.R. No.

146530

January 17, 2005

PEDRO CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONA A!OR RE ATION" CO##I""ION, "$PRE#E PAC%A&IN&, INC. an' A VIN EE, P(an) #ana*+r, respondents. DECISION CA EJO, "R., J.:

Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution 1 dated Decem er 1!, "### of the Court of $ppeals %C$& reversin' its Decision dated $pril "(, "### in C$) *.R. S+ No. !",(!. -he assailed resolution reinstated the Decision dated .ul/ 1#, 100( of the National 1a or Relations Commission %N1RC&, dismissin' the complaint for ille'al dismissal filed / herein petitioner +edro Chave2. -he said N1RC decision similarl/ reversed its earlier Decision dated .anuar/ "3, 100( which, affirmin' that of the 1a or $r iter, ruled that the petitioner had een ille'all/ dismissed / respondents Supreme +ac4a'in', Inc. and 5r. $lvin 1ee. -he case stemmed from the followin' facts6 -he respondent compan/, Supreme +ac4a'in', Inc., is in the usiness of manufacturin' cartons and other pac4a'in' materials for e7port and distri ution. It en'a'ed the services of the petitioner, +edro Chave2, as truc4 driver on Octo er "!, 10(,. $s such, the petitioner was tas4ed to deliver the respondent compan/8s products from its factor/ in 5ariveles, Bataan, to its various customers, mostl/ in 5etro 5anila. -he respondent compan/ furnished the petitioner with a truc4. 5ost of the petitioner8s deliver/ trips were made at ni'httime, commencin' at 96## p.m. from 5ariveles, and returnin' thereto in the afternoon two or three da/s after. -he deliveries were made in accordance with the routin' slips issued / respondent compan/ indicatin' the order, time and ur'enc/ of deliver/. Initiall/, the petitioner was paid the sum of +:!#.## per trip. -his was later ad;usted to +,(#.## per trip and, at the time of his alle'ed dismissal, the petitioner was receivin' +0##.## per trip. Sometime in 100", the petitioner e7pressed to respondent $lvin 1ee, respondent compan/8s plant mana'er, his %the petitioner8s& desire to avail himself of the enefits that the re'ular emplo/ees were receivin' such as overtime pa/, ni'htshift differential pa/, and 1:th month pa/, amon' others. $lthou'h he promised to e7tend these enefits to the petitioner, respondent 1ee failed to actuall/ do so. On <e ruar/ "#, 100!, the petitioner filed a complaint for re'ulari2ation with the Re'ional $r itration Branch No. III of the N1RC in San <ernando, +ampan'a. Before the case could e heard, respondent compan/ terminated the services of the petitioner. Conse=uentl/, on 5a/ "!, 100!, the petitioner filed an amended complaint a'ainst the respondents for ille'al dismissal, unfair la or practice and non)pa/ment of overtime pa/, ni'htshift differential pa/, 1:th month pa/, amon' others. -he case was doc4eted as N1RC Case No. R$B)III)#")91(1)0!. -he respondents, for their part, denied the e7istence of an emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. -he/ averred that the petitioner was an independent contractor as evidenced / the contract of service which he and the respondent compan/ entered into. -he said contract provided as follows6 -hat the +rincipal >referrin' to Supreme +ac4a'in', Inc.?, / these presents, a'rees to hire and the Contractor >referrin' to +edro Chave2?, / nature of their speciali2ed line or

service ;o s, accepts the services to e rendered to the +rincipal, under the followin' terms and covenants heretofore mentioned6 1. -hat the inland transport deliver/@haulin' activities to e performed / the contractor to the principal, shall onl/ cover travel route from 5ariveles to 5etro 5anila. Otherwise, an/ chan'e to this travel route shall e su ;ect to further a'reement / the parties concerned. ". -hat the pa/ment to e made / the +rincipal for an/ haulin' or deliver/ transport services full/ rendered / the Contractor shall e on a per trip asis dependin' on the si2e or classification of the truc4 ein' used in the transport service, to wit6 a& If the haulin' or deliver/ service shall re=uire a truc4 of si7 wheeler, the pa/ment on a per trip asis from 5ariveles to 5etro 5anila shall e -AREE ABNDRED +ESOS %+:##.##& and E<<EC-ICE Decem er 1!, 10(,. & If the haulin' or deliver/ service re=uire a truc4 of ten wheeler, the pa/ment on a per trip asis, followin' the same route mentioned, shall e -AREE ABNDRED <I<-D %+:!#.##& +esos and Effective Decem er 1!, 10(,. :. -hat for the amount involved, the Contractor will e to >sic? provide for >sic? at least two %"& helpersE ,. -he Contractor shall e7ercise direct control and shall e responsi le to the +rincipal for the cost of an/ dama'e to, loss of an/ 'oods, car'oes, finished products or the li4e, while the same are in transit, or due to rec4less >sic? of its men utili2ed for the purpose a ove mentionedE !. -hat the Contractor shall have a solute control and disciplinar/ power over its men wor4in' for him su ;ect to this a'reement, and that the Contractor shall hold the +rincipal free and harmless from an/ lia ilit/ or claim that ma/ arise / virtue of the Contractor8s non)compliance to the e7istin' provisions of the 5inimum Fa'e 1aw, the Emplo/ees Compensation $ct, the Social Securit/ S/stem $ct, or an/ other such law or decree that ma/ hereafter e enacted, it ein' clearl/ understood that an/ truc4 drivers, helpers or men wor4in' with and for the Contractor, are not emplo/ees who will e indemnified / the +rincipal for an/ such claim, includin' dama'es incurred in connection therewithE 9. -his contract shall ta4e effect immediatel/ upon the si'nin' / the parties, su ;ect to renewal on a /ear)to)/ear asis." -his contract of service was dated Decem er 1", 10(,. It was su se=uentl/ renewed twice, on .ul/ 1#, 10(0 and Septem er "(, 100". E7cept for the rates to e paid to the petitioner, the terms of the contracts were su stantiall/ the same. -he relationship of the respondent compan/ and the petitioner was alle'edl/ 'overned / this contract of service. -he respondents insisted that the petitioner had the sole control over the means and methods / which his wor4 was accomplished. Ae paid the wa'es of his helpers and e7ercised control over them. $s such, the petitioner was not entitled to re'ulari2ation ecause he was not an emplo/ee of the respondent compan/. -he respondents, li4ewise, maintained that the/ did not dismiss the petitioner. Rather, the severance of his contractual relation with the respondent compan/ was due to his violation of the terms

and conditions of their contract. -he petitioner alle'edl/ failed to o serve the minimum de'ree of dili'ence in the proper maintenance of the truc4 he was usin', there / e7posin' respondent compan/ to unnecessar/ si'nificant e7penses of overhaulin' the said truc4. $fter the parties had filed their respective pleadin's, the 1a or $r iter rendered the Decision dated <e ruar/ :, 1003, findin' the respondents 'uilt/ of ille'al dismissal. -he 1a or $r iter declared that the petitioner was a re'ular emplo/ee of the respondent compan/ as he was performin' a service that was necessar/ and desira le to the latter8s usiness. 5oreover, it was noted that the petitioner had dischar'ed his duties as truc4 driver for the respondent compan/ for a continuous and uninterrupted period of more than ten /ears. -he contract of service invo4ed / the respondents was declared null and void as it constituted a circumvention of the constitutional provision affordin' full protection to la or and securit/ of tenure. -he 1a or $r iter found that the petitioner8s dismissal was anchored on his insistent demand to e re'ulari2ed. Aence, for lac4 of a valid and ;ust cause therefor and for their failure to o serve the due process re=uirements, the respondents were found 'uilt/ of ille'al dismissal. -he dispositive portion of the 1a or $r iter8s decision states6 FAERE<ORE, in the li'ht of the fore'oin', ;ud'ment is here / rendered declarin' respondent SB+RE5E +$CG$*IN*, INC. and@or 5R. $1CIN 1EE, +lant 5ana'er, with usiness address at BE+H, 5ariveles, Bataan 'uilt/ of ille'al dismissal, orderin' said respondent to pa/ complainant his separation pa/ e=uivalent to one %1& month pa/ per /ear of service ased on the avera'e monthl/ pa/ of +1#,(##.## in lieu of reinstatement as his reinstatement ac4 to wor4 will not do an/ 'ood etween the parties as the emplo/ment relationship has alread/ ecome strained and full ac4wa'es from the time his compensation was withheld on <e ruar/ ":, 100! up to .anuar/ :1, 1003 %cut)off date& until compliance, otherwise, his ac4wa'es shall continue to run. $lso to pa/ complainant his 1:th month pa/, ni'ht shift differential pa/ and service incentive leave pa/ hereunder computed as follows6 a& Bac4wa'es IIIIIII.. +",(,,##.## & Separation +a/ IIII.I... +1,#,,##.## c& 1:th month pa/ IIII.II+ 1#,(##.## d& Service Incentive 1eave +a/ .. ",#,#.## -O-$1 +,#1,9,#.## Respondent is also ordered to pa/ ten %1#J& of the amount due the complainant as attorne/8s fees. SO ORDERED.: -he respondents seasona l/ interposed an appeal with the N1RC. Aowever, the appeal was dismissed / the N1RC in its Decision , dated .anuar/ "3, 100(, as it affirmed in totothe decision of the 1a or $r iter. In the said decision, the N1RC characteri2ed the contract of service etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner as a KschemeK that was resorted to / the respondents who, ta4in' advanta'e of the petitioner8s unfamiliarit/ with the En'lish lan'ua'e and@or le'al niceties, wanted to evade the effects and implications of his ecomin' a re'ulari2ed emplo/ee. !

-he respondents sou'ht reconsideration of the .anuar/ "3, 100( Decision of the N1RC. $ctin' thereon, the N1RC rendered another Decision9 dated .ul/ 1#, 100(, reversin' its earlier decision and, this time, holdin' that no emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship e7isted etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. In reconsiderin' its earlier decision, the N1RC stated that the respondents did not e7ercise control over the means and methods / which the petitioner accomplished his deliver/ services. It upheld the validit/ of the contract of service as it pointed out that said contract was silent as to the time / which the petitioner was to ma4e the deliveries and that the petitioner could hire his own helpers whose wa'es would e paid from his own account. -hese factors indicated that the petitioner was an independent contractor, not an emplo/ee of the respondent compan/. -he N1RC ruled that the contract of service was not intended to circumvent $rticle "(# of the 1a or Code on the re'ulari2ation of emplo/ees. Said contract, includin' the fi7ed period of emplo/ment contained therein, havin' een 4nowin'l/ and voluntaril/ entered into / the parties thereto was declared valid citin' Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora.3 -he N1RC, thus, dismissed the petitioner8s complaint for ille'al dismissal. -he petitioner sou'ht reconsideration of the .ul/ 1#, 100( Decision ut it was denied / the N1RC in its Resolution dated Septem er 3, 100(. Ae then filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, which was referred to the C$ followin' the rulin' in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC .( -he appellate court rendered the Decision dated $pril "(, "###, reversin' the .ul/ 1#, 100( Decision of the N1RC and reinstatin' the decision of the 1a or $r iter. In the said decision, the C$ ruled that the petitioner was a re'ular emplo/ee of the respondent compan/ ecause as its truc4 driver, he performed a service that was indispensa le to the latter8s usiness. <urther, he had een the respondent compan/8s truc4 driver for ten continuous /ears. -he C$ also reasoned that the petitioner could not e considered an independent contractor since he had no su stantial capital in the form of tools and machiner/. In fact, the truc4 that he drove elon'ed to the respondent compan/. -he C$ also o served that the routin' slips that the respondent compan/ issued to the petitioner showed that it e7ercised control over the latter. -he routin' slips indicated the chronolo'ical order and priorit/ of deliver/, the ur'enc/ of certain deliveries and the time when the 'oods were to e delivered to the customers. -he C$, li4ewise, dis elieved the respondents8 claim that the petitioner a andoned his ;o notin' that he ;ust filed a complaint for re'ulari2ation. -his actuation of the petitioner ne'ated the respondents8 alle'ation that he a andoned his ;o . -he C$ held that the respondents failed to dischar'e their urden to show that the petitioner8s dismissal was for a valid and ;ust cause. $ccordin'l/, the respondents were declared 'uilt/ of ille'al dismissal and the decision of the 1a or $r iter was reinstated. In its $pril "(, "### Decision, the C$ denounced the contract of service etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner in this wise6 In summation, we rule that with the proliferation of contracts see4in' to prevent wor4ers from attainin' the status of re'ular emplo/ment, it is ut necessar/ for the courts to scrutini2e with e7treme caution their le'alit/ and ;ustness. Fhere from the circumstances it is apparent that a contract has een entered into to preclude ac=uisition of tenurial securit/ / the emplo/ee, the/ should e struc4 down and disre'arded as contrar/ to pu lic polic/ and morals. In this case, the Kcontract of serviceK is ;ust another attempt to e7ploit the unwittin' emplo/ee and deprive him of the protection of the 1a or Code / ma4in' it appear that the stipulations of the parties were 'overned / the Civil Code as in ordinar/ transactions.0

Aowever, on motion for reconsideration / the respondents, the C$ made a complete turn around as it rendered the assailed Resolution dated Decem er 1!, "### upholdin' the contract of service etween the petitioner and the respondent compan/. In reconsiderin' its decision, the C$ e7plained that the e7tent of control e7ercised / the respondents over the petitioner was onl/ with respect to the result ut not to the means and methods used / him. -he C$ cited the followin' circumstances6 %1& the respondents had no sa/ on how the 'oods were to e delivered to the customersE %"& the petitioner had the ri'ht to emplo/ wor4ers who would e under his direct controlE and %:& the petitioner had no wor4in' time. -he fact that the petitioner had een with the respondent compan/ for more than ten /ears was, accordin' to the C$, of no moment ecause his status was determined not / the len'th of service ut / the contract of service. -his contract, not ein' contrar/ to morals, 'ood customs, pu lic order or pu lic polic/, should e 'iven the force and effect of law as etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. Conse=uentl/, the C$ reinstated the .ul/ 1#, 100( Decision of the N1RC dismissin' the petitioner8s complaint for ille'al dismissal. Aence, the recourse to this Court / the petitioner. Ae assails the Decem er 1!, "### Resolution of the appellate court alle'in' that6 %$& -AE COBR- O< $++E$1S CO55I--ED $ *R$CE $BBSE O< DISCRE-ION $5OBN-IN* -O ELCESS O< .BRISDIC-ION IN *ICIN* 5ORE CONSIDER$-ION -O -AE KCON-R$C- O< SERCICEK EN-ERED IN-O BD +E-I-IONER $ND +RIC$-E RES+ONDEN- -A$N $R-IC1E "(# O< -AE 1$BOR CODE O< -AE +AI1I++INES FAICA C$-E*ORIC$11D DE<INES $ RE*B1$R E5+1OD5ENNO-FI-AS-$NDIN* $ND FRI--EN $*REE5EN- -O -AE CON-R$RD $ND RE*$RD1ESS O< -AE OR$1 $*REE5EN- O< -AE +$R-IESE %B& -AE COBR- O< $++E$1S CO55I--ED $ *R$CE $BBSE O< DISCRE-ION $5OBN-IN* -O ELCESS O< .BRISDIC-ION IN RECERSIN* I-S OFN <INDIN*S -A$- +E-I-IONER IS $ RE*B1$R E5+1ODEE $ND IN AO1DIN* -A$- -AERE ELIS-ED NO E5+1ODER)E5+1ODEE RE1$-IONSAI+ BE-FEEN +RIC$-E RES+ONDEN- $ND +E-I-IONER IN $S 5BCA $S -AE KCON-RO1 -ES-K FAICA IS CONSIDERED -AE 5OS- ESSEN-I$1 CRI-ERION IN DE-ER5ININ* -AE ELIS-ENCE O< S$ID RE1$-IONSAI+ IS NO+RESEN-.1# -he threshold issue that needs to e resolved is whether there e7isted an emplo/er) emplo/ee relationship etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. Fe rule in the affirmative. -he elements to determine the e7istence of an emplo/ment relationship are6 %1& the selection and en'a'ement of the emplo/eeE %"& the pa/ment of wa'esE %:& the power of dismissalE and %,& the emplo/er8s power to control the emplo/ee8s conduct. 11 -he most important element is the emplo/er8s control of the emplo/ee8s conduct, not onl/ as to the result of the wor4 to e done, ut also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. 1" $ll the four elements are present in this case. <irst. Bndenia l/, it was the respondents who en'a'ed the services of the petitioner without the intervention of a third part/.

Second. Fa'es are defined as Kremuneration or earnin's, however desi'nated, capa le of ein' e7pressed in terms of mone/, whether fi7ed or ascertained on a time, tas4, piece or commission asis, or other method of calculatin' the same, which is pa/a le / an emplo/er to an emplo/ee under a written or unwritten contract of emplo/ment for wor4 done or to e done, or for service rendered or to e rendered.K 1: -hat the petitioner was paid on a per trip asis is not si'nificant. -his is merel/ a method of computin' compensation and not a asis for determinin' the e7istence or a sence of emplo/er) emplo/ee relationship. One ma/ e paid on the asis of results or time e7pended on the wor4, and ma/ or ma/ not ac=uire an emplo/ment status, dependin' on whether the elements of an emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship are present or not. 1, In this case, it cannot e 'ainsaid that the petitioner received compensation from the respondent compan/ for the services that he rendered to the latter. 5oreover, under the Rules Implementin' the 1a or Code, ever/ emplo/er is re=uired to pa/ his emplo/ees / means of pa/roll. 1! -he pa/roll should show, amon' other thin's, the emplo/ee8s rate of pa/, deductions made, and the amount actuall/ paid to the emplo/ee. Interestin'l/, the respondents did not present the pa/roll to support their claim that the petitioner was not their emplo/ee, raisin' speculations whether this omission proves that its presentation would e adverse to their case.19 -hird. -he respondents8 power to dismiss the petitioner was inherent in the fact that the/ en'a'ed the services of the petitioner as truc4 driver. -he/ e7ercised this power / terminatin' the petitioner8s services al eit in the 'uise of Kseverance of contractual relationK due alle'edl/ to the latter8s reach of his contractual o li'ation. <ourth. $s earlier opined, of the four elements of the emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship, the Kcontrol testK is the most important. Compared to an emplo/ee, an independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent usiness and underta4es to perform the ;o , wor4, or service on its own account and under its own responsi ilit/ accordin' to its own manner and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the wor4 e7cept as to the results thereof.13 Aence, while an independent contractor en;o/s independence and freedom from the control and supervision of his principal, an emplo/ee is su ;ect to the emplo/er8s power to control the means and methods / which the emplo/ee8s wor4 is to e performed and accomplished.1( $lthou'h the respondents denied that the/ e7ercised control over the manner and methods / which the petitioner accomplished his wor4, a careful review of the records shows that the latter performed his wor4 as truc4 driver under the respondents8 supervision and control. -heir ri'ht of control was manifested / the followin' attendant circumstances6 1. -he truc4 driven / the petitioner elon'ed to respondent compan/E ". -here was an e7press instruction from the respondents that the truc4 shall e used e7clusivel/ to deliver respondent compan/8s 'oodsE 10 :. Respondents directed the petitioner, after completion of each deliver/, to par4 the truc4 in either of two specific places onl/, to wit6 at its office in 5etro 5anila at ":"# OsmeMa Street, 5a4ati Cit/ or at BE+H, 5ariveles, BataanE "# and ,. Respondents determined how, where and when the petitioner would perform his tas4 / issuin' to him 'ate passes and routin' slips. "1 a. -he routin' slips indicated on the column RE5$RGS, the chronolo'ical order and priorit/ of deliver/ such as 1st drop, "nd drop, :rd drop, etc. -his meant that the petitioner had to deliver the same accordin' to the order of priorit/ indicated therein. . -he routin' slips, li4ewise, showed whether the 'oods were to e delivered ur'entl/ or not / the word RBSA printed thereon. c. -he routin' slips also indicated the e7act time as to when the 'oods were to e delivered to the customers as, for e7ample, the words Ktomorrow mornin'K was written on slip no. "339. -hese circumstances, to the Court8s mind, prove that the respondents e7ercised control over the means and methods / which the petitioner accomplished his wor4 as truc4 driver of the respondent compan/. On the other hand, the Court is hard put to elieve the

respondents8 alle'ation that the petitioner was an independent contractor en'a'ed in providin' deliver/ or haulin' services when he did not even own the truc4 used for such services. Evidentl/, he did not possess su stantial capitali2ation or investment in the form of tools, machiner/ and wor4 premises. 5oreover, the petitioner performed the deliver/ services e7clusivel/ for the respondent compan/ for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten /ears. -he contract of service to the contrar/ notwithstandin', the factual circumstances earlier discussed indu ita l/ esta lish the e7istence of an emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner. It ears stressin' that the e7istence of an emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship cannot e ne'ated / e7pressl/ repudiatin' it in a contract and providin' therein that the emplo/ee is an independent contractor when, as in this case, the facts clearl/ show otherwise. Indeed, the emplo/ment status of a person is defined and prescri ed / law and not / what the parties sa/ it should e. "" Aavin' esta lished that there e7isted an emplo/er)emplo/ee relationship etween the respondent compan/ and the petitioner, the Court shall now determine whether the respondents validl/ dismissed the petitioner. $s a rule, the emplo/er ears the urden to prove that the dismissal was for a valid and ;ust cause.": In this case, the respondents failed to prove an/ such cause for the petitioner8s dismissal. -he/ insinuated that the petitioner a andoned his ;o . -o constitute a andonment, these two factors must concur6 %1& the failure to report for wor4 or a sence without valid or ;ustifia le reasonE and %"& a clear intention to sever emplo/er) emplo/ee relationship.", O viousl/, the petitioner did not intend to sever his relationship with the respondent compan/ for at the time that he alle'edl/ a andoned his ;o , the petitioner ;ust filed a complaint for re'ulari2ation, which was forthwith amended to one for ille'al dismissal. $ char'e of a andonment is totall/ inconsistent with the immediate filin' of a complaint for ille'al dismissal, more so when it includes a pra/er for reinstatement. "! Neither can the respondents8 claim that the petitioner was 'uilt/ of 'ross ne'li'ence in the proper maintenance of the truc4 constitute a valid and ;ust cause for his dismissal. *ross ne'li'ence implies a want or a sence of or failure to e7ercise sli'ht care or dili'ence, or the entire a sence of care. It evinces a thou'htless disre'ard of conse=uences without e7ertin' an/ effort to avoid them. "9 -he ne'li'ence, to warrant removal from service, should not merel/ e gross ut also ha itual."3 -he sin'le and isolated act of the petitioner8s ne'li'ence in the proper maintenance of the truc4 alle'ed / the respondents does not amount to K'ross and ha itual ne'lectK warrantin' his dismissal. -he Court a'rees with the followin' findin's and conclusion of the 1a or $r iter6 I $s a'ainst the 'ratuitous alle'ation of the respondent that complainant was not dismissed from the service ut due to complainant8s reach of their contractual relation, i.e., his violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, we are ver/ much inclined to elieve complainant8s stor/ that his dismissal from the service was anchored on his insistent demand that he e considered a re'ular emplo/ee. Because complainant in his ri'ht senses will not ;ust a andon for that reason alone his wor4 especiall/ so that it is onl/ his ;o where he depends chiefl/ his e7istence and support for his famil/ if he was not a''rieved / the respondent when he was told that his services as driver will e terminated on <e ruar/ ":, 100!."( -hus, the lac4 of a valid and ;ust cause in terminatin' the services of the petitioner renders his dismissal ille'al. Bnder $rticle "30 of the 1a or Code, an emplo/ee who is un;ustl/ dismissed is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniorit/ ri'hts and other privile'es, and to the pa/ment of full ac4wa'es, inclusive of allowances, and other enefits or their monetar/ e=uivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. "0 Aowever, as found / the 1a or $r iter, the circumstances o tainin' in this case do not warrant the petitioner8s reinstatement. $ more e=uita le disposition, as held / the 1a or $r iter, would e an award of separation pa/ e=uivalent to one month for ever/ /ear of service from the time of his ille'al dismissal up to the finalit/ of this ;ud'ment in addition to his full ac4wa'es, allowances and other enefits.

,HERE-ORE, the instant petition is *R$N-ED. -he Resolution dated Decem er 1!, "### of the Court of $ppeals reversin' its Decision dated $pril "(, "### in C$)*.R. S+ No. !",(! is RECERSED and SE- $SIDE. -he Decision dated <e ruar/ :, 1003 of the 1a or $r iter in N1RC Case No. R$B)III)#")91(1)!, findin' the respondents 'uilt/ of ille'all/ terminatin' the emplo/ment of petitioner +edro Chave2, is REINS-$-ED. SO ORDERED. +uno, %Chairman&, $ustria)5artine2, -in'a, and Chico)Na2ario, ..., concur