SONG KIAT CHOCOLATE FACTORY VS.

CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

AND VICENTE GELLA
November 29, 19!
Be"#$o", %.
A&&e'( )rom ' *+,#me"- o) CFI .'"/('
F'0-12
Petitioner imported sun-dried cocoa beans from Jan. 8, 1953 to Oct. 9, 1953 for
which it paid the foreign exchange tax of 1! tota"ing P#,$1.%#. &he'
c"aimed exemption from tax under (ec. ) of *epub"ic +ct ,o. $%1 as amended.
&he particu"ar pro-ision pro-ides that .the tax co""ected or foreign exchange
used for the pa'ment of costs transportation and/or other charges incident to
importation into the Phi"ippines of rice, f"our000so'a beans, butterfat,
choco"ate, ma"t s'rup000sha"" be refunded to an' importer ma1ing app"ication
therefore, upon satisfactor' proof of actua" importation000.2
Petitioner fi"ed suit in 345 6ani"a but it was dismissed. 7efendants contend that
the comp"aint stated no cause of action because cocoa beans were not
choco"ate. &he petitioner fi"ed an appea" on (3 contending that the term
choco"ate inc"udes sun-dried cocoa beans.
3ON 0o0o' be'"1 m'4 be 0o"1/,ere, 05o0o('-e )or e6em&-/o"7 8NO9
&he exemption in sec. ) does not inc"ude cocoa beans. &he 3ourt strict"'
construes statutes exempting from taxation.
o Petitioner 8uotes from dictionaries that the terms choco"ate and cocoa
are used interchangeab"'. 9ut the 3ourt obser-ed that the "ega"
exemption refers to choco"ate and not the bean, nut or tree. 3hoco"ate
is a manufactured or finished product made out of cocoa beans. 3ocoa
beans do not become choco"ate un"ess and unti" the' ha-e undergone
the manufacturing processes.
5n +ugust 195#, 3ongress appro-ed *+ 119 amending section ) b'
substituting cocoa beans for choco"ate. 3ong. *oces proposed to insert the
words cocoa beans in parentheses to c"arif' an' doubts of the past 3ongress
regarding the words.
*espondents contend that 3ong. *oces did not spo1e of the intent of the past
3ongress because he was not a member of it. :e cou"d on"' state his own
interpretation. 3ourts do not usua""' gi-e decisi-e weight to one "egis"ator;s
opinion, expressed in 3ongressiona" debates concerning the app"ication of
existing "aws.
:owe-er, the ma<or impression that pre-ai"ed was that choco"ate cand' or
choco"ate bar was exempted but not cocoa beans. 5n the (enate, confusion
arose as to wh' cocoa beans were not exempted. &o a""e-iate the pub"ic of the
confusion, the' decided that the term cocoa beans be remo-ed and de"eted.
Other parts of the record show that in appro-ing the :ouse 9i"", the 3ongress
agreed exempt cocoa beans with a -iew of fa-oring "oca" manufacturers. &he
respondents contend that it as a change of "egis"ati-e po"ic' and not a
dec"aration or c"arification of pre-ious 3ongressiona" purpose.
President;s proc"amation ,o. $) of (ept. ), 195# specified that exemption of
cocoa beans sha"" operate from and after (ept. 3, 195#. (tatutes operate
prospecti-e"'. &he petitioner imported cocoa beans from Jan to Oct 1953 which
was not co-ered b' the exemption decree.
Appeal is denied. Order of CFI affirmed.
Re&+b(/0 A0- No. :9;< o) 199=2 THE COOPERATIVE CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES =+, +3& &O O*7+5, + 3OOP>*+&5?> 3O7> O4 &:> P:5@5PP5,>(A
Se0-/o" ;. General Concepts. + cooperati-e is a du"' registered association of
persons, with a common bond of interest, who ha-e -o"untari"' <oined together to
achie-e a "awfu" common socia" or economic end, ma1ing e8uitab"e contributions to
the capita" re8uired and accepting a fair share of the ris1s and benefits of the
underta1ing in accordance with uni-ersa""' accepted cooperati-e princip"es.
Se0-/o" 12:. Interpretation and Construction. 5n case of doubt as to the meaning
of an' pro-ision of this 3ode or the regu"ations issued in pursuance thereof, the
same sha"" be reso"-ed "ibera""' in fa-or of the cooperati-es and their members.
Re&+b(/0 A0- No. <!922 ELECTRONIC CO..ERCE ACT OF 2=== =+, +3&
P*O?575,B 4O* &:> *>3OB,5&5O, +,7 C(> O4 >@>3&*O,53 3O66>*35+@ +,7
,O,-3O66>*35+@ &*+,(+3&5O,( +,7 7O3C6>,&(, P>,+@&5>( 4O* C,@+D4C@
C(> &:>*>O4 +,7 4O* O&:>* PC*PO(>(A
Sec. 4. Sphere of Application. &his +ct sha"" app"' to an' 1ind of data message and
e"ectronic document used in the context of commercia" and non-commercia"
acti-ities to inc"ude domestic and internationa" dea"ings, transactions,
arrangements, agreements, contracts and exchanges and storage of information.
Sec. 37. Statutory Interpretation. - Cn"ess otherwise express"' pro-ided for, the
interpretation of this +ct sha"" gi-e due regard to its internationa" origin and the
need to promote uniformit' in its app"ication and the obser-ance of good faith in
internationa" trade re"ations. &he genera""' accepted princip"es of internationa" "aw
and con-ention on e"ectronic commerce sha"" "i1ewise be considered.
Re&+b(/0 A0- No. 92<2 ALTERNATIVE DISP>TE RESOL>TION OF 2==? 8+,
+3& &O 5,(&5&C&5O,+@5E> &:> C(> O4 +, +@&>*,+&5?> 75(PC&> *>(O@C&5O,
(F(&>6 5, &:> P:5@5PP5,>( +,7 &O >(&+9@5(: &:> O4453> 4O* +@&>*,+&5?>
75(PC&> *>(O@C&5O,, +,7 4O* O&:>* PC*PO(>(A
SEC. <. Application and Interpretation. - 5n app"'ing construing the pro-isions of
this 3hapter, consideration must be gi-en to the need to promote candor or parties
and mediators through confidentia"it' of the mediation process, the po"ic' of
fostering prompt, economica", and amicab"e reso"ution of disputes in accordance
with the princip"es of integrit' of determination b' the parties, and the po"ic' that
the decision-ma1ing authorit' in the mediation process rests with the parties.
SEC. 2=. Interpretation of Model Law. - 5n interpreting the 6ode" @aw, regard sha""
be had to its internationa" origin and to the need for uniformit' in its interpretation
and resort ma' be made to the tra-aux preparatories and the report of the
(ecretar' Benera" of the Cnited ,ations 3ommission on 5nternationa" &rade @aw
dated 6arch )5, 1985 entit"ed, G5nternationa" 3ommercia" +rbitrationH +na"'tica"
3ommentar' on 7raft &rade identified b' reference number +/3,. 9/)$#.G
SEC. 2. Interpretation of the Act. - 5n interpreting the +ct, the court sha"" ha-e
due regard to the po"ic' of the "aw in fa-or of arbitration. Dhere action is
commenced b' or against mu"tip"e parties, one or more of whom are parties who
are bound b' the arbitration agreement a"though the ci-i" action ma' continue as to
those who are not bound b' such arbitration agreement.
B>ENASEDA VS. FLAVIER
Se&-. 21, 199;
@+/'1o", %.
Pe-/-/o" )or 0er-/or'r/ -o "+((/)4 -5e or,er o) -5e Omb+,1m'"
F'0-12
Pri-ate respondents fi"ed an administrati-e comp"aint against the petitioners
with the Ombudsman for -io"ation of the +nti-Braft and 3orrupt Practices +ct.
&he Ombudsman issued an order directing the pre-enti-e suspension of the
petitioners. Petitioners said that the order was issued upon the
recommendation of 7ir. *au" +rnaw and 5n-. +m' de ?i""a-*osero without
a""owing the petitioners to contro-ert the charges fi"ed against them.
&he 3ourt reso"-ed to re8uire the respondents to maintain status 8uo pending
fi"ing of comments b' respondents. &he 3ourt re8uired 4"a-ier to comment on
the motion. *espondent ,36: instituted a motion to ho"d "aw'er of petitioners
in contempt and to disbar them.
&he (o"Ben a"so submitted its comment regarding the *eso"ution issued b' the
3ourt. &he refusa" of the (ecretar' to ho"d in abe'ance the imp"ementation of
petitioner;s pre-enti-e suspension is in -io"ation of the *eso"ution. &he 3ourt
re8uired the (ecretar' to comp"' with the (tatus Iuo order b' the 3ourt.
&he (o"Ben a"so contends that aA the authorit' of the Ombudsman is to
recommend suspension and has no direct power to suspend, bA there are
conditions re8uired b' "aw for exercise of such power and the conditions ha-e
not been met in the case.
3ON -5e Omb+,1m'" 5'1 -5e &oAer -o 1+1&e", #over"me"- o))/0/'(1 '",
em&(o4ee1 AorB/"# /" o))/0e1 o-5er -5'" -5e O))/0e o) -5e Omb+,1m'",
&e",/"# -5e /"ve1-/#'-/o" o) -5e ',m/"/1-r'-/ve 0om&('/"-1 )/(e, '#'/"1- -5e
o))/0/'(1 '", em&(o4ee17 8YES9
*espondents argue that the power of pre-enti-e suspension was contemp"ated
b' (ec 13=8A of +rtic"e 11 of the 198 3onstitution. =>xercise such other power
or perform such functions or duties as ma' be pro-ided b' "awA. Petitioners on
the other hand contend that the Ombudsman cou"d on"' recommend to the
heads the pre-enti-e suspension of officia"s and emp"o'ees facing in-estigation.
:e cannot order the suspension himse"f. =(ec 13=3A of the 198 3onstitutionA.
&he 3ourt sa's that the arguments were mis"eading because what the
Ombudsman imposed was pre-enti-e suspension and not puniti-e. Dhen the
3onstitution -ested the power to recommend suspension, it referred to
suspension as a puniti-e measure.
Cnder the ru"e of ,oscitor a sociis, the word suspension shou"d be gi-en the
same sense as the other words with which it is associated. Dords associated
with suspension refer to pena"ties in administrati-e cases =fines, remo-a",
demotion etc.A. &he correct construction ma' be made specific b' considering
the compan' of terms in which it is found or with which it is associated.
(ec. )# of *+ $%, granting the Ombudsman to pre-enti-e"' suspend pub"ic
officia"s and emp"o'ees is a procedura" and not a pena" statute. &he pre-enti-e
suspension is imposed after comp"iance with the re8uisites as an aid in the
in-estigation of the administrati-e charges. &he Ombudsman ma' need to
suspend the respondents to conduct an expeditious and efficient in-estigation.
Pena" statutes are strict"' construed whi"e procedura" statutes are "ibera""'
construed. &he purpose of *+ $% is to gi-e the Ombudsman powers to
perform efficient"' the tas1 committed to him b' the 3onstitution. &he
pro-isions of the statute dea"ing with procedure shou"d be gi-en interpretation
that wi"" effectuate the purposes and ob<ecti-es of the 3onstitution.
&he (o"Ben a"so contends that the Ombudsman can on"' pre-enti-e"' suspend
respondents in administrati-e cases who are emp"o'ed in his office.
(ec. $9# of the *e-ised +dministrati-e 3ode dea"t with pre-enti-e suspension
as the power to suspend an' subordinate or emp"o'ee in his bureau or under
his authorit' pending an in-estigation.
(ec. 3# of the 3i-i" (er-ice +ct of 1959 which superseded (ec. $9# a"so
authoriJed the chief to suspend an' subordinate officer of emp"o'ee in his
bureau under his authorit'.
3i-i" (er-ice @aw of 195 de"eted the phrase .subordinate officer and emp"o'ee
in his bureau2 "ea-ing the phrase .under his authorit'2. &he phrase is nowH to
suspend an' subordinate officer of emp"o'ee under his authorit'.
Ombudsman "aw de"eted the words .subordinate2 and .in his bureau2 "ea-ing
the phrase to read .suspend an' officer of emp"o'ee under his authorit'2. &he
3ongress intended to pre-enti-e"' suspend a"" officia"s and emp"o'ees under
in-estigation b' his office, irrespecti-e of whether the' are emp"o'ed .in his
office2 or in other offices of the go-ernment.
Petitioners c"aim that the Ombudsman committed gra-e abuse of discretion
b"ahb"ah. 9eing a mere order for pre-enti-e suspension, the Order was -a"id"'
issued e-en without hearing and the forma" presentation of e-idence. 5n Nera,
the discip"ining authorit' is gi-en the discretion to decide the e-idence of gui"t
is strong. Ombudsman on"' issued the order after fi"ing of answers and
comments.
Petition is ismissed. Status !uo is lifted and set aside.
PEOPLE VS. YADAO
.'r05 ;=, 19?
A&&e'( )rom ' *+,#me"- o) CFI R/$'(
Be"#$o", %.
F'0-12
5nformation a""eges that the defendants conspired together to offer to assist
4"o-erto JaJmin in the prosecution and expeditious appro-a" of his "egitimate
c"aim of K),)% for benefits under the "aws of C( administered b' C(?+. &he
accused a"so direct"' so"icited as fee or compensation of P8%%, in excess of the
"awfu" charge of P)%.
345 Judge uphe"d the motion to 8uash on the ground that the facts charged did
not constitute a pub"ic offense.
3ON -5e /")orm'-/o" )/(e, '#'/"1- -5e ,e)e",'"- /" -5e CFI R/$'(
1+))/0/e"-(4 ,e10r/be1 ' v/o('-/o" o) 1e0-/o" 1 o) RA 1?7 8NO9
(ec.1 *+ 1#5 punishes the person assisting the c"aimant. &he particip"e
.assisting2 and the c"ause .assisting a c"aimant in the preparation etc.2 8ua"if'
.an' person2 as antecedent of the pronoun .who2 in the phrases, .who sha""
so"icit2, .who sha"" attempt to so"icit2 or .who sha"" co""ect2.
&he information mere"' asserts the' offered to assist and the -io"ation is
committed on"' when a person assisting a c"aimant so"icits, contracts for,
charges or recei-es or attempts to so"icit etc. more that is permitted b' "aw.
One who offers to assist but does not assist is not inc"uded within the pena"
prohibition.
+"though there was an attempt, the pro-isions of the Pena" 3ode about
attempts do not app"'.
"ud#ment affirmed.
NESTLE PHILIPPINES INC VS CA AND SEC
November 1;, 1991
Fe(/0/'"o, %.
Pe-/-/o" )or rev/eA o" 0er-/or'r/ )rom -5e ,e0/1/o" o) CA
F'0-12
5n 4eb. 1983, the authoriJed capita" stoc1 of ,est"e was increased from P3%%
mi""ion di-ided into 3 mi""ion shares with a par -a"ue of P1%% per share to P$%%
mi""ion di-ided into $ mi""ion shares with a par -a"ue of P1%% per hare. ,est"e
underwent through the necessar' procedures to secure appro-a" of the increase
of authoriJed capita" stoc1. ,est"e fi"ed a fi"ing fee of P5%,%%%.
&wo principa" stoc1ho"dersH (an 6igue" and ,est"e.
7ec. 1$, 1983. +ppro-ed the reso"utions authoriJing the issuance of 3##,5%%
shares. (an 6igue" subscribed and paid up 1$8,8%% shares whi"e ,est"e (+ paid
up 15,%% shares of stoc1.
6arch )8, 1985. ,est"e fi"ed with (>3 see1ing exemption of its proposed
issuance of additiona" shares to its existing principa" shareho"ders, from the
registration re8uirement of (ec.# of the *e-ised (ecurities +ct and from
pa'ment of the fee referred to in (ec. $=cA of the same act.
o ,o need to fi"e a petition for exemption under (ec. $=bA of the 3##,5%%
additiona" shares to existing stoc1ho"ders out of unissued capita" stoc1
o 4ee pro-ided in (ec. $=cA is not app"icab"e
Petitioners contend that the' are exempted due to (ec. $=aA that does not on"'
inc"ude the increase in the authoriJed capita" stoc1 but a"so the issuance of
additiona" shares to existing stoc1ho"ders of the unissued portion of the
unissued capita" stoc1.
o &he term .increased capita" stoc12 shou"d be interpreted to refer to
additiona" capita" stoc1 or e8uit' participation of the existing
stoc1ho"ders as a conse8uence of either an increase of the authoriJed
capita" stoc1 or the issuance of unissued capita" stoc1. 5f the intention
was to "imit the exemption to subscription to proposed increases in the
authoriJed capita" stoc1 of a corporation, there is no reason wh' the
"aw shou"d not ha-e been more specific or accurate about it. =increase
in the authoriJed capita" stoc1 -s. issuance of additiona" capita" stoc1A
o (>3 cou"d not co""ect fees for the same transaction twice.
*espondents said that the proposed issuances did not fa"" under (ec. $ =+A=#A
of the *e-ised (ecurities +ct since it is app"icab"e on"' where there is an
increase in the authoriJed capita" stoc1 of a corporation. 5nstead the
transaction fe"" under (ec.$ =bA. &he 3ommission ad-ised to fi"e the appropriate
re8uest for exemption and pa' the fee.
o &he 3ommission ma' exempt transactions which are not necessar' in
the pub"ic interest or protection of in-estors due to the sma"" amount
in-o"-ed or the "imited character of the offering.
3+ sustained ru"ing of (>3.
3ON Ne1-(e 15o+(, be e6em&-e, )rom &'4me"- o) -5e )/(/"# )ee #/ve" -5e
"'-+re o) -5e /11+'"0e o) -5e 1-o0B7 8NO9
+mbiguit' in .issuance of additiona" capita" stoc12. 3ou"d mean two wa'sH
o 5ssuance of capita" stoc1 as part of and in the course of increasing the
authoriJed capita" stoc1
o 5ssuance of a"read' authoriJed capita" stoc1 but sti"" unissued capita"
stoc1
3orporation codeH &he corporation must issue at "east )5! of the new"' or
contemporaneous"' authoriJed capita" stoc1 in the course of comp"'ing with the
re8uirements of the 3orporation 3ode for increasing its authoriJed capita" stoc1.
+fter appro-a" of increase of its authoriJed capita" stoc1 b' (>3 and b' a -ote
of its 9oard of 7irectors without the need of stoc1ho"der or (>3 appro-a",
,est"e ma' issue and se"" shares of its a"read' authoriJed but sti"" unissued
capita" stoc1 to existing shareho"ders or to genera" pub"ic.
9oth (>3 and 3+ referred to the first definitionH 5ssuance of capita" stoc1 as
part of and in the course of increasing the authoriJed capita" stoc1.
o 3##5%% shares are authoriJed but unissued.
o Present $%%%%%% shares is not proposed to be further increased
1A 3onstruction is gi-en to a statute b' an administrati-e agenc' charged with
the interpretation and app"ication of that statute is entit"ed to great respect and
shou"d be accorded great weight b' the courts un"ess such construction is
c"ear"' shown to be in sharp conf"ict with the go-erning statutes or the
3onstitution.
o 6u"tifarious needs of a modern societ' and estab"ishment of di-erse
administrati-e agencies
o +ccumu"ation of experiences and growth of specia"iJed capabi"ities b'
the administrati-e agenc' with imp"ementing a particu"ar statute
3ourts gi-e weight to contemporaneous construction b' agencies for their
competence, expertness, experience and informed <udgment and the fact that
the' fre8uent"' are the drafters of the "aw the' interpret.
)A &he under"'ing purpose of (ec.$=aA=#A compe"s the 3ourt to sustain decision
of (>3 and 3+. 5t permits greater opportunit' for the (>3 to imp"ement
statutor' ob<ecti-e of protecting the in-esting pub"ic b' re8uiring proposed
issuers of capita" stoc1 to inform such pub"ic of the true financia" and conditions
and prospects of the corporation.
o @imiting to (ec. $=aA=#AH (>3 ab"e to examine issuances b' a
corporation of pre-ious"' authoriJed but therefore unissued capita"
stoc1, on a case-to-case basis, under (ection $=bA.
Petitioner;s construction of (ec.$=aA=#A wou"d estab"ish an inf"exib"e ru"e of
automatic exemption of issuances of additiona", pre-ious"' authoriJed but
unissued, capita" stoc1. &he 3ourt thus re<ects the interpretation which ma'
disab"e the (>3 from rendering protection to in-estors, in the pub"ic interest,
precise"' when such protection be needed.
Petitioner;s c"aim about the additiona" fee of 1/1% of 1! is dismissed.
Petition for re$iew is denied. ecision of CA affirmed.
PHILIPPINE SCO>T VETERANS SEC>RITY C INVESTIGATION VS. NLRC AND
PORPING REGALADO
Se&-. 2=, 199:
P'"#'"/b'", %.
S&e0/'( C/v/( A0-/o"
F'0-12
Dor1ed as securit' guard since (ept. 19$3 and retired on 6arch )%, 1989 with
a month"' sa"ar' of P1,#8%. *ega"ado re8uested for pa'ment of retirement pa'
but the petitioner refused.
6a' 11, 1989. *ega"ado fi"ed comp"aint in ,@*3. Petitioner a""eged that pri-ate
respondent was not entit"ed to retirement pa' since there was no compan'
po"ic' which pro-ided for or an' co""ecti-e bargaining agreement.
@abor arbiterH in fa-or of *ega"ado 8uoted +rt. )83 and )8# of the @abor 3ode.
,@*3 rendered <udgment that an emp"o'ee is entit"ed to retirement benefits in
the absence of a compan' retirement p"an or 39+. Iuoted *u"e 1, (ection 13
and 1#, 9oo1 $ of the *u"es of 5mp"ementing the @abor 3ode.
3ON -5e &r/v'-e re1&o",e"- /1 (e#'((4 e"-/-(e, -o re-/reme"- be"e)/-17 8NO9
+pp"icab"e pro-isions are +rt. )8 and 1, (ection 13 and 1#=aA, 9oo1 $ of the
*u"es of 5mp"ementing the @abor 3ode
5n ma1ing the award of retirement pa', @abor arbiter was confronted b' the
"ac1 of contractua" or statutor' basis for it.
o A%a!uinH Pro-isions do not purport to impose an' ob"igation upon
emp"o'ers to set up a retirement scheme for their emp"o'ees o-er and
abo-e the a"read' estab"ished under existing "aws.
o LloraH 7ifference in the concept of termination pa' and retirement
benefits. &ermination pa' must be paid won an additiona" retirement
p"an has been set up under an agreement with the emp"o'er or under
an Lestab"ished emp"o'er po"ic';. (ec. 1# and +rt. )8 doe not purport
to re8uire .termination pa'2 to be paid to an emp"o'ee who ma' want
to retire but for whom no additiona" retirement p"an had been set up
b' prior agreement with emp"o'er.
*+ $#1 amending +rt. )8H entit"ed to retirement benefits despite absence of
prior agreements 9ut this cannot be app"ied because pri-ate respondent
retired on 6arch )%, 1989, three 'ears before *+ $#1 was enacted.
5t is a ru"e of statutor' construction that a"" statutes are to be construed as
ha-ing on"' a prospecti-e operation un"ess the purpose and intention of the
@egis"ature to gi-e them a retrospecti-e effect is express"' dec"ared or is
necessari"' imp"ied from the "anguage used. 5n e-er' case of doubt, the doubt
must be reso"-ed against the retrospecti-e effect.
+"though it ma' be true that the contemporaneous construction of a statute b'
executi-e officers tas1ed to enforce and imp"ement statutes shou"d be gi-en
great weight b' the courts, ne-erthe"ess, if such construction is erroneous or is
c"ear"' shown to be in conf"ict with the go-erning statute or the 3ommission or
other "aws, the same must be dec"ared nu"" and -oid.
Petition Granted. Assailed decision set aside.
CONS>ELO VALDERRA.A VS. LRC AND .ARIA ANDREA SAAVEDRA
A&r/( 2, 199:
.e",o$', %.
S&e0/'( C/v/( A0-/o"
F'0-12
(aa-edra respondent fi"ed a comp"aint against 3O66O7>M where petitioner is
the owner. @abor arbiter rendered a decision finding that (aa-edra was i""ega""'
dismissed and ho"ding 3O66O7>M "iab"e. (aa-edra was apparent"' dismissed
due to her pregnanc' and not due to retrenchment.
3O66O7>M ceased operation and the writ be enforced upon the Petitioner.
Petitioner argued that the decision of the @abor +rbiter had become fina" and
executor' and cou"d no "onger be amended. Pri-ate respondent argued that
there was no amendment of a fina" decision but on"' a correction of mista1e or
c"arification of ambiguit' in the dispositi-e portion.
(aa-edra 8uoted A.C. &ansome La%or 'nion stating that the president cou"d be
he"d "iab"e for pa'ment of bac1wages. @abor +rbiter dec"ared petitioner "iab"e
for the pa'ment of the monetar' awards.
Petitioner appea"ed to ,@*3. ,@*3 affirmed @abor +rbiter;s order.
3ON -5e &e-/-/o"er /1 (/'b(e )or b'0BA'#e17
&he ru"e once fina" is not an inf"exib"e one. &he modification of the decision ma'
be sought b' the interested part' and the court wi"" modif' and a"ter the
<udgment to harmoniJe it with <ustice and the facts.
6odification is appropriate because 3O66O7>M was no "onger operationa".
&he text repeated"' mentions .respondents2 in assessing "iabi"it' for the i""ega"
dismissa" of pri-ate respondent.
&o get the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof
shou"d be resorted to but same must be considered in its entiret'.