1959. Regardless of the excellence of the motive for acting as it did, we are constrained to hold however, that the lower court had no authorities to make said alteration or modification. ... xxx xxx xxx The equitable considerations that led the lower court to take the action complained of cannot offset the dem ands of public policy and public interest which are also responsive to the tenets of equity requiring that an issues passed upon in decisions or final orders that have become executory, be deemed conclusively disposed of and definitely closed for, otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting at naught the main role of courts of justice, which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order, by settling justiciable controversies with finality. xxx xxx xxx In the recent case of Gabaya vs. Mendoza, 113 SCRA 405, 406, March 30, 1982, this Court said: t.hqw xxx xxx xxx In Marasigan vs. Ronquillo (94 Phil. 237), it was categorically stated that the rule is absolute that after a judgment becomes final by the expiration of the period provided by the rules within which it so becomes, no further amendment or correction can be made by the court except for clerical errors or mistakes. And such final judgment is conclusive not only as to every

matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which must have been offered for that purpose (L-7044, 96 Phil. 526). In the earlier case of Contreras and Ginco vs. Felix and China Banking Corp., Inc. (44 O.G. 4306), it was stated that the rule must be adhered to regardless of any possible injustice in a particular case for (W)e have to subordinate the equity of a particular situation to the over-mastering need of certainty and immutability of judicial pronouncements xxx xxx xxx III The despotic manner by which public respondent Amado G. Inciong divested the members of the petitioner union of their rights acquired by virtue of a final judgment is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law Public respondent completely ignored the rights of the petitioner union's members in dismissing their complaint since he knew for a fact that the judgment of the labor arbiter had long become final and was even partially executed by the respondent bank. A final judgment vests in the prevailing party a right recognized and protected by law under the due process clause of the Constitution (China Ins. & Surety Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Manila, 63 Phil. 324). A final judgment is "a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could no. be deprived arbitrarily without injustice" (Rookledge v. Garwood, 65 N.W. 2d 785, 791). lt is by this guiding principle that the due process clause is interpreted. Thus, in the pithy language of then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion "... acts of Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity, and judicial proceedings suffering from the same flaw are subject to the same sanction, any statutory provision to the contrary notwithstanding (Vda. de Cuaycong vs. Vda. de Sengbengco 110 Phil. 118, emphasis supplied), And "(I)t has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divested the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights" (Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 211, June 5, 1973). Tested by and pitted against this broad concept of the constitutional guarantee of due process, the action of public respondent Amado G. Inciong is a clear example of deprivation of property without due process of law and constituted grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order dated November 10, 1979. WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY GRANTED, THE ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS SET ASIDE, AND THE DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER RICARTE T. SORIANO DATED AUGUST 25, 1975, IS HEREBY REINSTATED. COSTS AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 79560 : December 3, 1990.] 191 SCRA 823 ANDRES E. DITAN, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ASIAWORLD RECRUITMENT, INC., AND/OR INTRACO SALES CORPORATION, Respondents.

DECISION CRUZ, J.: The petitioner had the rare experience of being taken hostage in 1984, along with a number of his co-workers, by the rebels in Angola. His captivity for more than two months and the events that followed his release are the subject of the present petition.

Andres E. Ditan was recruited by private respondent Intraco Sales Corporation, through its local agent, Asia World, the other private respondent, to work in Angola as a welding supervisor. The contract was for nine months, at a monthly salary of US$1,100.00 or US$275.00 weekly, and contained the required standard stipulations for the protection of our overseas workers. Arriving on November 30, 1984, in Luanda, capital of Angola, the petitioner was assigned as an ordinary welder in the INTRACO central maintenance shop from December 2 to 25, 1984. On December 26, 1984, he was informed, to his distress, that would be transferred to Kafunfo, some 350 kilometers east of Luanda. This was the place where, earlier that year, the rebels had attacked and kidnapped expatriate workers, killing two Filipinos in the raid. Naturally, Ditan was reluctant to go. However, he was assured by the INTRACO manager that Kafunfo was safe and adequately protected by government troops; moreover and this was more persuasive he was told he would be sent home if he refused the new assignment. In the end, with much misgiving, he relented and agreed.: nad On December 29, 1984, his fears were confirmed. The Unita rebels attacked the diamond mining site where Ditan was working and took him and sixteen other Filipino hostages, along with other foreign workers. The rebels and their captives walked through jungle terrain for 31 days to the Unita stronghold near the Namibian border. They trekked for almost a thousand kilometers. They subsisted on meager fare. Some of them had diarrhea. Their feet were blistered. It was only on March 16, 1985, that the hostages were finally released after the intercession of their governments and the International Red Cross. Six days later, Ditan and the other Filipino hostages were back in the Philippines. 1

The repatriated workers had been assured by INTRACO that they would be given priority in re-employment abroad, and eventually eleven of them were taken back. Ditan having been excluded, he filed in June 1985 a complaint against the private respondents for breach of contract and various other claims. Specifically, he sought the amount of US$4,675.00, representing his salaries for the unexpired 17 weeks of his contract; US$25,000.00 as war risk bonus; US$2,196.50 as the value of his lost belongings; US$1,100 for unpaid vacation leave; and moral and exemplary damages in the sum of US$50,000.00, plus attorney's fees. All these claims were dismissed by POEA Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso in a decision dated January 27, 1987. 2 This was affirmed in toto by respondent NLRC in a resolution dated July 14, 1987, 3 which is now being challenged in this petition. Going over the record, we find that the public respondent correctly rejected the petitioner's claim for paid vacation leave. The express stipulation in Clause 5 of the employment contract reads: Should the Employee enter into a further 9 to 12 months contract at the completion contract, he will be entitled to one month's paid vacation before commencement of his second or subsequent contract. It appears that the petitioner had not entered into a second contract with the employer after the expiration of the first. Such re-employment was not a matter of right on the part of the petitioner but dependent on the need for his skills in another project the employer might later be undertaking. As regards the cost of his belongings, the evidence shows that they were not really lost but in fact returned to him by the rebels prior to their release. If he had other properties that were not recovered, there was no proof of their loss that could support his allegations. They were therefore also properly rejected.:-cralaw We find, though, that the claims for breach of contract and war risk bonus deserve a little more reflection in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. The fact that stands out most prominently in the record is the risk to which the petitioner was subjected when he was assigned, after his reluctant consent, to the rebel-infested region of Kafunfo. This was a dangerous area. This same place had earlier been the target of a rebel attack that had resulted in the death of two Filipino workers and the capture of several others. Knowing all this, INTRACO still pressured Ditan into agreeing to be transferred to that place, dismissing his initial objection and, more important, threatening to send him home if he refused. We feel that in failing to provide for the safety of the petitioner, the private respondents were clearly remiss in the discharge of one of the primary duties of the employer. Worse, they not only neglected that duty but indeed deliberately violated it by actually subjecting and exposing Ditan to a real and demonstrated danger. It does not help to argue that he was not forced to go to Kafunfo and had the option of coming home. That was a cruel choice, to say the least. The petitioner had gone to that foreign land in search of a better life that he could share with his loved ones after his stint abroad. That choice would have required him to come home empty-handed to the disappointment of an expectant family. It is not explained why the petitioner was not paid for the unexpired portion of his contract which had 17 more weeks to go. The hostages were immediately repatriated after their release, presumably so they could recover from their ordeal. The promise of INTRACO was that they would be given priority in re-employment should their services be needed. In the particular case of the petitioner, the promise was not fulfilled. It would seem that his work was terminated, and not again required, because it was really intended all along to assign him only to Kafunfo.:-cralaw The private respondents stress that the contract Ditan entered into called for his employment in Angola, without indication of any particular place of assignment in the country. This meant he agreed to be assigned to work anywhere in that country, including Kafunfo. When INTRACO assigned Ditan to that place in the regular course of its business, it was merely exercising its rights under the employment contract that Ditan had freely entered into. Hence, it is argued, he cannot now complain that there was a breach of that contract for which he is entitled to monetary redress. The private respondents also reject the claim for war risk bonus and point out that POEA Memorandum Circular No. 4, issued pursuant to the mandatory war risk coverage provision in Section 2, Rule VI, of the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, categorizing Angola as a war risk took effect only on February 6, 1985, "after the petitioner's deployment to Angola on November 27, 1984." Consequently, the stipulation could not be applied to the petitioner as it was not supposed to have a retroactive effect. A strict interpretation of the cold facts before us might support the position taken by the respondents. However, we are dealing here not with an ordinary transaction but with a labor contract which deserves special treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of the worker. As the Solicitor General observes in his Comment supporting the petitioner, the Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the sympathetic concern of the State for the working class conformably to the social justice policy. This is a command we cannot disregard in the resolution of the case before us. The paramount duty of this Court is to render justice through law. The law in this case allows two opposite interpretations, one strictly in favor of the employers and the other liberally in favor of the worker. The choice is obvious. We find, considering the totality of the circumstances attending this case, that the petitioner is entitled to relief. The petitioner went to Angola prepared to work as he had promised in accordance with the employment contract he had entered into in good faith with the private respondents. Over his objection, he was sent to a dangerous assignment and as he feared was taken hostage in a rebel attack that prevented him from fulfilling his contract while in captivity. Upon his release, he was immediately sent home and was not paid the salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract. He was immediately repatriated with the promise that he would be given priority in reemployment, which never came. To rub salt on the wound, many of his co-hostages were re-employed as promised. The petitioner was left only with a bleak experience and nothing to show for it except dashed hopes and a sense of rejection. In these circumstances, the Court feels that the petitioner should be paid the salary corresponding to the 17 unserved weeks of his contract, which was terminated by the private respondents despite his willingness to work out the balance of his term. In addition, to assuage the ordeal he underwent while in captivity by the rebels, the Court has also decided in its discretion to award him nominal damages in the sum of P20,000.00. This is not payment of the war risk claim which, as earlier noted, was not provided for in the employment contract in question, or indemnification for any loss suffered by him. This is but a token of the tenderness of the law towards the petitioning workman vis-a-vis the private respondents and their more comfortable resources.: nad Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law. That is why our judgment today must be for the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the challenged resolution of the NLRC is hereby MODIFIED. The private respondents are hereby DIRECTED jointly and severally to pay the petitioner: a) the current equivalent in Philippine pesos of US$4,675.00, representing his unpaid salaries for the balance of the contract term; b) nominal damages in the amount of P20,000.00; and c) 10% attorney's fees. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 75704 July 19, 1989 RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.), INC. and ELPIDIO HIDALGO, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) and NESTOR MALABANAN, respondents.

MEDIALDEA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of the decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated June 17, 1986 (p. 23, Rollo) in NLRC NCR Case No. 6-2158-84 entitled "Nestor Malabanan and Jonathan Transmil, Complainants, versus Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. and Elpidio Hidalgo, Respondents," reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. The antecedent facts are as follows: Respondent Malabanan was employed by petitioner Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. on September 25,1978 as an ordinary clerk. In May, 1980, he was promoted to the position of production scheduler with a corresponding salary increase. He was again transferred to the Inventory Control Section as stock clerk on September 1, 1983. On April 6,1984, Elpidio Hidalgo, the Plant I General Manager of petitioner company, received a copy of the Financial Audit Report from the Internal Audit Department of the company showing a significant material variance between the year-end actual inventory and that of the Cards (SC)/EDP Control Records. As a result thereof, Noel Santiago, Section Head of the Inventory Control Section, where respondent Malabanan was assigned, conducted an investigation of the reported discrepancies in the stock cards upon the request of the Plant General Manager. Santiago then submitted his report to the general manager recommending the dismissal of respondent Malabanan. Consequently, Malabanan's case was endorsed to the Human Resources Division of petitioner company, which conducted a reinvestigation on the matter and which affirmed the recommendation of the Inventory Control Section Head for the termination of employment of respondent Malabanan. On June 6, 1984, respondent Malabanan was dismissed by petitioner company. On June 16, 1984, respondent Malabanan, along with another complainant named Jonathan Transmit, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against petitioner company alleging that they (respondent Malabanan and complainant Transmil) were members of the monthly salaried employees' union affiliated with TUPAS; that petitioner company forced them to disaffiliate from the union; and that due to their refusal to resign from the union, they were ultimately dismissed from employment by petitioner company. Petitioner company on the other hand, denied complainants' allegations and averred that respondent Malabanan's dismissal was due to gross and habitual neglect of his duty and not due to his union affiliation. During the hearing of the case, the other complainant, Jonathan Transmil withdrew from the case since he already found another employment abroad. On January 30, 1985, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision (pp. 17- 22, Rollo), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Respondent Malabanan appealed from the adverse decision to the respondent Commission. On June 17, 1986, respondent Commission reversed the appealed decision of the Labor Arbiter and stated, inter alia: Confronted with this factual backgrounds, we find ourselves inclined to the view that the appealed decision merits a reversal. xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision should be, as it is hereby REVERSED. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate complainant Nestor Malabanan to his former position as production scheduler, with full backwages from the time he was illegally terminated up to actual reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and benefits appurtenant thereto. SO ORDERED. (pp. 23-27, Rollo) The petitioner company moved for a reconsideration on the ground that the respondent Commission's decision is not in accordance with facts and evidence on record. On July 23, 1986, the said motion for reconsideration was denied. On September 3, 1986, petitioner filed the instant petition contending that the respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision. The two issues to be resolved in the instant case are: (1) whether or not the dismissal of respondent Malabanan is tainted with unfair labor practice; and (2) whether or not a just and valid cause exists for the dismissal of private respondent Malabanan. Petitioner alleges that the National Labor Relations Commission gravely erred in concluding that the demotion of Malabanan from production scheduler to a stock clerk at the Stock and Inventory Section was intended to discourage Malabanan from union membership. It argued that the Labor Arbiter was correct in finding that the private respondent had not shown ample proof to the effect that he was a member of a labor organization prior to his transfer to another position. We believe that the foregoing contentions are impressed with merit. Art. 248 of the Labor Code, PD No. 442, as amended, provides: Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices: (a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; xxx The question of whether an employee was dismissed because of his union activities is essentially a question of fact as to which the findings of the administrative agency concerned are conclusive and binding if supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It means such evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred (Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, et. al., No. L34948-49, May 15, 1979, 90 SCRA 135). The findings of the Labor Arbiter on the non-existence of unfair labor practice on the part of the company are more in accord and supported by the evidence submitted by the parties in the instant case, to wit: Complainant had stated that he was a member of the monthly salaried employees union affiliated with TUPAS. He, however, offered no proof to support his allegation. In fact, no evidence was presented to prove the existence of such union. We (note] from the records that, as the usual practice, in cases like this one, complainant is usually supported by the union of which he is a member. And ordinarily, the union itself is impleaded as a co- complainant. Such circumstances, surprisingly, [are] not present in this case. In fact, complainant categorically alleged that he had solicited the services of the PAFLU Labor Union in filing this case. It is, indeed, surprising that complainant had to solicit the help of a labor union (PAFLU) of which he was not a member instead of soliciting the aid of the labor union (TUPAS) of which he was allegedly a member. These circumstances alone [destroy] the credibility of complainant's allegations. (p. 21, Rollo). Nowhere in the records can We find that the company actually performed positive acts to restrain the union participation of private respondent. For one, it is doubtful whether Malabanan was really engaged in the organization of a labor union affiliated with the federation TUPAS. The only evidence presented by him to prove this contention is his affidavit and that of his father. It is therefore, not in accordance with ordinary experience and common practice that the private respondent pursued his battle alone, without the aid and support of his co-members in the union and his federation especially in a case of serious nature as this one involving company intervention with union activity. As a rule, it is the prerogative of the company to promote, transfer or even demote its employees to other positions when the interests of the company reasonably demand it. Unless there are instances which directly point to interference by the company with the employees' right to selforganization, the transfer of private respondent should be considered as within the bounds allowed by law. Furthermore, although private respondent was transferred to a lower position, his original rank and salary remained undiminished, which fact was not refuted or questioned by private respondent. In view of the foregoing conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, We are compelled to agree with the latter that the petitioner company did not commit any unfair labor practice in transferring and thereafter dismissing private respondent. The remaining issue to be resolved on this point is whether the dismissal of respondent Malabanan was for a just and lawful cause. Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides: Article 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just causes: xxx

b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; x x x. Petitioner contends that private respondent Malabanan was guilty of gross negligence when he caused the posting of incorrect entries in the stock card without counter checking the actual movement status of the items at the warehouse, thereby resulting into unmanageable inaccuracies in the data posted in the stock cards. The respondent Commission correctly ruled: Penultimately, even assuming for the sake of argument that herein complainant 'posted entries in the stock card without counter checking the actual movement status of the items at the warehouse, thereby resulting in an inaccurate posting of data on the stock cards," to our impression does not constitute as a just cause for dismissal. Records show that he was only transferred to the Inventory Control Section on September 1, 1983 and was not so familiar and experienced as a stock clerk, and prior to his transfer, the record shows no derogatory records in terms of his performance. His failure to carry out efficiently his duties as a stock clerk is not so gross and habitual. In other words he was not notoriously negligent to warrant his severance from the service. Considering that there is nothing on record that shows that he wilfully defied instructions of his superior with regards to his duties and that he gained personal benefit of the discrepancy, his dismissal is unwarranted. (p. 26, Rollo). It does not appear that private respondent Malabanan is an incorrigible offender or that what he did inflicted serious damage to the company so much so that his continuance in the service would be patently inimical to the employer's interest. Assuming, in gratia argumenti that the private respondent had indeed committed the said mistakes in the posting of accurate data, this was only his first infraction with regard to his duties. It would thus be cruel and unjust to mete out the drastic penalty of dismissal, for it is not proportionate to the gravity of the misdeed. In fact, the promotion of the private respondent from the position of ordinary clerk to production scheduler establishes the presumption that his performance of his work is acceptable to the company. The petitioner even admitted that it was due to heavy financial and business reverses that the company assigned the private respondent to the position of Stock Clerk and not because of his unsatisfactory performance as production scheduler (p. 6, Rollo). It has been held that there must be fair and reasonable criteria to be used in selecting employees to be dismissed (Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. v. Ople, No. L-56398, July 23, 1987, 152 SCRA 219). It is worthy to note that the prerogative of management to dismiss or lay-off an employee must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not only petitioner's position, but also his means of livelihood. This is so because the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State, more vital than the peservation of corporate profits (Euro-Linea, Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, L-75782, December 1, 1987,156 SCRA 79). The law regards the worker with compassion. Our society is a compassionate one. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by the worker should not be visited by the supreme penalty of dismissal. This is not only because of the law's concern for the working man. There is in addition, his family to consider. After all, labor determinations should not only be secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem (Almira, et al., v. BF Goodrich Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-34974, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 120). ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, the decision of the public respondent is hereby MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner company is ordered to reinstate private respondent Nestor Malabanan to the position of stock clerk or substantially equivalent position, with the same rank and salary he is enjoying at the time of his termination, with three years backwages and without loss of seniority rights and benefits appurtenant thereto. Should the reinstatement of the private respondent as herein ordered be rendered impossible by the supervention of circumstances which prevent the same, the petitioner is further ordered to pay private respondent separation pay equivalent to one (1) month's salary for every year of service rendered, computed at his last rate of salary. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents. G.R. No. 70295 November 29,1988 EUGENIA C. CREDO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, respondents. The Chief Legal Counsel for respondents NASECO and Arturo L. Perez.

Melchor R. Flores for petitioner Eugenia C. Credo. PADILLA, J.: Consolidated special civil actions for certiorari seeking to review the decision * of the Third Division, National Labor Relations Commission in Case No. 11-4944-83 dated 28 November 1984 and its resolution dated 16 January 1985 denying motions for reconsideration of said decision. Eugenia C. Credo was an employee of the National Service Corporation (NASECO), a domestic corporation which provides security guards as well as messengerial, janitorial and other similar manpower services to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and its agencies. She was first employed with NASECO as a lady guard on 18 July 1975. Through the years, she was promoted to Clerk Typist, then Personnel Clerk until she became Chief of Property and Records, on 10 March 1980. 1 Sometime before 7 November 1983, Credo was administratively charged by Sisinio S. Lloren, Manager of Finance and Special Project and Evaluation Department of NASECO, stemming from her non-compliance with Lloren's memorandum, dated 11 October 1983, regarding certain entry procedures in the company's Statement of Billings Adjustment. Said charges alleged that Credo "did not comply with Lloren's instructions to place some corrections/additional remarks in the Statement of Billings Adjustment; and when [Credo] was called by Lloren to his office to explain further the said instructions, [Credo] showed resentment and behaved in a scandalous manner by shouting and uttering remarks of disrespect in the presence of her co-employees." 2 On 7 November 1983, Credo was called to meet Arturo L. Perez, then Acting General Manager of NASECO, to explain her side before Perez and NASECO's Committee on Personnel Affairs in connection with the administrative charges filed against her. After said meeting, on the same date, Credo was placed on "Forced Leave" status for 1 5 days, effective 8 November 1983. 3 Before the expiration of said 15-day leave, or on 18 November 1983, Credo filed a complaint, docketed as Case No. 114944-83, with the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, Manila, against NASECO for placing her on forced leave, without due process. 4 Likewise, while Credo was on forced leave, or on 22 November 1983, NASECO's Committee on Personnel Affairs deliberated and evaluated a number of past acts of misconduct or infractions attributed to her. 5 As a result of this deliberation, said committee resolved: 1. That, respondent [Credo] committed the following offenses in the Code of Discipline, viz: OFFENSE vs. Company Interest & Policies No. 3 Any discourteous act to customer, officer and employee of client company or officer of the Corporation. OFFENSE vs. Public Moral No. 7 Exhibit marked discourtesy in the course of official duties or use of profane or insulting language to any superior officer. OFFENSE vs. Authority No. 3 Failure to comply with any lawful order or any instructions of a superior officer. 2. That, Management has already given due consideration to respondent's [Credo] scandalous actuations for several times in the past. Records also show that she was reprimanded for some offense and did not question it. Management at this juncture, has already met its maximum tolerance point so it has decided to put an end to respondent's [Credo] being an undesirable employee. 6 The committee recommended Credo's termination, with forfeiture of benefits. 7 On 1 December 1983, Credo was called age to the office of Perez to be informed that she was being charged with certain offenses. Notably, these offenses were those which NASECO's Committee on Personnel Affairs already resolved, on 22 November 1983 to have been committed by Credo. In Perez's office, and in the presence of NASECO's Committee on Personnel Affairs, Credo was made to explain 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 Termination, dated 24 November 1983, and made effective 1 December 1983. 9 Hence, on 6 December 1983, Credo filed a supplemental complaint for illegal dismissal in Case No. 11-4944-83, alleging absence of just or authorized cause for her dismissal and lack of opportunity to be heard. 10 After both parties had submitted their respective position papers, affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of their claims and defenses, on 9 May 1984, the labor arbiter rendered a decision: 1) dismissing Credo's complaint, and 2) directing NASECO to pay Credo separation pay equivalent to one half month's pay for every year of service. 11 Both parties appealed to respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, on 28 November 1984, rendered a decision: 1) directing NASECO to reinstate Credo to her former position, or substantially equivalent position, with six (6) months' backwages and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) dismissing Credo's claim for attorney's fees, moral and exemplary

damages. As a consequence, both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration, 12 which the NLRC denied in a resolution of 16 January 1985. 13 Hence, the present recourse by both parties. In G.R. No. 68970, petitioners challenge as grave abuse of discretion the dispositive portion of the 28 November 1984 decision which ordered Credo's reinstatement with backwages. 14 Petitioners contend that in arriving at said questioned order, the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that: 1) petitioners violated the requirements mandated by law on termination, 2) petitioners failed in the burden of proving that the termination of Credo was for a valid or authorized cause, 3) the alleged infractions committed by Credo were not proven or, even if proved, could be considered to have been condoned by petitioners, and 4) the termination of Credo was not for a valid or authorized cause. 15 On the other hand, in G.R. No. 70295, petitioner Credo challenges as grave abuse of discretion the dispositive portion of the 28 November 1984 decision which dismissed her claim for attorney's fees, moral and exemplary damages and limited her right to backwages to only six (6) months.
16

As guidelines for employers in the exercise of their power to dismiss employees for just causes, the law provides that: Section 2. Notice of dismissal. Any employer who seeks to dismiss a worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal. xxx xxx xxx Section 5. Answer and Hearing. The worker may answer the allegations stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable period from receipt of such notice. The employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Section 6. Decision to dismiss. The employer shall immediately notify a worker in writing of a decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons therefor. 17 These guidelines mandate that the employer furnish an employee sought to be dismissed two (2) written notices of dismissal before a termination of employment can be legally effected. These are the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Likewise, a reading of the guidelines in consonance with the express provisions of law on protection to labor 18 (which encompasses the right to security of tenure) and the broader dictates of procedural due process necessarily mandate that notice of the employer's decision to dismiss an employee, with reasons therefor, can only be issued after the employer has afforded the employee concerned ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. In the case at bar, NASECO did not comply with these guidelines in effecting Credo's dismissal. Although she was apprised and "given the chance to explain her side" of the charges filed against her, this chance was given so perfunctorily, thus rendering illusory Credo's right to security of tenure. That Credo was not given ample opportunity to be heard and to defend herself is evident from the fact that the compliance with the injunction to apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a chance to prepare for her defense was dispensed in only a day. This is not effective compliance with the legal requirements aforementioned. The fact also that the Notice of Termination of Credo's employment (or the decision to dismiss her) was dated 24 November 1983 and made effective 1 December 1983 shows that NASECO was already bent on terminating her services when she was informed on 1 December 1983 of the charges against her, and that any hearing which NASECO thought of affording her after 24 November 1983 would merely be pro forma or an exercise in futility. Besides, Credo's mere non-compliance with Lorens memorandum regarding the entry procedures in the company's Statement of Billings Adjustment did not warrant the severe penalty of dismissal of the NLRC correctly held that: ... on the charge of gross discourtesy, the CPA found in its Report, dated 22 November 1983 that, "In the process of her testimony/explanations she again exhibited a conduct unbecoming in front of NASECO Officers and argued to Mr. S. S. Lloren in a sarcastic and discourteous manner, notwithstanding, the fact that she was inside the office of the Acctg. General Manager." Let it be noted, however, that the Report did not even describe how the so called "conduct unbecoming" or "discourteous manner" was done by complainant. Anent the "sarcastic" argument of complainant, the purported transcript 19 of the meeting held on 7 November 1983 does not indicate any sarcasm on the part of complainant. At the most, complainant may have sounded insistent or emphatic about her work being more complete than the work of Ms. de Castro, yet, the complaining officer signed the work of Ms. de Castro and did not sign hers. As to the charge of insubordination, it may be conceded, albeit unclear, that complainant failed to place same corrections/additional remarks in the Statement of Billings Adjustments as instructed. However, under the circumstances obtaining, where complainant strongly felt that she was being discriminated against by her superior in relation to other employees, we are of the considered view and so hold, that a reprimand would have sufficed for the infraction, but certainly not termination from services. 20 As this Court has ruled:

... where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only because of the law's concern for the working man. There is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. 21 Of course, in justifying Credo's termination of employment, NASECO claims as additional lawful causes for dismissal Credo's previous and repeated acts of insubordination, discourtesy and sarcasm towards her superior officers, alleged to have been committed from 1980 to July 1983.
22

If such acts of misconduct were indeed committed by Credo, they are deemed to have been condoned by NASECO. For instance, sometime in 1980, when Credo allegedly "reacted in a scandalous manner and raised her voice" in a discussion with NASECO's Acting head of the Personnel Administration 23 no disciplinary measure was taken or meted against her. Nor was she even reprimanded when she allegedly talked 'in a shouting or yelling manner" with the Acting Manager of NASECO's Building Maintenance and Services Department in 1980 24 or when she allegedly "shouted" at NASECO's Corporate Auditor "in front of his subordinates displaying arrogance and unruly behavior" in 1980, or when she allegedly shouted at NASECO's Internal Control Consultant in 1981. 25 But then, in sharp contrast to NASECO's penchant for ignoring the aforesaid acts of misconduct, when Credo committed frequent tardiness in August and September 1983, she was reprimanded. 26 Even if the allegations of improper conduct (discourtesy to superiors) were satisfactorily proven, NASECO's condonation thereof is gleaned from the fact that on 4 October 1983, Credo was given a salary adjustment for having performed in the job "at least [satisfactorily]" 27 and she was then rated "Very Satisfactory" 28as regards job performance, particularly in terms of quality of work, quantity of work, dependability, cooperation, resourcefulness and attendance. Considering that the acts or omissions for which Credo's employment was sought to be legally terminated were insufficiently proved, as to justify dismissal, reinstatement is proper. For "absent the reason which gave rise to [the employee's] separation from employment, there is no intention on the part of the employer to dismiss the employee concerned." 29 And, as a result of having been wrongfully dismissed, Credo is entitled to three (3) years of backwages without deduction and qualification. 30 However, while Credo's dismissal was effected without procedural fairness, an award of exemplary damages in her favor can only be justified if her dismissal was effected in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. 31 A judicious examination of the record manifests no such conduct on the part of management. However, in view of the attendant circumstances in the case, i.e., lack of due process in effecting her dismissal, it is reasonable to award her moral damages. And, for having been compelled to litigate because of the unlawful actuations of NASECO, a reasonable award for attorney's fees in her favor is in order. In NASECO's comment 32 in G.R. No. 70295, it is belatedly argued that the NLRC has no jurisdiction to order Credo's reinstatement. NASECO claims that, as a government corporation (by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a subsidiary wholly owned by the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which in turn is a government owned corporation), the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. In support of this argument, NASECO cites National Housing Corporation vs. JUCO, 33 where this Court held that "There should no longer be any question at this time that employees of government-owned or controlled corporations are governed by the civil service law and civil service rifles and regulations." It would appear that, in the interest of justice, the holding in said case should not be given retroactive effect, that is, to cases that arose before its promulgation on 17 January 1985. To do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other employees similarly situated, because under the same 1973 Constitution ,but prior to the ruling in National Housing Corporation vs. Juco, this Court had recognized the applicability of the Labor Code to, and the authority of the NLRC to exercise jurisdiction over, disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in government owned or controlled corporations, among them, the National Service Corporation (NASECO). <re||an1w> 34 Furthermore, in the matter of coverage by the civil service of government-owned or controlled corporations, the 1987 Constitution starkly varies from the 1973 Constitution, upon which National Housing Corporation vs. Juco is based. Under the 1973 Constitution, it was provided that: The civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation. ... 35 On the other hand, the 1987 Constitution provides that: The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter. 36 (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the situations sought to be avoided by the 1973 Constitution and expressed by the Court in the National Housing . Corporation case in the following manner The infirmity of the respondents' position lies in its permitting a circumvention or emasculation of Section 1, Article XII-B of the constitution. It would be possible for a regular ministry of government to create a host of subsidiary corporations under the Corporation Code funded by a willing legislature. A government-owned corporation could create several subsidiary corporations. These subsidiary corporations would enjoy the best of two worlds. Their officials and employees would be privileged individuals, free from the strict accountability required by the Civil Service Decree and the regulations of the Commission on Audit. Their incomes would not be subject to the competitive restrains of the open market nor to the terms and conditions of civil service employment. Conceivably, all government-owned or controlled corporations could be created, no longer by special charters, but through incorporations under the general law. The Constitutional amendment including such corporations in the embrace of the civil service would cease to have application. Certainly, such a situation cannot be allowed to exist. 37

appear relegated to relative insignificance by the 1987 Constitutional provision that the Civil Service embraces government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter; and, therefore, by clear implication, the Civil Service does not include government-owned or controlled corporations which are organized as subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation law. The proceedings in the 1986 Constitutional Commission also shed light on the Constitutional intent and meaning in the use of the phrase "with original charter." Thus THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas) Commissioner Romulo is recognized. MR. ROMULO. I beg the indulgence of the Committee. I was reading the wrong provision. I refer to Section 1, subparagraph I which reads: The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. My query: Is Philippine Airlines covered by this provision? MR. FOZ. Will the Commissioner please state his previous question? MR. ROMULO. The phrase on line 4 of Section 1, subparagraph 1, under the Civil Service Commission, says: "including government-owned or controlled corporations.' Does that include a corporation, like the Philippine Airlines which is government-owned or controlled? MR. FOZ. I would like to throw a question to the Commissioner. Is the Philippine Airlines controlled by the government in the sense that the majority of stocks are owned by the government? MR. ROMULO. It is owned by the GSIS. So, this is what we might call a tertiary corporation. The GSIS is owned by the government. Would this be covered because the provision says "including governmentowned or controlled corporations." MR. FOZ. The Philippine Airlines was established as a private corporation. Later on, the government, through the GSIS, acquired the controlling stocks. Is that not the correct situation? MR. ROMULO. That is true as Commissioner Ople is about to explain. There was apparently a Supreme Court decision that destroyed that distinction between a government-owned corporation created under the Corporation Law and a government-owned corporation created by its own charter. MR. FOZ. Yes, we recall the Supreme Court decision in the case of NHA vs. Juco to the effect that all government corporations irrespective of the manner of creation, whether by special charter or by the private Corporation Law, are deemed to be covered by the civil service because of the wide-embracing definition made in this section of the existing 1973 Constitution. But we recall the response to the question of Commissioner Ople that our intendment in this provision is just to give a general description of the civil service. We are not here to make any declaration as to whether employees of governmentowned or controlled corporations are barred from the operation of laws, such as the Labor Code of the Philippines. MR. ROMULO. Yes. MR. OPLE. May I be recognized, Mr. Presiding Officer, since my name has been mentioned by both sides. MR. ROMULO. I yield part of my time. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.Trenas). Commissioner Ople is recognized. MR. OPLE. In connection with the coverage of the Civil Service Law in Section 1 (1), may I volunteer some information that may be helpful both to the interpellator and to the Committee. Following the proclamation of martial law on September 21, 1972, this issue of the coverage of the Labor Code of the Philippines and of the Civil Service Law almost immediately arose. I am, in particular, referring to the period following the coming into force and effect of the Constitution of 1973, where the Article on the Civil Service was supposed to take immediate force and effect. In the case of LUZTEVECO, there was a strike at the time. This was a government-controlled and government-owned corporation. I think it was owned by the PNOC with just the minuscule private shares left. So, the Secretary of Justice at that time, Secretary Abad Santos, and myself sat down, and the result of that meeting was an opinion of the Secretary of Justice which 9 became binding immediately on the government that government corporations with original charters, such as the GSIS, were covered by the Civil Service Law and corporations spun off from the GSIS, which we called second generation corporations functioning as private subsidiaries, were covered by the Labor Code. Samples of such second generation corporations were the Philippine Airlines, the Manila

Hotel and the Hyatt. And that demarcation worked very well. In fact, all of these companies I have mentioned as examples, except for the Manila Hotel, had collective bargaining agreements. In the Philippine Airlines, there were, in fact, three collective bargaining agreements; one, for the ground people or the PALIA one, for the flight attendants or the PASAC and one for the pilots of the ALPAC How then could a corporation like that be covered by the Civil Service law? But, as the Chairman of the Committee pointed out, the Supreme Court decision in the case of NHA vs. Juco unrobed the whole thing. Accordingly, the Philippine Airlines, the Manila Hotel and the Hyatt are now considered under that decision covered by the Civil Service Law. I also recall that in the emergency meeting of the Cabinet convened for this purpose at the initiative of the Chairman of the Reorganization Commission, Armand Fabella, they agreed to allow the CBA's to lapse before applying the full force and effect of the Supreme Court decision. So, we were in the awkward situation when the new government took over. I can agree with Commissioner Romulo when he said that this is a problem which I am not exactly sure we should address in the deliberations on the Civil Service Law or whether we should be content with what the Chairman said that Section 1 (1) of the Article on the Civil Service is just a general description of the coverage of the Civil Service and no more. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, for the moment, I would be satisfied if the Committee puts on records that it is not their intent by this provision and the phrase "including government-owned or controlled corporations" to cover such companies as the Philippine Airlines. MR. FOZ. Personally, that is my view. As a matter of fact, when this draft was made, my proposal was really to eliminate, to drop from the provision, the phrase "including government- owned or controlled corporations." MR. ROMULO. Would the Committee indicate that is the intent of this provision? MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not think the Committee can make such a statement in the face of an absolute exclusion of government-owned or controlled corporations. However, this does not preclude the Civil Service Law to prescribe different rules and procedures, including emoluments for employees of proprietary corporations, taking into consideration the nature of their operations. So, it is a general coverage but it does not preclude a distinction of the rules between the two types of enterprises. MR. FOZ. In other words, it is something that should be left to the legislature to decide. As I said before, this is just a general description and we are not making any declaration whatsoever. MR. MONSOD. Perhaps if Commissioner Romulo would like a definitive understanding of the coverage and the Gentleman wants to exclude government-owned or controlled corporations like Philippine Airlines, then the recourse is to offer an amendment as to the coverage, if the Commissioner does not accept the explanation that there could be a distinction of the rules, including salaries and emoluments. MR. ROMULO. So as not to delay the proceedings, I will reserve my right to submit such an amendment. xxx xxx xxx THE PRESIDING OFFICE (Mr. Trenas) Commissioner Romulo is recognized. MR. ROMULO. On page 2, line 5, I suggest the following amendment after "corporations": Add a comma (,) and the phrase EXCEPT THOSE EXERCISING PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). What does the Committee say? SUSPENSION OF SESSION MR. MONSOD. May we have a suspension of the session? THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). The session is suspended. It was 7:16 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 7:21 p.m., the session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). The session is resumed. Commissioner Romulo is recognized.

MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am amending my original proposed amendment to now read as follows: "including government-owned or controlled corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS." The purpose of this amendment is to indicate that government corporations such as the GSIS and SSS, which have original charters, fall within the ambit of the civil service. However, corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies such as the Philippine Airlines, Manila Hotel and Hyatt are excluded from the coverage of the civil service. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). What does the Committee say? MR. FOZ. Just one question, Mr. Presiding Officer. By the term "original charters," what exactly do we mean? MR. ROMULO. We mean that they were created by law, by an act of Congress, or by special law. MR. FOZ. And not under the general corporation law. MR. ROMULO. That is correct. Mr. Presiding Officer. MR. FOZ. With that understanding and clarification, the Committee accepts the amendment. MR. NATIVIDAD. Mr. Presiding officer, so those created by the general corporation law are out. MR. ROMULO. That is correct: 38 On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter. Dr. Jorge Bocobo, in his Cult of Legalism, cited by Mr. Justice Perfecto in his concurring opinion in Gomez vs. Government Insurance Board (L602, March 31, 1947, 44 O.G. No. 8, pp. 2687, 2694; also published in 78 Phil. 221) on the effectivity of the principle of social justice embodied in the 1935 Constitution, said: Certainly, this principle of social justice in our Constitution as generously conceived and so tersely phrased, was not included in the fundamental law as a mere popular gesture. It was meant to (be) a vital, articulate, compelling principle of public policy. It should be observed in the interpretation not only of future legislation, but also of all laws already existing on November 15, 1935. It was intended to change the spirit of our laws, present and future. Thus, all the laws which on the great historic event when the Commonwealth of the Philippines was born, were susceptible of two interpretations strict or liberal, against or in favor of social justice, now have to be construed broadly in order to promote and achieve social justice. This may seem novel to our friends, the advocates of legalism but it is the only way to give life and significance to the abovequoted principle of the Constitution. If it was not designed to apply to these existing laws, then it would be necessary to wait for generations until all our codes and all our statutes shall have been completely charred by removing every provision inimical to social justice, before the policy of social justice can become really effective. That would be an absurd conclusion. It is more reasonable to hold that this constitutional principle applies to all legislation in force on November 15, 1935, and all laws thereafter passed. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the challenged decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with modifications. Petitioners in G.R. No. 69870, who are the private respondents in G.R. No. 70295, are ordered to: 1) reinstate Eugenia C. Credo to her former position at the time of her termination, or if such reinstatement is not possible, to place her in a substantially equivalent position, with three (3) years backwages, from 1 December 1983, without qualification or deduction, and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) pay Eugenia C. Credo P5,000.00 for moral damages and P5,000.00 for attorney's fees. If reinstatement in any event is no longer possible because of supervening events, petitioners in G.R. No. 69870, who are the private respondents in G.R. No. 70295 are ordered to pay Eugenia C. Credo, in addition to her backwages and damages as above described, separation pay equivalent to one-half month's salary for every year of service, to be computed on her monthly salary at the time of her termination on 1 December 1983. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 85279 July 28, 1989 SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA), DIONISION T. BAYLON, RAMON MODESTO, JUANITO MADURA, REUBEN ZAMORA, VIRGILIO DE ALDAY, SERGIO ARANETA, PLACIDO AGUSTIN, VIRGILIO MAGPAYO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), HON. CEZAR C. PERALEJO, RTC, BRANCH 98, QUEZON CITY, respondents.

Vicente T. Ocampo & Associates for petitioners. CORTES, J: Primarily, the issue raised in this petition is whether or not the Regional Trial Court can enjoin the Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA) from striking and order the striking employees to return to work. Collaterally, it is whether or not employees of the Social Security System (SSS) have the right to strike. The antecedents are as follows: On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners, alleging that on June 9, 1987, the officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike and baricaded the entrances to the SSS Building, preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS members from transacting business with the SSS; that the strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor - Management Council, which ordered the strikers to return to work; that the strikers refused to return to work; and that the SSS suffered damages as a result of the strike. The complaint prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and that the strikers be ordered to return to work; that the defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay damages; and that the strike be declared illegal. It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union's demands, which included: implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on check-off of union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay; conversion of temporary or contractual employees with six (6) months or more of service into regular and permanent employees and their entitlement to the same salaries, allowances and benefits given to other regular employees of the SSS; and payment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts of discrimination and unfair labor practices [Rollo, pp. 21-241]. The court a quo, on June 11, 1987, issued a temporary restraining order pending resolution of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction [Rollo, p. 71.] In the meantime, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter [Rollo, pp. 72-82.] To this motion, the SSS filed an opposition, reiterating its prayer for the issuance of a writ of injunction [Rollo, pp. 209-222]. On July 22,1987, in a four-page order, the court a quo denied the motion to dismiss and converted the restraining order into an injunction upon posting of a bond, after finding that the strike was illegal [Rollo, pp. 83- 86]. As petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of the aforesaid order was also denied on August 14, 1988 [Rollo, p. 94], petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before this Court. Their petition was docketed as G.R. No. 79577. In a resolution dated October 21, 1987, the Court, through the Third Division, resolved to refer the case to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration thereof, but during its pendency the Court of Appeals on March 9,1988 promulgated its decision on the referred case [Rollo, pp. 130-137]. Petitioners moved to recall the Court of Appeals' decision. In the meantime, the Court on June 29,1988 denied the motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 97577 for being moot and academic. Petitioners' motion to recall the decision of the Court of Appeals was also denied in view of this Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration [Rollo, pp. 141143]. Hence, the instant petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals [Rollo, pp. 12-37]. Upon motion of the SSS on February 6,1989, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the petitioners from staging another strike or from pursuing the notice of strike they filed with the Department of Labor and Employment on January 25, 1989 and to maintain the status quo [Rollo, pp. 151-152]. The Court, taking the comment as answer, and noting the reply and supplemental reply filed by petitioners, considered the issues joined and the case submitted for decision. The position of the petitioners is that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to issue the restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction, as jurisdiction lay with the Department of Labor and Employment or the National Labor Relations Commission, since the case involves a labor dispute. On the other hand, the SSS advances the contrary view, on the ground that the employees of the SSS are covered by civil service laws and rules and regulations, not the Labor Code, therefore they do not have the right to strike. Since neither the DOLE nor the NLRC has jurisdiction over the dispute, the Regional Trial Court may enjoin the employees from striking. In dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by petitioners, the Court of Appeals held that since the employees of the SSS, are government employees, they are not allowed to strike, and may be enjoined by the Regional Trial Court, which had jurisdiction over the SSS' complaint for damages, from continuing with their strike. Thus, the sequential questions to be resolved by the Court in deciding whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Regional Trial Court did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction when it took cognizance of the case and enjoined the strike are as follows: 1. Do the employees of the SSS have the right to strike? 2. Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to enjoin the strikers from continuing with the strike and to order them to return to work? These shall be discussed and resolved seriatim I

The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. 31]. By itself, this provision would seem to recognize the right of all workers and employees, including those in the public sector, to strike. But the Constitution itself fails to expressly confirm this impression, for in the Sub-Article on the Civil Service Commission, it provides, after defining the scope of the civil service as "all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters," that "[t]he right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(l) and (50)]. Parenthetically, the Bill of Rights also provides that "[tlhe right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not abridged" [Art. III, Sec. 8]. Thus, while there is no question that the Constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize, it is silent as to whether such recognition also includes the right to strike. Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law becomes helpful in understanding the meaning of these provisions. A reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution would show that in recognizing the right of government employees to organize, the commissioners intended to limit the right to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the right to strike. Thus, Commissioner Eulogio R. Lerum, one of the sponsors of the provision that "[tlhe right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees" [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(5)], in answer to the apprehensions expressed by Commissioner Ambrosio B. Padilla, Vice-President of the Commission, explained: MR. LERUM. I think what I will try to say will not take that long. When we proposed this amendment providing for selforganization of government employees, it does not mean that because they have the right to organize, they also have the right to strike. That is a different matter. We are only talking about organizing, uniting as a union. With regard to the right to strike, everyone will remember that in the Bill of Rights, there is a provision that the right to form associations or societies whose purpose is not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Now then, if the purpose of the state is to prohibit the strikes coming from employees exercising government functions, that could be done because the moment that is prohibited, then the union which will go on strike will be an illegal union. And that provision is carried in Republic Act 875. In Republic Act 875, workers, including those from the government-owned and controlled, are allowed to organize but they are prohibited from striking. So, the fear of our honorable Vice- President is unfounded. It does not mean that because we approve this resolution, it carries with it the right to strike. That is a different matter. As a matter of fact, that subject is now being discussed in the Committee on Social Justice because we are trying to find a solution to this problem. We know that this problem exist; that the moment we allow anybody in the government to strike, then what will happen if the members of the Armed Forces will go on strike? What will happen to those people trying to protect us? So that is a matter of discussion in the Committee on Social Justice. But, I repeat, the right to form an organization does not carry with it the right to strike. [Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 1, p. 569]. It will be recalled that the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. No. 875), which was repealed by the Labor Code (P.D. 442) in 1974, expressly banned strikes by employees in the Government, including instrumentalities exercising governmental functions, but excluding entities entrusted with proprietary functions: .Sec. 11. Prohibition Against Strikes in the Government. The terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, are governed by law and it is declared to be the policy of this Act that employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes or modification in their terms and conditions of employment. Such employees may belong to any labor organization which does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided, however, That this section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental functions and not those employed in proprietary functions of the Government including but not limited to governmental corporations. No similar provision is found in the Labor Code, although at one time it recognized the right of employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code to organize and bargain collectively and those in the civil service to "form organizations for purposes not contrary to law" [Art. 244, before its amendment by B.P. Blg. 70 in 1980], in the same breath it provided that "[t]he terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations" [now Art. 276]. Understandably, the Labor Code is silent as to whether or not government employees may strike, for such are excluded from its coverage [ Ibid]. But then the Civil Service Decree [P.D. No. 807], is equally silent on the matter. On June 1, 1987, to implement the constitutional guarantee of the right of government employees to organize, the President issued E.O. No. 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of government employees. In Section 14 thereof, it is provided that "[t]he Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed, subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress." The President was apparently referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service Commission under date April 21, 1987 which, "prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by government employees ... enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service." The air was thus cleared of the confusion. At present, in the absence of any legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of the right, they are prohibited from striking, by express provision of Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied in E.O. No. 180. [At this juncture, it must be stated that the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 6 is not at issue]. But are employees of the SSS covered by the prohibition against strikes? The Court is of the considered view that they are. Considering that under the 1987 Constitution "[t]he civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters"

[Art. IX(B), Sec. .2(l) see also Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees in the civil service are denominated as "government employees"] and that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are part of the civil service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870 & 70295, November 24,1988] and are covered by the Civil Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. This being the case, the strike staged by the employees of the SSS was illegal. The statement of the Court in Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment [G.R. No. 60403, August 3, 1:983, 124 SCRA 11 is relevant as it furnishes the rationale for distinguishing between workers in the private sector and government employees with regard to the right to strike: The general rule in the past and up to the present is that 'the terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof are governed by law" (Section 11, the Industrial Peace Act, R.A. No. 875, as amended and Article 277, the Labor Code, P.D. No. 442, as amended). Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers. The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. In government employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment. And this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through collective bargaining agreements. [At p. 13; Emphasis supplied]. Apropos is the observation of the Acting Commissioner of Civil Service, in his position paper submitted to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and quoted with approval by the Court in Alliance, to wit: It is the stand, therefore, of this Commission that by reason of the nature of the public employer and the peculiar character of the public service, it must necessarily regard the right to strike given to unions in private industry as not applying to public employees and civil service employees. It has been stated that the Government, in contrast to the private employer, protects the interest of all people in the public service, and that accordingly, such conflicting interests as are present in private labor relations could not exist in the relations between government and those whom they employ. [At pp. 16-17; also quoted in National Housing Corporation v. Juco, G.R. No. 64313, January 17,1985,134 SCRA 172,178-179]. E.O. No. 180, which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of government employees, while clinging to the same philosophy, has, however, relaxed the rule to allow negotiation where the terms and conditions of employment involved are not among those fixed by law. Thus: .SECTION 13. Terms and conditions of employment or improvements thereof, except those that are fixed by law, may be the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees' organizations and appropriate government authorities. The same executive order has also provided for the general mechanism for the settlement of labor disputes in the public sector to wit: .SECTION 16. The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees. In case any dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the [Public Sector Labor- Management] Council for appropriate action. Government employees may, therefore, through their unions or associations, either petition the Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment which are within the ambit of legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government agencies for the improvement of those which are not fixed by law. If there be any unresolved grievances, the dispute may be referred to the Public Sector Labor - Management Council for appropriate action. But employees in the civil service may not resort to strikes, walk-outs and other temporary work stoppages, like workers in the private sector, to pressure the Govemment to accede to their demands. As now provided under Sec. 4, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government- Employees to Self- Organization, which took effect after the instant dispute arose, "[t]he terms and conditions of employment in the government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government- owned and controlled corporations with original charters are governed by law and employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes thereof." II The strike staged by the employees of the SSS belonging to petitioner union being prohibited by law, an injunction may be issued to restrain it. It is futile for the petitioners to assert that the subject labor dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC and, hence, the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction enjoining the continuance of the strike. The Labor Code itself provides that terms and conditions of employment of government employees shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations [Art. 276]. More importantly, E.O. No. 180 vests the Public Sector Labor - Management Council with jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government employees [Sec. 16]. Clearly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the dispute. This being the case, the Regional Trial Court was not precluded, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, from assuming jurisdiction over the SSS's complaint for damages and issuing the injunctive writ prayed for therein. Unlike the NLRC, the Public Sector Labor - Management Council has not been granted by law authority to issue writs of injunction in labor disputes within its jurisdiction.

Thus, since it is the Council, and not the NLRC, that has jurisdiction over the instant labor dispute, resort to the general courts of law for the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate. Neither could the court a quo be accused of imprudence or overzealousness, for in fact it had proceeded with caution. Thus, after issuing a writ of injunction enjoining the continuance of the strike to prevent any further disruption of public service, the respondent judge, in the same order, admonished the parties to refer the unresolved controversies emanating from their employer- employee relationship to the Public Sector Labor Management Council for appropriate action [Rollo, p. 86]. III In their "Petition/Application for Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction," and reiterated in their reply and supplemental reply, petitioners allege that the SSS unlawfully withheld bonuses and benefits due the individual petitioners and they pray that the Court issue a writ of preliminary prohibitive and mandatory injunction to restrain the SSS and its agents from withholding payment thereof and to compel the SSS to pay them. In their supplemental reply, petitioners annexed an order of the Civil Service Commission, dated May 5, 1989, which ruled that the officers of the SSSEA who are not preventively suspended and who are reporting for work pending the resolution of the administrative cases against them are entitled to their salaries, year-end bonuses and other fringe benefits and affirmed the previous order of the Merit Systems Promotion Board. The matter being extraneous to the issues elevated to this Court, it is Our view that petitioners' remedy is not to petition this Court to issue an injunction, but to cause the execution of the aforesaid order, if it has already become final. WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED and the decision of the appellate court dated March 9, 1988 in CA-G.R. SP No. 13192 is AFFIRMED. Petitioners' "Petition/Application for Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction" dated December 13,1988 is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1990 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO ABUG, respondents.

CRUZ, J: The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of Article 13(b) of P.D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, reading as follows: (b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1 Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee. " 2 Denied at first, the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in the Orders of the trial court dated June 24 and September 17, 1981. The prosecution is now before us on certiorari. 3 The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable. The view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or m re persons as an indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more persons

is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article may involve even only one person and are not necessarily for profit. Neither interpretation is acceptable. We fail to see why the proviso should speak only of an offer or promise of employment if the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or more persons to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner does not explain why dealings with two or more persons are needed where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it is done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. " The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption. This is not unlike the presumption in article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for example, regarding the failure of a public officer to produce upon lawful demand funds or property entrusted to his custody. Such failure shall be prima facie evidence that he has put them to personal use; in other words, he shall be deemed to have malversed such funds or property. In the instant case, the word "shall be deemed" should by the same token be given the force of a disputable presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and placement. (Klepp vs. Odin Tp., McHenry County 40 ND N.W. 313, 314.) It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision for lack of records of debates and deliberations that would otherwise have been available if the Labor Code had been enacted as a statute rather than a presidential decree. The trouble with presidential decrees is that they could be, and sometimes were, issued without previous public discussion or consultation, the promulgator heeding only his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty pinnacle of power. The not infrequent results are rejection, intentional or not, of the interest of the greater number and, as in the instant case, certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read against the background facts usually reported in the legislative journals. At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of theirown countrymen. WHEREFORE, the Orders of June 24, 1981, and September 17, 1981, are set aside and the four informations against the private respondent reinstated. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant. REGALADO, J.: On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, alleging That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor. 1 On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was arrested. 2 Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused. 3

Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of arrest. 4 Eventually, at around midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paraaque police. 5 On March 8, 1993, her counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing "for purposes of due process and for the accused to immediately have her day in court" 6 Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial court reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993, 7 on which date of Agustin pleaded not guilty 8 and the case subsequently went to trial. Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness stand and he declared that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt. 9 Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who were his relatives, went to the office of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad. 10 Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence, in October, 1987, along with the other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00. 11 Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she and her husband could live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the total sum of P4,000.00. 12 Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring them to report to its office because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and his wife's passports. Despite followup of their papers twice a week from February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad. 13 Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover Placement Agency at Paraaque, the agency's former office address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted several pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials. 14 In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the placement fee, and in September of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts and was advised to go to the placement office once in a while to follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 in installments. 15 As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Paraaque. She informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00. 16 On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the latter's residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement agency's office to follow up his application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find her. 17 Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors at Tambo, Paraaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to which request she acceded. 18 Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce spouses. She failed to do so because in truth, so she claims, she does not know the present address of the couple. All she knew was that they had left their residence in 1987. 19 Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she explained that it was entirely for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a loan, while Alvarez needed money because he was sick at that time. 20 On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00. 21

In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants. 22 These three arguments being interrelated, they will be discussed together. Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by nonlicensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said certification states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. 23 Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies that she was in any way guilty of illegal recruitment. 24 It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment. Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. 25 On the other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. 26 Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency. As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity. 27 Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce couple, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented herself as "nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman." 28 Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agency, working together with the Goce couple. There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." 29 It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so employed. 30 It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose of their applications. Her act of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact, appellant demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is true that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not considered per se as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that was because the recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not conspire with her co-accused in defrauding the victims. 31 That is not the case here. Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments from complainants to appellant." On the contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented by the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed by appellant, was presented by the prosecution. Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and signed by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of documents for Oman." Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows that appellant received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of documents for Oman." 34 Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses. 35

Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, 36 where this particular issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants' failure to ask for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared sufficient to establish that factum probandum. Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 37 The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility of witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse of discretion therein. The findings of fact of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate court. 38 Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. 39 In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above. In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course of procedure should not apply in this case. WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D. Agustin. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 110524

July 29, 2002

DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and ESSO INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., LTD. respondents. RESOLUTION KAPUNAN, J.: On March 14, 2000, the Court promulgated its decision in the above-entitled case, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The dispositive portion reads, as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision, dated June 1, 1993, of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered ordering the private respondents to: (1) Reinstate petitioners Millares and Lagda to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, and to pay full backwages computed from the time of illegal dismissal to the time of actual reinstatement; (2) Alternatively, if reinstatement is not possible, pay petitioners Millares and Lagda separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service; and, (3) Jointly and severally pay petitioners One Hundred Percent (100%) of their total credited contributions as provided under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan. SO ORDERED.1 A motion for reconsideration was consequently filed2 by the private respondents to which petitioners filed an Opposition thereto. 3 In a Minute Resolution dated June 28, 2000, the Court resolved to deny the motion for reconsideration with finality.4

Subsequently, the Filipino Association for Mariners Employment, Inc. (FAME) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit a Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention. Private respondents, meanwhile, also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration of our decision. In both motions, the private respondents and FAME respectively pray in the main that the Court reconsider its ruling that "Filipino seafarers are considered regular employees within the context of Article 280 of the Labor Code." They claim that the decision may establish a precedent that will adversely affect the maritime industry. The Court resolved to set the case for oral arguments to enable the parties to present their sides. To recall, the facts of the case are, as follows: Petitioner Douglas Millares was employed by private respondent ESSO International Shipping Company LTD. (Esso International, for brevity) through its local manning agency, private respondent Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. (Trans-Global, for brevity) on November 16, 1968 as a machinist. In 1975, he was promoted as Chief Engineer which position he occupied until he opted to retire in 1989. He was then receiving a monthly salary of US $1,939.00. On June 13, 1989, petitioner Millares applied for a leave of absence for the period July 9 to August 7, 1989. In a letter dated June 14, 1989, Michael J. Estaniel, President of private respondent Trans-Global, approved the request for leave of absence. On June 21, 1989, petitioner Millares wrote G.S. Hanly, Operations Manager of Exxon International Co., (now Esso International) through Michael J. Estaniel, informing him of his intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that he had already rendered more than twenty (20) years of continuous service. On July 13, 1989 respondent Esso International, through W.J. Vrints, Employee Relations Manager, denied petitioner Millares' request for optional retirement on the following grounds, to wit: (1) he was employed on a contractual basis; (2) his contract of enlistment (COE) did not provide for retirement before the age of sixty (60) years; and (3) he did not comply with the requirement for claiming benefits under the CEIP, i.e., to submit a written advice to the company of his intention to terminate his employment within thirty (30) days from his last disembarkation date. On August 9, 1989, petitioner Millares requested for an extension of his leave of absence from August 9 to 24, 1989. On August 19, 1989, Roy C. Palomar, Crewing Manager, Ship Group A, Trans-global, wrote petitioner Millares advising him that respondent Esso International "has corrected the deficiency in its manpower requirement specifically in the Chief Engineer rank by promoting a First Assistant Engineer to this position as a result of (his) previous leave of absence which expired last August 8, 1989. The adjustment in said rank was required in order to meet manpower schedules as a result of (his) inability." On September 26, 1989, respondent Esso International, through H. Regenboog, Personnel Administrator, advised petitioner Millares that in view of his absence without leave, which is equivalent to abandonment of his position, he had been dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989. On the other hand, petitioner Lagda was employed by private respondent Esso International as wiper/oiler in June 1969. He was promoted as Chief Engineer in 1980, a position he continued to occupy until his last COE expired on April 10, 1989. He was then receiving a monthly salary of US$1,939.00. On May 16, 1989, petitioner Lagda applied for a leave of absence from June 19, 1989 up to the whole month of August 1989. On June 14, 1989, respondent Trans-Global's President, Michael J. Estaniel, approved petitioner Lagda's leave of absence from June 22, 1989 to July 20, 1989 and advised him to report for re-assignment on July 21, 1989. On June 26, 1989, petitioner Lagda wrote a letter to G.S. Stanley, Operations Manager of respondent Esso International, through respondent Trans-Global's President Michael J. Estaniel, informing him of his intention to avail of the optional early retirement plan in view of his twenty (20) years continuous service in the complaint. On July 13, 1989, respondent Trans-global denied petitioner Lagda's request for availment of the optional early retirement scheme on the same grounds upon which petitioner Millares request was denied. On August 3, 1989, he requested for an extension of his leave of absence up to August 26, 1989 and the same was approved. However, on September 27, 1989, respondent Esso International, through H. Regenboog, Personnel Administrator, advised petitioner Lagda that in view of his "unavailability for contractual sea service," he had been dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989. On October 5, 1989, petitioners Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit, docketed as POEA (M) 89-10-9671, for illegal dismissal and non-payment of employee benefits against private respondents Esso International and Trans-Global, before the POEA.5 On July 17, 1991, the POEA rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the POEA was affirmed on June 1, 1993 with the following disquisition: The first issue must be decided in the negative. Complainants-appellants, as seamen and overseas contract workers are not covered by the term "regular employment" as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. The POEA, which is tasked with protecting the rights of the Filipino workers for overseas employment to fair and equitable recruitment and employment practices and to ensure their

welfare, prescribes a standard employment contract for seamen on board ocean-going vessels for a fixed period but in no case to exceed twelve (12) months (Part 1, Sec. C). This POEA policy appears to be in consonance with the international maritime practice. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702, had held that a fixed term is essential and natural appurtenance of overseas employment contracts to which the concept of regular employment with all that it implies is not applicable, Article 280 of the Labor Code notwithstanding. There is, therefore, no reason to disturb the POEA Administrator's finding that complainants-appellants were hired on a contractual basis and for a definite period. Their employment is thus governed by the contracts they sign each time they are re-hired and is terminated at the expiration of the contract period. 6 Undaunted, the petitioners elevated their case to this Court7 and successfully obtained the favorable action, which is now vehemently being assailed. At the hearing on November 15, 2000, the Court defined the issues for resolution in this case, namely: I. ARE PETITIONERS REGULAR OR CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES WHOSE EMPLOYMENTS ARE TERMINATED EVERYTIME THEIR CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT EXPIRE? II. ASSUMING THAT PETITIONERS ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES, WERE THEY DISMISSED WITHOUT JUST CAUSE SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AND BACKWAGES, INCLUDING PAYMENT OF 100% OF THEIR TOTAL CREDITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSECUTIVE ENLISTMENT INCENTIVE PLAN (CEIP)? III. DOES THE PROVISION OF THE POEA STANDARD CONTRACT FOR SEAFARERS ON BOARD FOREIGN VESSELS (SEC. C., DURATION OF CONTRACT) PRECLUDE THE ATTAINMENT BY SEAMEN OF THE STATUS OF REGULAR EMPLOYEES? IV. DOES THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN G.R. NO. 110524 CONTRAVENE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW, ALLEGEDLY PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND UNDER SECTION 2, ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION? V. DOES THE SAME DECISION OF THE COURT CONSTITUTE A DEPARTURE FROM ITS RULING IN COYOCA VS. NLRC (G.R. NO. 113658, March 31, 1995)?8 In answer to the private respondents' Second Motion for Reconsideration and to FAME's Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention, petitioners maintain that they are regular employees as found by the Court in the March 14, 2000 Decision. Considering that petitioners performed activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of private respondents, they should be considered as regular employees pursuant to Article 280, Par. 1 of the Labor Code.9 Other justifications for this ruling include the fact that petitioners have rendered over twenty (20) years of service, as admitted by the private respondents;10 that they were recipients of Merit Pay which is an express acknowledgment by the private respondents that petitioners are regular and not just contractual employees;11 that petitioners were registered under the Social Security System (SSS). The petitioners further state that the case of Coyoca v. NLRC12 which the private respondents invoke is not applicable to the case at bar as the factual milieu in that case is not the same. Furthermore, private respondents' fear that our judicial pronouncement will spell the death of the manning industry is far from real. Instead, with the valuable contribution of the manning industry to our economy, these seafarers are supposed to be considered as "Heroes of the Republic" whose rights must be protected. 13 Finally, the first motion for reconsideration has already been denied with finality by this Court and it is about time that the Court should write finis to this case. The private respondents, on the other hand, contend that: (a) the ruling holding petitioners as regular employees was not in accord with the decision in Coyoca v. NLRC, 243 SCRA 190; (b) Art. 280 is not applicable as what applies is the POEA Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment; (c) seafarers are not regular employees based on international maritime practice; (d) grave consequences would result on the future of seafarers and manning agencies if the ruling is not reconsidered; (e) there was no dismissal committed; (f) a dismissed seafarer is not entitled to back wages and reinstatement, that being not allowed under the POEA rules and the Migrant Workers Act; and, (g) petitioners are not entitled to claim the total amount credited to their account under the CEIP. 14 Meanwhile, Intervenor Filipino Association of Mariners Employment (FAME) avers that our decision, if not reconsidered, will have negative consequences in the employment of Filipino Seafarers overseas which, in turn, might lead to the demise of the manning industry in the Philippines. As intervenor FAME puts it: xxx 7.1 Foreign principals will start looking for alternative sources for seafarers to man their ships. AS reported by the BIMCO/ISF study, "there is an expectancy that there will be an increasing demand for (and supply of) Chinese seafarers, with some commentators suggesting that this may be a long-term alternative to the Philippines." Moreover, "the political changes within the former Eastern Bloc have made new sources of supply available to the international market." Intervenor's recent survey among its members shows that 50 Philippine manning companies had already lost some 6,300 slots to other Asian, East Europe and Chinese competition for the last two years; 7.2 The Philippine stands to lose an annual foreign income estimated at U.S. DOLLARS TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FORTY NINE THOUSAND (US$ 274,549,000.00) from the manning industry and another US DOLLARS FOUR BILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND (US$ 4,650,760,000.00) from the land-based sector if seafarers and equally situated land-based contract workers will be declared regular employees;

7.3 Some 195,917 (as of 1998) deployed overseas Filipino seafarers will be rendered jobless should we lose the market; 7.4 Some 360 manning agencies (as of 30 June 2000) whose principals may no longer be doing business with them will close their shops; 7.5 The contribution to the Overseas Worker's Welfare Administration by the sector, which is USD 25.00 per contract and translates to US DOLLARS FOUR MILLION (US$ 4,000,000.00)annually, will be drastically reduced. This is not to mention the processing fees paid to POEA, Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC), Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) for the documentation of these seafarers; 7.6 Worst, some 195,917 (as of 1998) families will suffer socially and economically, as their breadwinners will be rendered jobless; and 7.7 It will considerably slow down the government's program of employment generation, considering that, as expected foreign employers will now avoid hiring Filipino overseas contract workers as they will become regular employees with all its concomitant effects.15 Significantly, the Office of the Solicitor General, in a departure from its original position in this case, has now taken the opposite view. It has expressed its apprehension in sustaining our decision and has called for a re-examination of our ruling.16 Considering all the arguments presented by the private respondents, the Intervenor FAME and the OSG, we agree that there is a need to reconsider our position with respect to the status of seafarers which we considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. We, therefore, partially grant the second motion for reconsideration. In Brent School Inc. v. Zamora,17 the Supreme Court stated that Article 280 of the Labor Code does not apply to overseas employment. In the light of the foregoing description of the development of the provisions of the Labor Code bearing on term or fixed-period employment that the question posed in the opening paragraph of this opinion should now be addressed. Is it then the legislative intention to outlaw stipulations in employment contracts laying down a definite period therefor? Are such stipulations in essence contrary to public policy and should not on this account be accorded legitimacy? On the other hand, there is the gradual and progressive elimination of references to term or fixed-period employment in the Labor Code, and the specific statement of the rule that: Regular and Casual Employment The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be employee is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph; provided that, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists. There is, on the other hand, the Civil Code, which has always recognized, and continues to recognize, the validity and propriety of contracts and obligations with a fixed or definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the parties to fix the duration of a contract, whatever its object, be it specific, goods or services, except the general admonition against stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Under the Civil code, therefore, and as a general proposition, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those by natural seasonal or for specific projects with predetermined dates of completion; they also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. Some familiar examples may be cited of employment contract which may be neither for seasonal work nor for specific projects, but to which a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance: overseas employment contracts, for one, to which, whatever the nature of the engagement, the concept of regular employment with all that it implies does not appear ever to have been applied. Article 280 of the Labor Code notwithstanding also appointments to the positions of dean, assistant dean, college secretary, principal, and other administrative offices in educational institutions, which are by practice or tradition rotated among the faculty members, and where fixed terms are a necessity without which no reasonable rotation would be possible. Similarly, despite the provisions of Article 280, Policy Instructions. No. 8 of the Minister of Labor implicitly recognize that certain company officials may be elected for what would amount to fix periods, at the expiration of which they would have to stand down, in providing that these officials, xxx may lose their jobs as president, executive vice-president or vice-president, etc. because the stockholders or the board of directors for one reason or another did not reelect them. There can of course be no quarrel with the proposition that where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregard as contrary to public policy, morals, etc. But where no such intent to circumvent the law is shown, or stated otherwise, where the reason for the law does not exists, e.g., where it is indeed the employee himself who insists upon a period or where the nature of the engagement is such that, without being seasonal or for a specific project, a definite date of termination is a sine qua non, would an agreement fixing a period be

essentially evil or illicit, therefore anathema? Would such an agreement come within the scope of Article 280 which admittedly was enacted "to prevent the circumvention of the right of the employee to be secured in xxx his employment As it is evident from even only the three examples already given that Article 280 of the Labor Code, under a narrow and literal interpretation, not only fails to exhaust the gamut of employment contracts to which the lack of a fixed period would be an anomaly, but would also appear to restrict, without reasonable distinctions, the right of an employee to freely stipulate within his employer the duration of his engagement, it logically follows that such a literal interpretation should be eschewed or avoided. The law must be given a reasonable interpretation, to preclude absurdity in its application. Outlawing the whole concept of term employment and subverting to boot the principle of freedom of contract to remedy the evil of employer's using it as a means to prevent their employees from obtaining security of tenure is like cutting off the nose to spite the face or, more relevantly, curing a headache by lopping of the head. It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences." Nothing is better settled than that courts are not to give words a meaning which would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences. That is a principle that goes back to In re Allen decided on October 27, 1902, where it was held that a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results. That is a strong argument against its adoption. The words of Justice Laurel are particularly apt. Thus: "the appellants would lead to an absurdity is another argument for rejecting it." xxx We have, here, then a case where the true intent of the law is clear that calls for the application of the cardinal rule of statutory construction that such intent of spirit must prevail over the letter thereof, for whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, since adherence to the letter would result in absurdity, injustice and contradictions and would defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute. Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor code clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out; agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. Unless thus limited in its purview, the law would be made to apply to purposes other than those explicitly stated by its framers; it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary, unjust in its effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended consequences. Again, in Pablo Coyoca v. NLRC,18 the Court also held that a seafarer is not a regular employee and is not entitled to separation pay. His employment is governed by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen. x x x. In this connection, it is important to note that neither does the POEA standard employment contract for Filipino seamen provide for such benefits. As a Filipino seaman, petitioner is governed by the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment and the said Rules do not provide for separation or termination pay. What is embodied in petitioner's contract is the payment of compensation arising from permanent partial disability during the period of employment. We find that private respondent complied with the terms of contract when it paid petitioner P42,315.00 which, in our opinion, is a reasonable amount, as compensation for his illness. Lastly, petitioner claims that he eventually became a regular employee of private respondent and thus falls within the purview of Articles 284 and 95 of the Labor Code. In support of this contention, petitioner cites the case of Worth Shipping Service, Inc., et al. v. NLRC, et al., wherein we held that the crew members of the shipping company had attained regular status and thus, were entitled to separation pay. However, the facts of said case differ from the present. In Worth, we held that the principal and agent had "operational control and management" over the MV Orient Carrier and thus, were the actual employers of their crew members. From the foregoing cases, it is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.19 We need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned cases which indeed constitute stare decisis with respect to the employment status of seafarers. Petitioners insist that they should be considered regular employees, since they have rendered services which are usually necessary and desirable to the business of their employer, and that they have rendered more than twenty(20) years of service. While this may be true, the Brent case has, however, held that there are certain forms of employment which also require the performance of usual and desirable functions and which exceed one year but do not necessarily attain regular employment status under Article 280. 20 Overseas workers including seafarers fall under this type of employment which are governed by the mutual agreements of the parties.

In this jurisdiction and as clearly stated in the Coyoca case, Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the POEA. The Standard Employment Contract governing the employment of All Filipino seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the POEA, particularly in Part I, Sec. C specifically provides that the contract of seamen shall be for a fixed period. And in no case should the contract of seamen be longer than 12 months. It reads: Section C. Duration of Contract The period of employment shall be for a fixed period but in no case to exceed 12 months and shall be stated in the Crew Contract. Any extension of the Contract period shall be subject to the mutual consent of the parties. Moreover, it is an accepted maritime industry practice that employment of seafarers are for a fixed period only. Constrained by the nature of their employment which is quite peculiar and unique in itself, it is for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer why the employment status must be contractual only or for a certain period of time. Seafarers spend most of their time at sea and understandably, they can not stay for a long and an indefinite period of time at sea.21 Limited access to shore society during the employment will have an adverse impact on the seafarer. The national, cultural and lingual diversity among the crew during the COE is a reality that necessitates the limitation of its period.22 Petitioners make much of the fact that they have been continually re-hired or their contracts renewed before the contracts expired (which has admittedly been going on for twenty (20) years). By such circumstance they claim to have acquired regular status with all the rights and benefits appurtenant to it. Such contention is untenable. Undeniably, this circumstance of continuous re-hiring was dictated by practical considerations that experienced crew members are more preferred. Petitioners were only given priority or preference because of their experience and qualifications but this does not detract the fact that herein petitioners are contractual employees. They can not be considered regular employees. We quote with favor the explanation of the NLRC in this wise: xxx The reference to "permanent" and "probationary" masters and employees in these papers is a misnomer and does not alter the fact that the contracts for enlistment between complainants-appellants and respondent-appellee Esso International were for a definite periods of time, ranging from 8 to 12 months. Although the use of the terms "permanent" and "probationary" is unfortunate, what is really meant is "eligible for-re-hire". This is the only logical conclusion possible because the parties cannot and should not violate POEA's requirement that a contract of enlistment shall be for a limited period only; not exceeding twelve (12)months. 23 From all the foregoing, we hereby state that petitioners are not considered regular or permanent employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioners' employment have automatically ceased upon the expiration of their contracts of enlistment (COE). Since there was no dismissal to speak of, it follows that petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement or payment of separation pay or backwages, as provided by law. With respect to the benefits under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP), we hold that the petitioners are still entitled to receive 100% of the total amount credited to him under the CEIP. Considering that we have declared that petitioners are contractual employees, their compensation and benefits are covered by the contracts they signed and the CEIP is part and parcel of the contract. The CEIP was formulated to entice seamen to stay long in the company. As the name implies, the program serves as an incentive for the employees to renew their contracts with the same company for as long as their services were needed. For those who remained loyal to them, they were duly rewarded with this additional remuneration under the CEIP, if eligible. While this is an act of benevolence on the part of the employer, it can not, however, be denied that this is part of the benefits accorded to the employees for services rendered. Such right to the benefits is vested upon them upon their eligibility to the program. The CEIP provides that an employee becomes covered under the Plan when he completes thirty-six (36) months or an equivalent of three (3) years of credited service with respect to employment after June 30, 1973. 24 Upon eligibility, an amount shall be credited to his account as it provides, among others: III. Distribution of Benefits A. Retirement, Death and Disability When the employment of an employee terminates because of his retirement, death or permanent and total disability, a percentage of the total amount credited to his account will be distributed to him (or his eligible survivor(s) in accordance with the following: Reason for Termination a) Attainment of mandatory retirement age of 60. b) Permanent and total disability, while under contract, that is not due to accident or misconduct. c) Permanent and total disability, while under contract, that is due to accident, and not due to misconduct. xxx B. Voluntary Termination Percentage 100% 100% 100%

When an employee voluntary terminates his employment with at least 36 months of credited service without any misconduct on his part, 18 percent of the total amount credited to his account, plus an additional of one percent for each month (up to a maximum of 164 months of credited service in excess of 36, will be distributed to him provided (1) the employee has completed his last Contract of Enlistment and (2) employee advises the company in writing, within 30 days, from his last disembarkation date, of his intention to terminate his employment. (To advise the Company in writing means that the original letter must be sent to the Company's agent in the Philippines, a copy sent to the Company in New York). xxx C. Other Terminations When the employment of an employee is terminated by the Company for a reason other than one in A and B above, without any misconduct on his part, a percentage of the total amount credited to his account will be distributed to him in accordance with the following. Credited Service 36 months 48 " 60 " Percentage 50% 75% 100%

When the employment of an employee is terminated due to his poor-performance, misconduct, unavailability, etc., or if employee is not offered re-engagement for similar reasons, no distribution of any portion of employee's account will ever be made to him (or his eligible survivor[s]). It must be recalled that on June 21, 1989, Millares wrote a letter to his employer informing his intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the CEIP considering that he has rendered more than twenty (20) years of continuous service. Lagda, likewise, manifested the same intention in a letter dated June 26, 1989. Private respondent, however, denied their requests for benefits under the CEIP since: (1) the contract of enlistment (COE) did not provide for retirement before 60 years of age; and that (2) petitioners failed to submit a written notice of their intention to terminate their employment within thirty (30) days from the last disembarkation date pursuant to the provision on Voluntary Termination of the CEIP. Petitioners were eventually dropped from the roster of crew members and on grounds of "abandonment" and "unavailability for contractual sea service", respectively, they were disqualified from receiving any benefits under the CEIP.25 In our March 14, 2000 Decision, we, however, found that petitioners Millares and Lagda were not guilty of "abandonment" or "unavailability for contractual sea service," as we have stated: The absence of petitioners was justified by the fact that they secured the approval of private respondents to take a leave of absence after the termination of their last contracts of enlistment. Subsequently, petitioners sought for extensions of their respective leaves of absence. Granting arguendo that their subsequent requests for extensions were not approved, it cannot be said that petitioners were unavailable or had abandoned their work when they failed to report back for assignment as they were still questioning the denial of private respondents of their desire to avail of the optional early retirement policy, which they believed in good faith to exist.26 Neither can we consider petitioners guilty of poor performance or misconduct since they were recipients of Merit Pay Awards for their exemplary performances in the company. Anent the letters dated June 21, 1989 (for Millares) and June 26, 1989 (for Lagda) which private respondent considered as belated written notices of termination, we find such assertion specious. Notwithstanding, we could conveniently consider the petitioners eligible under Section III-B of the CEIP (Voluntary Termination), but this would, however, award them only a measly amount of benefits which to our mind, the petitioners do not rightfully deserve under the facts and circumstances of the case. As the CEIP provides: III. Distribution of Benefits xxx E. Distribution of Accounts When an employee terminates under conditions that would qualify for a distribution of more than one specified in A, B or C above, the largest single amount, only, will be distributed. Since petitioners' termination of employment under the CEIP do not fall under Section III-A (Retirement, Death and Disability) or Section III-B (Voluntary Termination), nor could they be they be considered under the second paragraph of Section III-C, as earlier discussed; it follows that their termination falls under the first paragraph of Section III-C for which they are entitled to 100% of the total amount credited to their accounts. The private respondents can not now renege on their commitment under the CEIP to reward deserving and loyal employees as the petitioners in this case. In taking cognizance of private respondent's Second Motion for Reconsideration, the Court hereby suspends the rules to make them comformable to law and justice and to subserve an overriding public interest.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to Partially GRANT Private Respondent's Second Motion for Reconsideration and Intervenor FAMES' Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention. The Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated June 1, 1993 is hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION. The Private Respondents, Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. and Esso International Shipping Co., Ltd. are hereby jointly and severally ORDERED to pay petitioners One Hundred Percent (100%) of their total credited contributions as provided under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan(CEIP). SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 127195

August 25, 1999

MARSAMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC. and DIAMANTIDES MARITIME, INC., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and WILFREDO T. CAJERAS, respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.: MARSAMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC. (MARSAMAN) and its foreign principal DIAMANTIDES MARITIME, INC. (DIAMANTIDES) assail the Decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated 16 September 1996 as well as its Resolution dated 12 November 1996 affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision finding them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay respondent Wilfredo T. Cajeras salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, plus attorney's fees. Private respondent Wilfredo T. Cajeras was hired by petitioner MARSAMAN, the local manning agent of petitioner DIAMANTIDES, as Chief Cook Steward on the MV Prigipos, owned and operated by DIAMANTIDES, for a contract period of ten (10) months with a monthly salary of US$600.00, evidenced by a contract between the parties dated 15 June 1995. Cajeras started work on 8 August 1995 but less than two (2) months later, or on 28 September 1995, he was repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by "mutual consent." On 17 November 1995 private respondent Cajeras filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners with the NLRC National Capital Region Arbitration Branch alleging that he was dismissed illegally, denying that his repatriation was by mutual consent, and asking for his unpaid wages, overtime pay, damages, and attorney's fees. 1 Cajeras alleged that he was assigned not only as Chief Cook Steward but also as assistant cook and messman in addition to performing various inventory and requisition jobs. Because of his additional assignments he began to feel sick just a little over a month on the job constraining him to request for medical attention. He was refused at first by Capt. Kouvakas Alekos, master of the MV Prigipos, who just ordered him to continue working. However a day after the ship's arrival at the port of Rotterdam, Holland, on 26 September 1995 Capt. Alekos relented and had him examined at the Medical Center for Seamen. However, the examining physician, Dr. Wden Hoed, neither apprised private respondent about the diagnosis nor issued the requested medical certificate allegedly because he himself would forward the results to private respondent's superiors. Upon returning to the vessel, private respondent was unceremoniously ordered to prepare for immediate repatriation the following day as he was said to be suffering from a disease of unknown origin.1wphi1.nt On 28 September 1995 he was handed his Seaman's Service Record Book with the following entry: "Cause of discharge Mutual Consent."2 Private respondent promptly objected to the entry but was not able to do anything more as he was immediately ushered to a waiting taxi which transported him to the Amsterdam Airport for the return flight to Manila. After his arrival in Manila on 29 September 1995. Cajeras complained to MARSAMAN but to no avail.3 MARSAMAN and DIAMANTIDES, on the other hand, denied the imputation of illegal dismissal. They alleged that Cajeras approached Capt. Alekos on 26 September 1995 and informed the latter that he could not sleep at night because he felt something crawling over his body. Furthermore, Cajeras reportedly declared that he could no longer perform his duties and requested for repatriation. The following paragraph in the vessel's Deck Log was allegedly entered by Capt. Alekos, to wit: Cajeras approached me and he told me that he cannot sleep at night and that he feels something crawling on his body and he declared that he can no longer perform his duties and he must be repatriated.4 Private respondent was then sent to the Medical Center for Seamen at Rotterdam where he was examined by Dr. Wden Hoed whose diagnosis appeared in a Medical Report as "paranoia" and "other mental problems."5 Consequently, upon Dr. Hoed's recommendation, Cajeras was repatriated to the Philippines on 28 September 1995. On 29 January 1996 Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol resolved the dispute in favor of private respondent Cajeras ruling that the latter's discharge from the MV Prigipos allegedly by "mutual consent" was not proved by convincing evidence. The entry made by Capt. Alekos in the Deck Log was dismissed as of little probative value because it was a mere unilateral act unsupported by any document showing mutual consent of Capt. Alekos, as master of the MV Prigipos, and Cajeras to the premature termination of the overseas employment contract as required by Sec. H of the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of all Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels. Dr. Hoed's diagnosis that private respondent was suffering from "paranoia" and "other mental problems" was likewise dismissed as being of little evidentiary value because it was not supported by evidence on how the paranoia was contracted, in what stage it was, and how it affected respondent's functions as Chief Cook Steward which, on the contrary, was even rated "Very Good" in respondent's Service Record Book. Thus, the Labor Arbiter disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the repatriation and dismissal of complaint Wilfredo T. Cajeras as illegal and ordering respondents Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. and Diamantides Maritime, Inc. to jointly and severally pay complainant the sum of USD 5,100.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment plus USD 510.00 as 10% attorney's fees it appearing that complainant had to engage the service of counsel to protect his interest in the prosecution of this case. The claims for nonpayment of wages and overtime pay are dismissed for having been withdrawn (Minutes, December 18, 1995). The claims for damages are likewise dismissed for lack of merit, since no evidence was presented to show that bad faith characterized the dismissal.6 Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.7 On 16 September 1996 the NLRC affirmed the appealed findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter.8 The NLRC subscribed to the view that Cajeras' repatriation by alleged mutual consent was not proved by petitioners, especially after noting that private respondent did not actually sign his Seaman's Service Record Book to signify his assent to the repatriation as alleged by petitioners. The entry made by Capt. Alekos in the Deck Log was not considered reliable proof that private respondent agreed to his repatriation because no opportunity was given the latter to contest the entry which was against his interest. Similarly, the Medical Report issued by Dr. Hoed of Holland was dismissed as being of dubious value since it contained only a sweeping statement of the supposed ailment of Cajeras without any elaboration on the factual basis thereof. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated 12 November 1996. 9 Hence, this petition contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion: (a) in not according full faith and credit to the official entry by Capt. Alekos in the vessel's Deck Log conformably with the rulings in Haverton Shipping Ltd. v. NLRC 10 and Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC;11 (b) in not appreciating the Medical Report issued by Dr. Wden Hoed as conclusive evidence that respondent Cajeras was suffering from paranoia and other mental problems; (c) in affirming the award of attorney's fees despite the fact that Cajeras' claim for exemplary damages was denied for lack of merit; and, (d) in ordering a monetary award beyond the maximum of three (3) months' salary for every year of service set by RA 8042. We deny the petition. In the Contract of Employment12 entered into with private respondent, petitioners convenanted strict and faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the Standard Employment Contract approved by the POEA/DOLE 13 which provides: 1. The employment of the seaman shall cease upon expiration of the contract period indicated in the Crew Contract unless the Master and the Seaman, by mutual consent, in writing agree to an early termination . . . . (emphasis our). Clearly, under the foregoing, the employment of a Filipino seaman may be terminated prior to the expiration of the stipulated period provided that the master and the seaman (a) mutually consent thereto and (b) reduce their consent in writing. In the instant case, petitioners do not deny the fact that they have fallen short of the requirement. No document exists whereby Capt. Alekos and private respondent reduced to writing their alleged "mutual consent" to the termination of their employment contract. Instead, petitioners presented the vessel's Deck Log wherein an entry unilaterally made by Capt. Alekos purported to show that private respondent himself asked for his repatriation. However, the NLRC correctly dismissed its evidentiary value. For one thing, it is a unilateral act which is vehemently denied by private respondent. Secondly, the entry in no way satisfies the requirement of a bilateral documentation to prove early termination of an overseas employment contract by mutual consent required by the Standard Employment Contract. Hence, since the latter sets the minimum terms and conditions of employment for the protection of Filipino seamen subject only to the adoption of better terms and conditions over and above the minimum standards,14 the NLRC could not be accused of grave abuse of discretion in not accepting any thing less. However petitioners contend that the entry should be considered prima facie evidence that respondent himself requested his repatriation conformably with the rulings in Haverton Shipping Ltd. v. NLRC 15 and Abacast Shipping and Management Agency, Inc. v. NLRC.16 Indeed, Haverton says that a vessel's log book is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein as they are official entries made by a person in the performance of a duty required by law. However, this jurisprudential principle does not apply to win the case for petitioners. In Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC 17 the Haverton ruling was not given unqualified application because the log book presented therein was a mere typewritten collation of excerpts from what could be the log book. 18 The Court reasoned that since the log book was the only piece of evidence presented to prove just cause for the termination of respondent therein, the log book had to be duly identified and authenticated lest an injustice would result from a blind adoption of its contents which were but prima facie evidence of the incidents stated therein. In the instant case, the disputed entry in the Deck Log was neither authenticated nor supported by credible evidence. Although petitioners claim that Cajeras signed his Seaman's Service Record Book to signify his conformity to the repatriation, the NLRC found the allegation to be actually untrue since no signature of private respondent appeared in the Record Book. Neither could the "Medical Report" prepared by Dr. Hoed be considered corroborative and conclusive evidence that private respondent was suffering from "paranoia" and "other mental problems," supposedly just causes for his repatriation. Firstly, absolutely no evidence, not even an allegation, was offered to enlighten the NLRC or this Court as to Dr. Hoed's qualifications to diagnose mental illnesses. It is a matter of judicial notice that there are various specializations in medical science and that a general practitioner is not competent to diagnose any and all kinds of illnesses and diseases. Hence, the findings of doctors who are not proven experts are not binding on this Court.19 Secondly, the Medical Report prepared by Dr. Hoed contained only a general statement that private respondent was suffering from "paranoia" and "other mental problems" without providing the details on how the diagnosis was arrived at or in what stage the illness was. If Dr. Hoed indeed competently examined private respondent then he would have been able to discuss at length the circumstances and precedents of his diagnosis. Petitioners cannot rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties to make the Medical Report acceptable because the presumption applies only to public officers from the highest to the lowest in the service of the Government, departments, bureaus, offices, and/or its political subdivisions,20 which Dr. Wden Hoed was not shown to be. Furthermore, neither did petitioners prove that private respondent was incompetent or continuously incapacitated for the duties for which he was employed by reason of his alleged mental state. On the contrary his ability as Chief Cook Steward, up to the very moment of his repatriation, was rated "Very Good" in his Seaman's Service Record Book as correctly observed by public respondent.

Considering all the foregoing we cannot ascribe grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that petitioners failed to prove just cause for the termination of private respondent's overseas employment. Grave abuse of discretion is committed only when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner, which is not true in the present case. 21 With respect to attorney's fees, suffice it to say that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests, a maximum award of ten percent (10%) of the monetary award by way of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable under Art. 111 of the Labor Code, 22 Sec. 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules, 23 and par. 7, Art. 220824 of the Civil Code.25 The case of Albenson Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals26 cited by petitioners in arguing against the award of attorney's fees is clearly not applicable, being a civil action for damages which deals with only one of the eleven (11) instances when attorney's fees could be recovered under Art. 2208 of the Civil Code. Lastly, on the amount of salaries due private respondent, the rule has always been that an illegally dismissed worker whose employment is for a fixed period is entitled to payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment. 27 However on 15 July 1995, RA 8042 otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" took effect, Sec. 10 of which provides: Sec. 10. In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less (emphasis ours). The Labor Arbiter, rationalizing that the aforesaid law did not apply since it became effective only one (1) month after respondent's overseas employment contract was entered into on 15 June 1995, simply awarded private respondent his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, i.e., for 8.6 months. The NLRC affirmed the award and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) fully agreed. But petitioners now insist that Sec. 10, RA 8042 is applicable because although private respondent's contract of employment was entered into before the law became effective his alleged cause of action, i.e., his repatriation on 28 September 1995 without just, valid or authorized cause, occurred when the law was already in effect. Petitioners' purpose in so arguing is to invoke the law in justifying a lesser monetary award to private respondent, i.e., salaries for three (3) months only pursuant to the last portion of Sec. 10 as opposed to the salaries for 8.6 months awarded by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC. We agree with petitioners that Sec. 10, RA 8042, applies in the case of private respondent and to all overseas contract workers dismissed on or after its effectivity on 15 July 1995 in the same way that Sec. 34, 28 RA 6715,29 is made applicable to locally employed workers dismissed on or after 21 March 1989.30 However, we cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months' salary only. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3) months' salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more. This is evident from the words "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the words "salaries . . . for three months." To follow petitioners' thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect31 since the law-making body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statue and to have used them advisedly.32 Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.33 WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision and Resolution dated 16 September 1996 and 12 November 1996, respectively, of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED. Petitioners MARSAMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., and DIAMANTIDES MARITIME, INC., are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent WILFREDO T. CAJERAS his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or USD$5,100.00, reimburse the latter's placement fee with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum conformably with Sec. 10 of RA 8042, as well as attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. Costs against petitioners.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 167614

March 24, 2009

ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner, vs. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: For decades, the toil of solitary migrants has helped lift entire families and communities out of poverty. Their earnings have built houses, provided health care, equipped schools and planted the seeds of businesses. They have woven together the world by transmitting ideas and knowledge from country to country. They have provided the dynamic human link between cultures, societies and economies. Yet, only recently have we begun to understand not only how much international migration impacts development, but how smart public policies can magnify this effect.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon Global Forum on Migration and Development Brussels, July 10, 20071 For Antonio Serrano (petitioner), a Filipino seafarer, the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042,2 to wit: Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) does not magnify the contributions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) to national development, but exacerbates the hardships borne by them by unduly limiting their entitlement in case of illegal dismissal to their lump-sum salary either for the unexpired portion of their employment contract "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" (subject clause). Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their contract, deprives them of equal protection and denies them due process. By way of Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner assails the December 8, 2004 Decision 3 and April 1, 2005 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which applied the subject clause, entreating this Court to declare the subject clause unconstitutional. Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. (respondents) under a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved Contract of Employment with the following terms and conditions: Duration of contract Position Basic monthly salary Hours of work Overtime Vacation leave with pay 12 months Chief Officer US$1,400.00 48.0 hours per week US$700.00 per month 7.00 days per month5

On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.6 Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make petitioner Chief Officer. 7 Hence, petitioner refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998.8 Petitioner's employment contract was for a period of 12 months or from March 19, 1998 up to March 19, 1999, but at the time of his repatriation on May 26, 1998, he had served only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days. Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a Complaint9 against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims in the total amount of US$26,442.73, broken down as follows: May 27/31, 1998 (5 days) incl. Leave pay June 01/30, 1998 US$ 413.90

2,590.00

July 01/31, 2,590.00 1998 August 01/31, 1998 Sept. 01/30, 1998 2,590.00

2,590.00

Oct. 01/31, 2,590.00 1998 Nov. 01/30, 1998 Dec. 01/31, 1998 2,590.00

2,590.00

Jan. 01/31, 2,590.00 1999 Feb. 01/28, 1999 Mar. 1/19, 1999 (19 days) incl. leave pay 2,590.00

1,640.00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------25,382.23 Amount adjusted to chief mate's salary (March 1,060.5010 19/31, 1998 to April 1/30, 1998) + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL CLAIM US$ 26,442.7311

as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The LA rendered a Decision dated July 15, 1999, declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal and awarding him monetary benefits, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the dismissal of the complainant (petitioner) by the respondents in the above-entitled case was illegal and the respondents are hereby ordered to pay the complainant [petitioner], jointly and severally, in Philippine Currency, based on the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment, the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY U.S. DOLLARS (US $8,770.00), representing the complainants salary for three (3) months of the unexpired portion of the aforesaid contract of employment .1avvphi1 The respondents are likewise ordered to pay the complainant [petitioner], jointly and severally, in Philippine Currency, based on the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment, the amount of FORTY FIVE U.S. DOLLARS (US$ 45.00), 12 representing the complainants claim for a salary differential. In addition, the respondents are hereby ordered to pay the complainant, jointly and severally, in Philippine Currency, at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment, the complainants (petitioner's) c laim for attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total amount awarded to the aforesaid employee under this Decision. The claims of the complainant for moral and exemplary damages are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. All other claims are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.13 (Emphasis supplied) In awarding petitioner a lump-sum salary of US$8,770.00, the LA based his computation on the salary period of three months only -rather than the entire unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days of petitioner's employment contract - applying the subject clause. However, the LA applied the salary rate of US$2,590.00, consisting of petitioner's "[b]asic salary, US$1,400.00/month + US$700.00/month, fixed overtime pay, + US$490.00/month, vacation leave pay = US$2,590.00/compensation per month." 14 Respondents appealed15 to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to question the finding of the LA that petitioner was illegally dismissed.

Petitioner also appealed16 to the NLRC on the sole issue that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of the Court in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission17 that in case of illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts.18 In a Decision dated June 15, 2000, the NLRC modified the LA Decision, to wit: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 15 July 1999 is MODIFIED. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainant, jointly and severally, in Philippine currency, at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment the following: 1. Three (3) months salary $1,400 x 3 2. Salary differential US$4,245.00 3. 10% Attorneys fees TOTAL The other findings are affirmed. SO ORDERED.19 The NLRC corrected the LA's computation of the lump-sum salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the applicable salary rate from US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No. 8042 "does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which should be proven to have been actually performed, and for vacation leave pay."20 Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this time he questioned the constitutionality of the subject clause. 21 The NLRC denied the motion.22 Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari23 with the CA, reiterating the constitutional challenge against the subject clause.24 After initially dismissing the petition on a technicality, the CA eventually gave due course to it, as directed by this Court in its Resolution dated August 7, 2003 which granted the petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 151833, filed by petitioner. In a Decision dated December 8, 2004, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary rate; however, the CA skirted the constitutional issue raised by petitioner.25 His Motion for Reconsideration26 having been denied by the CA,27 petitioner brings his cause to this Court on the following grounds: I The Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals have decided the case in a way not in accord with applicable decision of the Supreme Court involving similar issue of granting unto the migrant worker back wages equal to the unexpired portion of his contract of employment instead of limiting it to three (3) months II In the alternative that the Court of Appeals and the Labor Tribunals were merely applying their interpretation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, it is submitted that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in law when it failed to discharge its judicial duty to decide questions of substance not theretofore determined by the Honorable Supreme Court, particularly, the constitutional issues raised by the petitioner on the constitutionality of said law, which unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily limits payment of the award for back wages of overseas workers to three (3) months. III Even without considering the constitutional limitations [of] Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the Court of Appeals gravely erred in law in excluding from petitioners award the overtime pay and vacation pay provided in his contract since under the contract they fo rm part of his salary.28 On February 26, 2008, petitioner wrote the Court to withdraw his petition as he is already old and sickly, and he intends to make use of the monetary award for his medical treatment and medication.29 Required to comment, counsel for petitioner filed a motion, urging the court to allow partial execution of the undisputed monetary award and, at the same time, praying that the constitutional question be resolved. 30 Considering that the parties have filed their respective memoranda, the Court now takes up the full merit of the petition mindful of the extreme importance of the constitutional question raised therein. On the first and second issues 424.50 US$4,669.50 US$4,200.00 45.00

The unanimous finding of the LA, NLRC and CA that the dismissal of petitioner was illegal is not disputed. Likewise not disputed is the salary differential of US$45.00 awarded to petitioner in all three fora. What remains disputed is only the computation of the lump-sum salary to be awarded to petitioner by reason of his illegal dismissal. Applying the subject clause, the NLRC and the CA computed the lump-sum salary of petitioner at the monthly rate of US$1,400.00 covering the period of three months out of the unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days of his employment contract or a total of US$4,200.00. Impugning the constitutionality of the subject clause, petitioner contends that, in addition to the US$4,200.00 awarded by the NLRC and the CA, he is entitled to US$21,182.23 more or a total of US$25,382.23, equivalent to his salaries for the entire nine months and 23 days left of his employment contract, computed at the monthly rate of US$2,590.00. 31 The Arguments of Petitioner Petitioner contends that the subject clause is unconstitutional because it unduly impairs the freedom of OFWs to negotiate for and stipulate in their overseas employment contracts a determinate employment period and a fixed salary package. 32 It also impinges on the equal protection clause, for it treats OFWs differently from local Filipino workers (local workers) by putting a cap on the amount of lump-sum salary to which OFWs are entitled in case of illegal dismissal, while setting no limit to the same monetary award for local workers when their dismissal is declared illegal; that the disparate treatment is not reasonable as there is no substantial distinction between the two groups;33 and that it defeats Section 18,34 Article II of the Constitution which guarantees the protection of the rights and welfare of all Filipino workers, whether deployed locally or overseas.35 Moreover, petitioner argues that the decisions of the CA and the labor tribunals are not in line with existing jurisprudence on the issue of money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs. Though there are conflicting rulings on this, petitioner urges the Court to sort them out for the guidance of affected OFWs.36 Petitioner further underscores that the insertion of the subject clause into R.A. No. 8042 serves no other purpose but to benefit local placement agencies. He marks the statement made by the Solicitor General in his Memorandum, viz.: Often, placement agencies, their liability being solidary, shoulder the payment of money claims in the event that jurisdiction over the foreign employer is not acquired by the court or if the foreign employer reneges on its obligation. Hence, placement agencies that are in good faith and which fulfill their obligations are unnecessarily penalized for the acts of the foreign employer. To protect them and to promote their continued helpful contribution in deploying Filipino migrant workers, liability for money claims was reduced under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. 37 (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner argues that in mitigating the solidary liability of placement agencies, the subject clause sacrifices the well-being of OFWs. Not only that, the provision makes foreign employers better off than local employers because in cases involving the illegal dismissal of employees, foreign employers are liable for salaries covering a maximum of only three months of the unexpired employment contract while local employers are liable for the full lump-sum salaries of their employees. As petitioner puts it: In terms of practical application, the local employers are not limited to the amount of backwages they have to give their employees they have illegally dismissed, following well-entrenched and unequivocal jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, foreign employers will only be limited to giving the illegally dismissed migrant workers the maximum of three (3) months unpaid salaries notwithstanding the unexpired term of the contract that can be more than three (3) months.38 Lastly, petitioner claims that the subject clause violates the due process clause, for it deprives him of the salaries and other emoluments he is entitled to under his fixed-period employment contract.39 The Arguments of Respondents In their Comment and Memorandum, respondents contend that the constitutional issue should not be entertained, for this was belatedly interposed by petitioner in his appeal before the CA, and not at the earliest opportunity, which was when he filed an appeal before the NLRC.40 The Arguments of the Solicitor General The Solicitor General (OSG)41 points out that as R.A. No. 8042 took effect on July 15, 1995, its provisions could not have impaired petitioner's 1998 employment contract. Rather, R.A. No. 8042 having preceded petitioner's contract, the provisions thereof are deemed part of the minimum terms of petitioner's employment, especially on the matter of money claims, as this was not stipulated upon by the parties.42 Moreover, the OSG emphasizes that OFWs and local workers differ in terms of the nature of their employment, such that their rights to monetary benefits must necessarily be treated differently. The OSG enumerates the essential elements that distinguish OFWs from local workers: first, while local workers perform their jobs within Philippine territory, OFWs perform their jobs for foreign employers, over whom it is difficult for our courts to acquire jurisdiction, or against whom it is almost impossible to enforce judgment; and second, as held in Coyoca v. National Labor Relations Commission43 and Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission,44 OFWs are contractual employees who can never acquire regular employment status, unlike local workers who are or can become regular employees. Hence, the OSG posits that there are rights and privileges exclusive to local workers, but not available to OFWs; that these peculiarities make for a reasonable and valid basis for the differentiated treatment under the subject clause of the money claims of OFWs who are illegally dismissed. Thus, the provision does not violate the equal protection clause nor Section 18, Article II of the Constitution. 45

Lastly, the OSG defends the rationale behind the subject clause as a police power measure adopted to mitigate the solidary liability of placement agencies for this "redounds to the benefit of the migrant workers whose welfare the government seeks to promote. The survival of legitimate placement agencies helps [assure] the government that migrant workers are properly deployed and are employed under decent and humane conditions."46 The Court's Ruling The Court sustains petitioner on the first and second issues. When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination;47 (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party48 and at the earliest opportunity;49 and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case,50 otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground. 51 Without a doubt, there exists in this case an actual controversy directly involving petitioner who is personally aggrieved that the labor tribunals and the CA computed his monetary award based on the salary period of three months only as provided under the subject clause. The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne in mind that the requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.52 Records disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause was first raised, not in petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration with said labor tribunal, 53 and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari before the CA.54 Nonetheless, the issue is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merely performs a quasi-judicial function its function in the present case is limited to determining questions of fact to which the legislative policy of R.A. No. 8042 is to be applied and to resolving such questions in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself;55 thus, its foremost function is to administer and enforce R.A. No. 8042, and not to inquire into the validity of its provisions. The CA, on the other hand, is vested with the power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional a law or a provision thereof, such as the subject clause.56 Petitioner's interposition of the constitutional issue before the CA was undoubtedly seasonable. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue in its decision. The third condition that the constitutional issue be critical to the resolution of the case likewise obtains because the monetary claim of petitioner to his lump-sum salary for the entire unexpired portion of his 12-month employment contract, and not just for a period of three months, strikes at the very core of the subject clause. Thus, the stage is all set for the determination of the constitutionality of the subject clause. Does the subject clause violate Section 10, Article III of the Constitution on non-impairment of contracts? The answer is in the negative. Petitioner's claim that the subject clause unduly interferes with the stipulations in his contract on the term of his employment and the fixed salary package he will receive57 is not tenable. Section 10, Article III of the Constitution provides: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation, 58 and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected;59 however, as to laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof.60 Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto. As aptly observed by the OSG, the enactment of R.A. No. 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of the employment contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998. Hence, it cannot be argued that R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause, impaired the employment contract of the parties. Rather, when the parties executed their 1998 employment contract, they were deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 8042. But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subject clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs, with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be employed.61 Police power legislations adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people are generally applicable not only to future contracts but even to those already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public welfare. 62 Does the subject clause violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, and Section 18,

Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector? The answer is in the affirmative. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution guarantees: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law. Section 18,63 Article II and Section 3,64 Article XIII accord all members of the labor sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare. To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.65 Such rights are not absolute but subject to the inherent power of Congress to incorporate, when it sees fit, a system of classification into its legislation; however, to be valid, the classification must comply with these requirements: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to the purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and 4) it applies equally to all members of the class.66 There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality of a classification embodied in a law: a) the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest;67 b) the middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest; 68 and c) strict judicial scrutiny69 in which a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right70 or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class71 is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.72 Under American jurisprudence, strict judicial scrutiny is triggered by suspect classifications 73 based on race74 or gender75 but not when the classification is drawn along income categories.76 It is different in the Philippine setting. In Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,77 the constitutionality of a provision in the charter of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), a government financial institution (GFI), was challenged for maintaining its rank-and-file employees under the Salary Standardization Law (SSL), even when the rank-and-file employees of other GFIs had been exempted from the SSL by their respective charters. Finding that the disputed provision contained a suspect classification based on salary grade, the Court deliberately employed the standard of strict judicial scrutiny in its review of the constitutionality of said provision. More significantly, it was in this case that the Court revealed the broad outlines of its judicial philosophy, to wit: Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid classification, and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution. The deference stops where the classification violates a fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special protection by the Constitution. When these violations arise, this Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of constitutional guaranties, and require a stricter and more exacting adherence to constitutional limitations. Rational basis should not suffice. Admittedly, the view that prejudice to persons accorded special protection by the Constitution requires a stricter judicial scrutiny finds no support in American or English jurisprudence. Nevertheless, these foreign decisions and authorities are not per se controlling in this jurisdiction. At best, they are persuasive and have been used to support many of our decisions. We should not place undue and fawning reliance upon them and regard them as indispensable mental crutches without which we cannot come to our own decisions through the employment of our own endowments. We live in a different ambience and must decide our own problems in the light of our own interests and needs, and of our qualities and even idiosyncrasies as a people, and always with our own concept of law and justice. Our laws must be construed in accordance with the intention of our own lawmakers and such intent may be deduced from the language of each law and the context of other local legislation related thereto. More importantly, they must be construed to serve our own public interest which is the be-all and the end-all of all our laws. And it need not be stressed that our public interest is distinct and different from others. xxxx Further, the quest for a better and more "equal" world calls for the use of equal protection as a tool of effective judicial intervention. Equality is one ideal which cries out for bold attention and action in the Constitution. The Preamble proclaims "equality" as an ideal precisely in protest against crushing inequities in Philippine society. The command to promote social justice in Article II, Section 10, in "all phases of national development," further explicitated in Article XIII, are clear commands to the State to take affirmative action in the direction of greater equality. x x x [T]here is thus in the Philippine Constitution no lack of doctrinal support for a more vigorous state effort towards achieving a reasonable measure of equality. Our present Constitution has gone further in guaranteeing vital social and economic rights to marginalized groups of society, including labor. Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law. And the obligation to afford protection to labor is incumbent not only on the legislative and executive branches but also on the judiciary to translate this pledge into a living reality. Social justice calls for the humanization of

laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. xxxx Under most circumstances, the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding questions of constitutionality, recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in exercising its legislative power. Judicial scrutiny would be based on the "rational basis" test, and the legislative discretion would be given deferential treatment. But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection, judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. A weak and watered down view would call for the abdication of this Courts solemn duty to strike down any law repugnant t o the Constitution and the rights it enshrines. This is true whether the actor committing the unconstitutional act is a private person or the government itself or one of its instrumentalities. Oppressive acts will be struck down regardless of the character or nature of the actor. xxxx In the case at bar, the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the salary grade or officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and status, with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades. Officers of the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that are competitive with the industry, while the poorer, low-salaried employees are limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP rank-and-file employees are paid the strictly regimented rates of the SSL while employees higher in rank - possessing higher and better education and opportunities for career advancement - are given higher compensation packages to entice them to stay. Considering that majority, if not all, the rank-and-file employees consist of people whose status and rank in life are less and limited, especially in terms of job marketability, it is they - and not the officers - who have the real economic and financial need for the adjustment . This is in accord with the policy of the Constitution "to free the people from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to them a decent standard of living, and improve the quality of life for all." Any act of Congress that runs counter to this constitutional desideratum deserves strict scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster. (Emphasis supplied) Imbued with the same sense of "obligation to afford protection to labor," the Court in the present case also employs the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceives in the subject clause a suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs. Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, OFWs at two levels: First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis--vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more; Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year; and Third, OFWs vis--vis local workers with fixed-period employment; OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis--vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more As pointed out by petitioner,78 it was in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission 79 (Second Division, 1999) that the Court laid down the following rules on the application of the periods prescribed under Section 10(5) of R.A. No. 804, to wit: A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more. This is evident from the words "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the words "salaries x x x for three months." To follow petitioners thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the law-making body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statue and to have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. 80 (Emphasis supplied) In Marsaman, the OFW involved was illegally dismissed two months into his 10-month contract, but was awarded his salaries for the remaining 8 months and 6 days of his contract. Prior to Marsaman, however, there were two cases in which the Court made conflicting rulings on Section 10(5). One was Asian Center for Career and Employment System and Services v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division, October 1998),81 which involved an OFW who was awarded a two-year employment contract, but was dismissed after working for one year and two months. The LA declared his dismissal illegal and awarded him SR13,600.00 as lump-sum salary covering eight months, the unexpired portion of his contract. On appeal, the Court reduced the award to SR3,600.00 equivalent to his three months salary, this being the lesser value, to wit: Under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. In the case at bar, the unexpired portion of private respondents employment contract is eight (8) months. Private respondent should therefore be paid his basic salary corresponding to three (3) months or a total of SR3,600. 82

Another was Triple-Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division, December 1998),83 which involved an OFW (therein respondent Erlinda Osdana) who was originally granted a 12-month contract, which was deemed renewed for another 12 months. After serving for one year and seven-and-a-half months, respondent Osdana was illegally dismissed, and the Court awarded her salaries for the entire unexpired portion of four and one-half months of her contract. The Marsaman interpretation of Section 10(5) has since been adopted in the following cases: Case Title Contract Period 6 months 9 months 9 months Period of Service 2 months 8 months 4 months Unexpired Period Period Applied in the Computation of the Monetary Award 4 months 4 months 5 months

Skippers v. Maguad84 Bahia Shipping v. Reynaldo Chua 85 Centennial Transmarine v. dela Cruz l86 Talidano v. Falcon87 Univan v. CA 88 Oriental v. CA 89 PCL v. NLRC90 Olarte v. Nayona91 JSS v.Ferrer Pentagon v. Adelantar93 Phil. Employ v. Paramio, et al.94 Flourish Maritime v. Almanzor 95 Athenna Manpower v. Villanos 96
92

4 months 4 months 5 months

12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 2 years 1 year, 10 months and 28 days

3 months 3 months more than 2 months more than 2 months 21 days 16 days 9 months and 7 days 10 months 26 days 1 month

9 months 9 months 10 months more or less 9 months 11 months and 9 days 11 months and 24 days 2 months and 23 days 2 months 23 months and 4 days 1 year, 9 months and 28 days

3 months 3 months 3 months 3 months 3 months 3 months 2 months and 23 days Unexpired portion 6 months or 3 months for each year of contract 6 months or 3 months for each year of contract

As the foregoing matrix readily shows, the subject clause classifies OFWs into two categories. The first category includes OFWs with fixedperiod employment contracts of less than one year; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion of their contract. The second category consists of OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of one year or more; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to monetary award equivalent to only 3 months of the unexpired portion of their contracts. The disparity in the treatment of these two groups cannot be discounted. In Skippers, the respondent OFW worked for only 2 months out of his 6month contract, but was awarded his salaries for the remaining 4 months. In contrast, the respondent OFWs in Oriental and PCL who had also worked for about 2 months out of their 12-month contracts were awarded their salaries for only 3 months of the unexpired portion of their contracts. Even the OFWs involved in Talidano and Univan who had worked for a longer period of 3 months out of their 12-month contracts before being illegally dismissed were awarded their salaries for only 3 months. To illustrate the disparity even more vividly, the Court assumes a hypothetical OFW-A with an employment contract of 10 months at a monthly salary rate of US$1,000.00 and a hypothetical OFW-B with an employment contract of 15 months with the same monthly salary rate of US$1,000.00. Both commenced work on the same day and under the same employer, and were illegally dismissed after one month of work. Under the subject clause, OFW-A will be entitled to US$9,000.00, equivalent to his salaries for the remaining 9 months of his contract, whereas OFW-B will be entitled to only US$3,000.00, equivalent to his salaries for 3 months of the unexpired portion of his contract, instead of US$14,000.00 for the unexpired portion of 14 months of his contract, as the US$3,000.00 is the lesser amount. The disparity becomes more aggravating when the Court takes into account jurisprudence that, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8042 on July 14, 1995,97 illegally dismissed OFWs, no matter how long the period of their employment contracts, were entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. The matrix below speaks for itself:

Case Title

Contract Period 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 12 months 12 months

Period of Service 2 months 7 days 9 months 2 months 5 months 4 months 6 months and 22 days

Unexpired Period 22 months 23 months and 23 days 15 months 22 months 19 months 8 months 5 months and 18 days

Period Applied in the Computation of the Monetary Award 22 months 23 months and 23 days 15 months 22 months 19 months 8 months 5 months and 18 days

ATCI v. CA, et al.98 Phil. Integrated v. NLRC99 JGB v. NLC100 Agoy v. NLRC101 EDI v. NLRC, et al.102 Barros v. NLRC, et al.103 Philippine Transmarine v. Carilla104

It is plain that prior to R.A. No. 8042, all OFWs, regardless of contract periods or the unexpired portions thereof, were treated alike in terms of the computation of their monetary benefits in case of illegal dismissal. Their claims were subjected to a uniform rule of computation: their basic salaries multiplied by the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042 introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment periods, in the process singling out one category whose contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the while sparing the other category from such prejudice, simply because the latter's unexpired contracts fall short of one year. Among OFWs With Employment Contracts of More Than One Year Upon closer examination of the terminology employed in the subject clause, the Court now has misgivings on the accuracy of the Marsaman interpretation. The Court notes that the subject clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" contains the qualifying phrases "every year" and "unexpired term." By its ordinary meaning, the word "term" means a limited or definite extent of time.105 Corollarily, that "every year" is but part of an "unexpired term" is significant in many ways: first, the unexpired term must be at least one year, for if it were any shorter, there would be no occasion for such unexpired term to be measured by every year ; and second, the original term must be more than one year, for otherwise, whatever would be the unexpired term thereof will not reach even a year. Consequently, the more decisive factor in the determination of when the subject clause "for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" shall apply is not the length of the original contract period as held in Marsaman,106 but the length of the unexpired portion of the contract period -- the subject clause applies in cases when the unexpired portion of the contract period is at least one year, which arithmetically requires that the original contract period be more than one year. Viewed in that light, the subject clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods are for more than one year: those who are illegally dismissed with less than one year left in their contracts shall be entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof, while those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more remaining in their contracts shall be covered by the subject clause, and their monetary benefits limited to their salaries for three months only. To concretely illustrate the application of the foregoing interpretation of the subject clause, the Court assumes hypothetical OFW-C and OFW-D, who each have a 24-month contract at a salary rate of US$1,000.00 per month. OFW-C is illegally dismissed on the 12th month, and OFW-D, on the 13th month. Considering that there is at least 12 months remaining in the contract period of OFW-C, the subject clause applies to the computation of the latter's monetary benefits. Thus, OFW-C will be entitled, not to US$12,000,00 or the latter's total salaries for the 12 months unexpired portion of the contract, but to the lesser amount of US$3,000.00 or the latter's salaries for 3 months out of the 12-month unexpired term of the contract. On the other hand, OFW-D is spared from the effects of the subject clause, for there are only 11 months left in the latter's contract period. Thus, OFW-D will be entitled to US$11,000.00, which is equivalent to his/her total salaries for the entire 11-month unexpired portion. OFWs vis--vis Local Workers With Fixed-Period Employment As discussed earlier, prior to R.A. No. 8042, a uniform system of computation of the monetary awards of illegally dismissed OFWs was in place. This uniform system was applicable even to local workers with fixed-term employment.107 The earliest rule prescribing a uniform system of computation was actually Article 299 of the Code of Commerce (1888), 108 to wit:

Article 299. If the contracts between the merchants and their shop clerks and employees should have been made of a fixed period, none of the contracting parties, without the consent of the other, may withdraw from the fulfillment of said contract until the termination of the period agreed upon. Persons violating this clause shall be subject to indemnify the loss and damage suffered, with the exception of the provisions contained in the following articles. In Reyes v. The Compaia Maritima,109 the Court applied the foregoing provision to determine the liability of a shipping company for the illegal discharge of its managers prior to the expiration of their fixed-term employment. The Court therein held the shipping company liable for the salaries of its managers for the remainder of their fixed-term employment. There is a more specific rule as far as seafarers are concerned: Article 605 of the Code of Commerce which provides: Article 605. If the contracts of the captain and members of the crew with the agent should be for a definite period or voyage, they cannot be discharged until the fulfillment of their contracts, except for reasons of insubordination in serious matters, robbery, theft, habitual drunkenness, and damage caused to the vessel or to its cargo by malice or manifest or proven negligence. Article 605 was applied to Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc. v. Ogilvie,110 in which the Court held the shipping company liable for the salaries and subsistence allowance of its illegally dismissed employees for the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. While Article 605 has remained good law up to the present, 111 Article 299 of the Code of Commerce was replaced by Art. 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889, to wit: Article 1586. Field hands, mechanics, artisans, and other laborers hired for a certain time and for a certain work cannot leave or be dismissed without sufficient cause, before the fulfillment of the contract. (Emphasis supplied.) Citing Manresa, the Court in Lemoine v. Alkan112 read the disjunctive "or" in Article 1586 as a conjunctive "and" so as to apply the provision to local workers who are employed for a time certain although for no particular skill. This interpretation of Article 1586 was reiterated in Garcia Palomar v. Hotel de France Company.113 And in both Lemoine and Palomar, the Court adopted the general principle that in actions for wrongful discharge founded on Article 1586, local workers are entitled to recover damages to the extent of the amount stipulated to be paid to them by the terms of their contract. On the computation of the amount of such damages, the Court in Aldaz v. Gay 114 held: The doctrine is well-established in American jurisprudence, and nothing has been brought to our attention to the contrary under Spanish jurisprudence, that when an employee is wrongfully discharged it is his duty to seek other employment of the same kind in the same community, for the purpose of reducing the damages resulting from such wrongful discharge. However, while this is the general rule, the burden of showing that he failed to make an effort to secure other employment of a like nature, and that other employment of a like nature was obtainable, is upon the defendant. When an employee is wrongfully discharged under a contract of employment his prima facie damage is the amount which he would be entitled to had he continued in such employment until the termination of the period . (Howard vs. Daly, 61 N. Y., 362; Allen vs. Whitlark, 99 Mich., 492; Farrell vs. School District No. 2, 98 Mich., 43.) 115 (Emphasis supplied) On August 30, 1950, the New Civil Code took effect with new provisions on fixed-term employment: Section 2 (Obligations with a Period), Chapter 3, Title I, and Sections 2 (Contract of Labor) and 3 (Contract for a Piece of Work), Chapter 3, Title VIII, Book IV. 116 Much like Article 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889, the new provisions of the Civil Code do not expressly provide for the remedies available to a fixed-term worker who is illegally discharged. However, it is noted that in Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., Inc. v. Rich, 117 the Court carried over the principles on the payment of damages underlying Article 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889 and applied the same to a case involving the illegal discharge of a local worker whose fixed-period employment contract was entered into in 1952, when the new Civil Code was already in effect. 118 More significantly, the same principles were applied to cases involving overseas Filipino workers whose fixed-term employment contracts were illegally terminated, such as in First Asian Trans & Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Ople, 119 involving seafarers who were illegally discharged. In Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 120 an OFW who was illegally dismissed prior to the expiration of her fixed-period employment contract as a baby sitter, was awarded salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract. The Court arrived at the same ruling in Anderson v. National Labor Relations Commission, 121 which involved a foreman hired in 1988 in Saudi Arabia for a fixed term of two years, but who was illegally dismissed after only nine months on the job -- the Court awarded him salaries corresponding to 15 months, the unexpired portion of his contract. In Asia World Recruitment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 122 a Filipino working as a security officer in 1989 in Angola was awarded his salaries for the remaining period of his 12-month contract after he was wrongfully discharged. Finally, in Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,123 an OFW whose 12-month contract was illegally cut short in the second month was declared entitled to his salaries for the remaining 10 months of his contract. In sum, prior to R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term employment who were illegally discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation of their money claims: they were uniformly entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. But with the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, specifically the adoption of the subject clause, illegally dismissed OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their employment contract have since been differently treated in that their money claims are subject to a 3-month cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local workers with fixed-term employment. The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixedterm employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

There being a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector protected by the Constitution, the Court now subjects the classification to a strict judicial scrutiny, and determines whether it serves a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means. What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history.124 It is akin to the paramount interest of the state125 for which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards,126 or in maintaining access to information on matters of public concern. 127 In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but found no compelling state interest that the subject clause may possibly serve. The OSG defends the subject clause as a police power measure "designed to protect the employment of Filipino seafarers overseas x x x. By limiting the liability to three months [sic], Filipino seafarers have better chance of getting hired by foreign employers." The limitation also protects the interest of local placement agencies, which otherwise may be made to shoulder millions of pesos in "termination pay."128 The OSG explained further: Often, placement agencies, their liability being solidary, shoulder the payment of money claims in the event that jurisdiction over the foreign employer is not acquired by the court or if the foreign employer reneges on its obligation. Hence, placement agencies that are in good faith and which fulfill their obligations are unnecessarily penalized for the acts of the foreign employer. To protect them and to promote their continued helpful contribution in deploying Filipino migrant workers, liability for money are reduced under Section 10 of RA 8042. This measure redounds to the benefit of the migrant workers whose welfare the government seeks to promote. The survival of legitimate placement agencies helps [assure] the government that migrant workers are properly deployed and are employed under decent and humane conditions.129 (Emphasis supplied) However, nowhere in the Comment or Memorandum does the OSG cite the source of its perception of the state interest sought to be served by the subject clause. The OSG locates the purpose of R.A. No. 8042 in the speech of Rep. Bonifacio Gallego in sponsorship of House Bill No. 14314 (HB 14314), from which the law originated;130 but the speech makes no reference to the underlying reason for the adoption of the subject clause. That is only natural for none of the 29 provisions in HB 14314 resembles the subject clause. On the other hand, Senate Bill No. 2077 (SB 2077) contains a provision on money claims, to wit: Sec. 10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of the complaint, the claim arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. The liability of the principal and the recruitment/placement agency or any and all claims under this Section shall be joint and several. Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on any money claims exclusive of damages under this Section shall not be less than fifty percent (50%) of such money claims: Provided, That any installment payments, if applicable, to satisfy any such compromise or voluntary settlement shall not be more than two (2) months. Any compromise/voluntary agreement in violation of this paragraph shall be null and void. Non-compliance with the mandatory period for resolutions of cases provided under this Section shall subject the responsible officials to any or all of the following penalties: (1) The salary of any such official who fails to render his decision or resolution within the prescribed period shall be, or caused to be, withheld until the said official complies therewith; (2) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days; or (3) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years. Provided, however, That the penalties herein provided shall be without prejudice to any liability which any such official may have incurred under other existing laws or rules and regulations as a consequence of violating the provisions of this paragraph. But significantly, Section 10 of SB 2077 does not provide for any rule on the computation of money claims. A rule on the computation of money claims containing the subject clause was inserted and eventually adopted as the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. The Court examined the rationale of the subject clause in the transcripts of the "Bicameral Conference Committee (Conference Committee) Meetings on the Magna Carta on OCWs (Disagreeing Provisions of Senate Bill No. 2077 and House Bill No. 14314)." However, the Court finds no discernible state interest, let alone a compelling one, that is sought to be protected or advanced by the adoption of the subject clause.

In fine, the Government has failed to discharge its burden of proving the existence of a compelling state interest that would justify the perpetuation of the discrimination against OFWs under the subject clause. Assuming that, as advanced by the OSG, the purpose of the subject clause is to protect the employment of OFWs by mitigating the solidary liability of placement agencies, such callous and cavalier rationale will have to be rejected. There can never be a justification for any form of government action that alleviates the burden of one sector, but imposes the same burden on another sector, especially when the favored sector is composed of private businesses such as placement agencies, while the disadvantaged sector is composed of OFWs whose protection no less than the Constitution commands. The idea that private business interest can be elevated to the level of a compelling state interest is odious. Moreover, even if the purpose of the subject clause is to lessen the solidary liability of placement agencies vis-a-vis their foreign principals, there are mechanisms already in place that can be employed to achieve that purpose without infringing on the constitutional rights of OFWs. The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based Overseas Workers, dated February 4, 2002, imposes administrative disciplinary measures on erring foreign employers who default on their contractual obligations to migrant workers and/or their Philippine agents. These disciplinary measures range from temporary disqualification to preventive suspension. The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers, dated May 23, 2003, contains similar administrative disciplinary measures against erring foreign employers. Resort to these administrative measures is undoubtedly the less restrictive means of aiding local placement agencies in enforcing the solidary liability of their foreign principals. Thus, the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is violative of the right of petitioner and other OFWs to equal protection.1avvphi1 Further, there would be certain misgivings if one is to approach the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the subject clause from the lone perspective that the clause directly violates state policy on labor under Section 3, 131 Article XIII of the Constitution. While all the provisions of the 1987 Constitution are presumed self-executing,132 there are some which this Court has declared not judicially enforceable, Article XIII being one,133 particularly Section 3 thereof, the nature of which, this Court, in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,134 has described to be not self-actuating: Thus, the constitutional mandates of protection to labor and security of tenure may be deemed as self-executing in the sense that these are automatically acknowledged and observed without need for any enabling legislation. However, to declare that the constitutional provisions are enough to guarantee the full exercise of the rights embodied therein, and the realization of ideals therein expressed, would be impractical, if not unrealistic. The espousal of such view presents the dangerous tendency of being overbroad and exaggerated. The guarantees of "full protection to labor" and "security of tenure", when examined in isolation, are facially unqualified, and the broadest interpretation possible suggests a blanket shield in favor of labor against any form of removal regardless of circumstance. This interpretation implies an unimpeachable right to continued employment-a utopian notion, doubtless-but still hardly within the contemplation of the framers. Subsequent legislation is still needed to define the parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the protection and promotion, not only the rights of the labor sector, but of the employers' as well. Without specific and pertinent legislation, judicial bodies will be at a loss, formulating their own conclusion to approximate at least the aims of the Constitution. Ultimately, therefore, Section 3 of Article XIII cannot, on its own, be a source of a positive enforceable right to stave off the dismissal of an employee for just cause owing to the failure to serve proper notice or hearing. As manifested by several framers of the 1987 Constitution, the provisions on social justice require legislative enactments for their enforceability. 135 (Emphasis added) Thus, Section 3, Article XIII cannot be treated as a principal source of direct enforceable rights, for the violation of which the questioned clause may be declared unconstitutional. It may unwittingly risk opening the floodgates of litigation to every worker or union over every conceivable violation of so broad a concept as social justice for labor. It must be stressed that Section 3, Article XIII does not directly bestow on the working class any actual enforceable right, but merely clothes it with the status of a sector for whom the Constitution urges protection through executive or legislative action and judicial recognition. Its utility is best limited to being an impetus not just for the executive and legislative departments, but for the judiciary as well, to protect the welfare of the working class. And it was in fact consistent with that constitutional agenda that the Court in Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, penned by then Associate Justice now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, formulated the judicial precept that when the challenge to a statute is premised on the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection -- such as the working class or a section thereof -- the Court may recognize the existence of a suspect classification and subject the same to strict judicial scrutiny. The view that the concepts of suspect classification and strict judicial scrutiny formulated in Central Bank Employee Association exaggerate the significance of Section 3, Article XIII is a groundless apprehension. Central Bank applied Article XIII in conjunction with the equal protection clause. Article XIII, by itself, without the application of the equal protection clause, has no life or force of its own as elucidated in Agabon. Along the same line of reasoning, the Court further holds that the subject clause violates petitioner's right to substantive due process, for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary benefits, without any existing valid governmental purpose. 136 The argument of the Solicitor General, that the actual purpose of the subject clause of limiting the entitlement of OFWs to their three-month salary in case of illegal dismissal, is to give them a better chance of getting hired by foreign employers. This is plain speculation. As earlier discussed, there is nothing in the text of the law or the records of the deliberations leading to its enactment or the pleadings of respondent that would indicate that there is an existing governmental purpose for the subject clause, or even just a pretext of one.

The subject clause does not state or imply any definitive governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that the clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal protection, but also her right to substantive due process under Section 1, 137 Article III of the Constitution. The subject clause being unconstitutional, petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months and 23 days of his employment contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8042. On the Third Issue Petitioner contends that his overtime and leave pay should form part of the salary basis in the computation of his monetary award, because these are fixed benefits that have been stipulated into his contract. Petitioner is mistaken. The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not include overtime and leave pay. For seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department Order No. 33, series 1996, provides a Standard Employment Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage, exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work "performed" in excess of the regular eight hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any work "performed" on designated rest days and holidays. By the foregoing definition alone, there is no basis for the automatic inclusion of overtime and holiday pay in the computation of petitioner's monetary award, unless there is evidence that he performed work during those periods. As the Court held in Centennial Transmarine, Inc. v. Dela Cruz,138 However, the payment of overtime pay and leave pay should be disallowed in light of our ruling in Cagampan v. National Labor Relations Commission, to wit: The rendition of overtime work and the submission of sufficient proof that said was actually performed are conditions to be satisfied before a seaman could be entitled to overtime pay which should be computed on the basis of 30% of the basic monthly salary. In short, the contract provision guarantees the right to overtime pay but the entitlement to such benefit must first be established. In the same vein, the claim for the day's leave pay for the unexpired portion of the contract is unwarranted since the same is given during the actual service of the seamen. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition. The subject clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and the December 8, 2004 Decision and April 1, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner is AWARDED his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract consisting of nine months and 23 days computed at the rate of US$1,400.00 per month. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 161787

April 27, 2011

MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and CRISPIN CHAN, Petitioners, vs. GREGORIO P. ROGELIO, Respondent. DECISION BERSAMIN, J.: In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer. We re-affirm this principle, as we uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that reversed the uniform finding that there existed no employment relationship between the petitioners, as employers, and the respondent, as employee, made by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter (LA). Petitioners Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC) and Crispin Chan assail the October 24, 2003 decision,1 whereby the CA reversed the decision dated January 28, 2000 of the NLRC that affirmed the decision of the LA (dismissing the claim of the respondent for retirement benefits on the ground that he had not been employed by the petitioners but by another employer). Antecedents

On May 19, 1997, respondent Gregorio P. Rogelio (Rogelio) brought against Chan a complaint for retirement pay pursuant to Republic Act No. 7641,2 in relation to Article 287 of the Labor Code, holiday and rest days premium pay, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, cost of living allowances (COLA), underpayment of wages, and attorneys fees. On January 20, 1998, Rogelio amended his complaint t o include MSDC as a co-respondent. His version follows. Rogelio was first employed in 1949 by Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, MSDCs predecessor, which engaged in the buying and selling of copra in Ibajay, Aklan, with its main office being in Kalibo, Aklan. Masing Chan owned and managed Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, and the Branch Manager in Ibajay was a certain So Na. In 1965, Masing Chan changed the business name of Pan Phil. Copra Dealer to Yao Mun Tek, and appointed Jose Conanan Yap Branch Manager in Ibajay. In the 1970s, the business name of Yao Mun Tek was changed to Aklan Lumber and General Merchandise, and Leon Chan became the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Finally, in 1984, Masing Chan adopted the business name of Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC), appointing Wynne or Wayne Lim (Lim) as the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Crispin Chan replaced his father, Masing Chan, in 1990 as the manager of the entire business. In all that time, Rogelio worked as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch, along with twelve other employees. In January 1974, Rogelio was reported for Social Security System (SSS) coverage. After paying contributions to the SSS for more than 10 years, he became entitled to receive retirement benefits from the SSS. Thus, in 1991, he availed himself of the SSS retirement benefits, and in order to facilitate the grant of such benefits, he entered into an internal arrangement with Chan and MSDC to the effect that MSDC would issue a certification of his separation from employment notwithstanding that he would continue working as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch. The certification reads as follows:3 CRISPIN AMIGO CHAN COPRA DEALER IBAJAY, AKLAN August 10, 1991 CERTIFICATION OF SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT To whom it may concern: This is to certify that my employee, GREGORIO P. ROGELIO bearing SSS ID No. 07-0495213-7 who was first covered effective January, 1974 up to June 30, 1989 inclusive, is now officially separated from my employ effective the 1st of July, 1989. Please be guided accordingly. (SGD.) CRISPIN AMIGO CHAN Proprietor SSS ID No. 07-0595800-4 On March 17, 1997, Rogelio was paid his last salary. Lim, then the Ibajay Branch Manager, informed Rogelio that he was deemed retired as of that date. Chan confirmed to Rogelio that he had already reached the compulsory retirement age when he went to the main office in Kalibo to verify his status. Rogelio was then 67 years old. Considering that Rogelio was supposedly receiving a daily salary of P70.00 until 1997, but did not receive any 13th month pay, service incentive leave, premium pay for holidays and rest days and COLA, and even any retirement benefit from MSDC upon his retirement in March 1997, he commenced his claim for such pay and benefits. In substantiation, Rogelio submitted the January 19, 1998 affidavits of his co-workers, namely: Domingo Guevarra,4 Juanito Palomata,5 and Ambrosio Seeres,6 whereby they each declared under oath that Rogelio had already been working at the Ibajay Branch by the time that MSDCs predecessor had hired them in the 1950s to work in that branch; and that MSDC and Chan had continuously employed them until their own retirements, that is, Guevarra in 1994, and Palomata and Seeres in 1997. They thereby corroborated the history of MSDC and the names of the various Branch Managers as narrated by Rogelio, and confirmed that like Rogelio, they did not receive any retirement benefits from Chan and MSDC upon their retirement. In their defense, MSDC and Chan denied having engaged in copra buying in Ibajay, insisting that they did not ever register in such business in any government agency. They asserted that Lim had not been their agent or employee, because he had been an independent copra buyer. They averred, however, that Rogelio was their former employee, hired on January 3, 1977 and retired on June 30, 1989; 7 and that Rogelio was thereafter employed by Lim starting from July 1, 1989 until the filing of the complaint. MSDC and Chan submitted the affidavit of Lim, whereby Lim stated that Rogelio was one of his employees from 1989 until the termination of his services.8 They also submitted SSS Form R-1A, Lims SSS Report of Employee-Members (showing that Rogelio and Palomata were reported as Lims employees);9 Lims application for registration as copra buyer;10 Chans affidavit;11 and the affidavit of Guevarra12 and Seeres,13 whereby said affiants denied having executed or signed the January 19, 1998 affidavits submitted by Rogelio. In his affidavit, Guevarra recanted the statement attributed to him that he had been employed by Chan and MSDC, and declared that he had been an employee of Lim. Likewise, Guevarras daughter executed an affidavit, 14 averring that his father had been an employee of Lim and that his father had not signed the affidavit dated January 19, 1998. On April 5, 1999, the LA dismissed the complaint against Chan and MSDC, ruling thus:

From said evidence, it is our considered view that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the parties effective July 1, 1989 up to the date of the filing of the instant complaint complainant was an employee of Wynne O. Lim. Hence, his claim for retirement should have been filed against the latter for he admitted that he was the employer of herein complainant in his sworn statement dated June 9, 1998. Complainants claim for retirement benefits against herein respondents under RA No. 7641 has been barred by prescription cons idering the fact that it partakes of the nature of a money claim which prescribed after the lapse of three years after its accrual. The rest of the claims are also dismissed for the same accrued during complainants employment with Wynne O. Lim. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.15 Rogelio appealed, but the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA on January 28, 2000, observing that there could be no double retirement in the private sector; that with the double retirement, Rogelio would be thereby enriching himself at the expense of the Government; and that having retired in 1991, Rogelio could not avail himself of the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 entitled An Act Amending Article 287 of Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The Labor Code Of The Philippines, By Providing for Retirement Pay to Qualified Private Sector Employees in the Absence Of Any Retirement Plan in the Establishment, which took effect only on January 7, 1993. 16 The NLRC denied Rogelios motion for reconsideration. Ruling of the CA Rogelio commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in denying to him the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, and in rejecting his money claims on the ground of prescription. On October 24, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision,17 holding that Rogelio had substantially established that he had been an employee of Chan and MSDC, and that the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 were apart from the retirement benefits that a qualified employee could claim under the Social Security Law, conformably with the ruling in Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 110861, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 105). The CA decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the public respondent NLRC is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. This case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the retirement benefits of the petitioner based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended, to be pegged at the minimum wage prevailing in Ibajay, Aklan as of March 17, 1997, and attorneys fees based on the same. Wit hout costs. SO ORDERED. Chan and MSDCs motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Issues In this appeal, Chan and MSDC contend that the CA erred: (a) in taking cognizance of Rogelios petition for certiorari despit e the decision of the NLRC having become final and executory almost two months before the petition was filed; (b) in concluding that Rogelio had remained their employee from July 6, 1989 up to March 17, 1997; and (c) in awarding retirement benefits and attorneys fees to Rogelio. Ruling The petition for review is barren of merit. I Certiorari was timely commenced in the CA Anent the first error, the Court finds that the CA did not err in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari of Rogelio. Based on the records, Rogelio received the NLRCs denial of his motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2003. He then had 6 0 days from January 16, 2003, or until March 17, 2003, within which to file his petition for certiorari. It is without doubt, therefore, that his filing was timely considering that the CA received his petition for certiorari at 2:44 oclock in the afternoon of March 17, 2003. The petitioners insistence, that the issuance of the entry of judgment with respect to the NLRCs decision precluded Rogelio from filing a petition for certiorari, was unwarranted. It ought to be without debate that the finality of the NLRCs decision was of no consequence in the consideration of whether or not he could bring a special civil action for certiorari within the period of 60 days for doing so under Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court, simply because the question being thereby raised was jurisdictional. II

Respondent remained the petitioners employee despite his supposed separation Did Rogelio remain the employee of the petitioners from July 6, 1989 up to March 17, 1997? The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the respondent in that period was essentially a question of fact.18 In dealing with such question, substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion19 is sufficient. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, 20 a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence. Generally, the Court does not review errors that raise factual questions, primarily because the Court is not a trier of facts. However, where, like now, there is a conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on the one hand, and those of the CA, on the other hand,21 it is proper, in the exercise of our equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings. The CA delved on and resolved the issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondent thusly: As to the factual issue, the petitioners evidence consists of his own statements and those of his alleged co -worker from 1950 until 1997, Juanito Palomata, who unlike his former co-workers Domingo Guevarra and Ambrosio Seeres, did not disown the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" he executed, in corroboration of petitioners allegations; and the Certification dated August 10, 1991 stating that petitioner was first p laced under coverage of the SSS in January 1974 to June 30, 1989 and was separated from service effective July 1, 1989, a certification executed by respondent Crispin Amigo Chan which, petitioner maintains, was only intended for his application for retirement benefits with the SSS. Private respondents evidence, on the other hand, consisted of respondent Crispin Amigo Chans counter statements as well as documentary evidence consisting of (1) Wayne Lims Affidavit which petitioner acknowledged in his Reply dated July 11, 1998, par. 8, admi tting to being the employer of petitioner from Jul y 1, 1989 until the filing of the complaint; (2) Certification dated October 22, 1991 showing petitioners employment with respondents to have been between January 3, 1977 until July 1, 1989; (3) Affidavits of Guevarra and Seeres disowning their signatures in the affidavits submitted in evidence by the petitioner; (4) SSS report executed by Wayne Lim of his initial list of employees as of July 1, 1989 which includes the petitioner. On appeal, the respondents further submitted documentary evidence showing that Wayne Lim registered his business name on July 11, 1989 and apparently went into business buying copra. At this point, we should note the following factual discrepancies in the evidence on hand: First, the respondents issued certificates stating the commencement of petitioners employment on different dates, i.e. January 1974 and January 1977, although the earlier date refer red only to the period when petitioner was first placed under the coverage of the SSS, which need not necessarily refer to the commencement of his employment. Secondly, while respondent Crispin Amigo Chan denied having ever engaged in copra buying in Ibajay, the certificates he issued both dated in 1991 state otherwise, for he declared himself as a "copra dealer" with address in Ibajay. Then there is the statement of the petitioner that Wayne Lim was the respondents manager in their branch office in Ibajay since 1984, a statement that respondents failed to disavow. Instead, respondents insisted on their non sequitur argument that they had never engaged in copra buying activities in Ibajay, and that Wayne Lim was in business all by himself in regard to such activity. The denial on respondents part of their copra buying activities in Ibajay begs the obvious question: What were petitione r and his witness Juanito Palomata then doing for respondents as laborers in Ibajay prior to July 1, 1989? Indeed, what did petitioner do for the respo ndents as the latters laborer prior to July 1, 1989, which was different from what he did after said date? The records showed that he continued doing the same job, i.e. as laborer and trusted employee tasked with the responsibility of getting money from the Kalibo office of respondents which was used to buy copra and pay the employees salaries. He did not only continue doing the same thing but he apparently did the same at or from the same place, i.e. the bodega in Ibajay, which his co-worker Palomata believed to belong to the respondent Masing & Sons. Since respondents admitted to employing petitioner from 1977 to 1989, we have to conclude that, indeed, the bodega in Ibajay was owned by respondents at least prior to July 1, 1989 since petitioner had consistently stated that he worked for the respondents continuously in their branch office in Ibajay under different managers and nowhere else. We believe that the respondents strongest evidence in regard to the alleged separation of petitioner from service effective July 1, 1989 would be the affidavit of Wayne Lim, owning to being the employer of petitioner since July 1, 1989 and the SSS report that he executed listing petitioner as one of his employees since said date. But in light of the incontrovertible physical reality that petitioner and his co-workers did go to work day in and day out for such a long period of time, doing the same thing and in the same place, without apparent discontinuity, except on paper, these documents cannot be taken at their face value. We note that Wayne Lim apparently inherited, at least on paper, ten (10) employees of respondent Crispin Amigo Chan, including petitioner, all on the same day, i.e. on July 1, 1989. We note, too, that while there exists an initial report of employees to the SSS by Wayne Lim, no other document apart from his affidavit and business registration was offered by respondents to bolster their contention, irrespective of the fact that Wayne Lim was not a party respondent. What were the circumstances underlying such alleged mass transfer of employment? Unfortunately, the evidence for the respondents does not provide us with ready answers. We could conclude that respondents sold their business in Ibajay and assets to Wayne Lim on July 1, 1989; however, as pointed out above, respondent Crispin Amigo Chan himself said that he was a "copra dealer" from Ibajay in August and October of 1991. Whether or not he was registered as a copra buyer is immaterial, given that he declared himself a "copra dealer" and had apparently engaged in the activity of buying copra, as shown precisely by the employment of petitioner and Palomata. If Wayne Lim, from being the respondents manager in Ibajay became an independent businessman and took over the respondents business in Ibajay along with all their employees, why did not the respondents simply state that fact for the record? More importantly, why did the petitioner and Palomata continue believing that Wayne Lim was only the respondents manager? Given the long employment of petitioner with the respondents, was it possible for him and his witness to make such mistake? We do not think so. In case of doubt, the doubt is resolved in favor of labor, in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer as mandated by Article 1702 of the Civil Code. The reality of the petitioners toil speaks louder than words. xxx 22

We agree with the CAs factual findings, because they were based on the evidence and records of the case submitted before the LA. The CA essentially complied with the guidepost that the substantiality of evidence depends on both its quantitative and its qualitative aspects. 23 Indeed, the records substantially established that Chan and MSDC had employed Rogelio until 1997. In contrast, Chan and MSDC failed to adduce credible substantiation of their averment that Rogelio had been Lims employee from July 1989 until 1997. Credible proof that could outweigh the showing by Rogelio to the contrary was demanded of Chan and MSDC to establish the veracity of their allegation, for their mere allegation of Rogelios employment under Lim did not constitute evidence,24 but they did not submit such proof, sadly failing to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation.25 In this regard, as we pointed out at the start, the doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master. III Respondent entitled to retirement benefits from the petitioners Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, provides: Article 287. Retirement. Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract. In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements; Provided, however, That an employees retirement benefits under any col lective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less than those provided herein. In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year. Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves. Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten (10) employees or workers are exempted from the coverage of this provision. Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions provided under Article 288 of this Code. Was Rogelio entitled to the retirement benefits under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641? The CA held so in its decision, to wit: Having reached the conclusion that petitioner was an employee of the respondents from 1950 to March 17, 1997, and considering his uncontroverted allegation that in the Ibajay branch office where he was assigned, respondents employed no less than 12 workers at said later date, thus affording private respondents no relief from the duty of providing retirement benefits to their employees, we see no reason why petitioner should not be entitled to the retirement benefits as provided for under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended. The beneficent provisions of said law, as applied in Oro Enterprises Inc. v. NLRC, is apart from the retirement benefits that can be claimed by a qualified employee under the social security law. Attorneys fees are also granted to the petitioner. But the monetary benefits claimed by petitioner cannot be granted on t he basis of the evidence at hand.26 We concur with the CAs holding. The third paragraph of the aforequoted provision of the Labor Code entitled Rogelio to retirement benefits as a necessary consequence of the finding that Rogelio was an employee of MSDC and Chan. Indeed, there should be little, if any, doubt that the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, which was enacted as a labor protection measure and as a curative statute to respond, in part at least, to the financial well-being of workers during their twilight years soon following their life of labor, can be extended not only from the date of its enactment but retroactively to the time the employment contracts started. 27 WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition for review on certiorari, and affirms the decision promulgated on October 24, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No.75983. Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Calalang vs. Williams (Refer to PDF File)