Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 152928 June 18, 2009
METROPOLITAN BANK an TRUST COMPAN!, Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, "ELIPE A. PATAG an BIEN#ENI$O C.
"LORA, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
LEONAR$O%$E CASTRO, J.:
In this petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure, petitioner
see(s to set aside and annul the Decision
%
dated Dece)ber %*, +,,% and the Resolution
+
dated -pril
&, +,,+ rendered b. the!ourt of -ppeals /!-0 in !-12.R. No. 3*%##.
The !- decision affir)ed an earlier resolution
*
of the National 4abor Relations !o))ission /N4R!0
dated March *%, +,,, "hich ruled in favor of herein respondents.
The factual antecedents are as follo"s5
Respondents Felipe Pata6 /Pata60 and 7ienvenido Flora /Flora0 "ere for)er e)plo.ees of petitioner
Metropolitan 7an( and Trust !o)pan. /Metroban(0. 7oth respondents availed of the ban(8s
co)pulsor. retire)ent plan in accordance "ith the %&&$ Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu). -t the ti)e
of his retire)ent on Februar. %, %&&9, Pata6 "as an -ssistant Mana6er "ith a )onthl. salar.
of P*+,%,,.,,. Flora "as a Senior Mana6er "ith a )onthl. salar. of P#9,$,,.,, "hen he retired on
-pril %, %&&9. 7oth of the) received their respective retire)ent benefitsco)puted at %9$: of their
6ross )onthl. salar. for ever. .ear of service as provided under the said %&&$ Me)orandu). In all,
Pata6 "as full. paid the total a)ount of P%,&$','9+.'% "hile Flora "as paid the total a)ount
of P*,,#+,&*#.+& in retire)ent benefits.
arl. in %&&9, !ollective 7ar6ainin6 -6ree)ent /!7-0 ne6otiations "ere on16oin6 bet"een
Metroban( and its ran( and file e)plo.ees for the period %&&91+,,,. Pata6 "rote a letter dated
Februar. +, %&&9
#
to the ban( re;uestin6 that his retire)ent benefits be co)puted at the ne" rate
should there be an increase thereof in anticipation of possible chan6es in officers8 benefits after the
si6nin6 of the ne" !7- "ith the ran( and file. Flora li(e"ise "rote Metroban( in March +$,
%&&9,
$
re;uestin6 the ban( to use as basis in the co)putation of their retire)ent benefits the
increased rate of +,,: as e)bodied in the <ust concluded !7- bet"een the ban( and its ran( and
file e)plo.ees. Metroban( did not repl. to their re;uests.
The records sho" that since the %&931%&99 !7-, and continuin6 "ith each !7- concluded
thereafter "ith its ran( and file e)plo.ees, Metroban( "ould issue a Me)orandu) 6rantin6 si)ilar
or better benefits to its )ana6erial e)plo.ees or officers, retroactive to =anuar. %st of the first .ear
of effectivit. of the !7-. >hen the %&&91+,,, !7- "as approved, Metroban(, in line "ith its past
practice, issued on =une %,, %&&9, a Me)orandu) on Officers8 7enefits, "hich provided for
i)proved benefits to its officers /the %&&9 Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu)0. This Me)orandu) "as
si6ned b. then Metroban( President -ntonio S. -bacan, =r. Pertinentl., the co)pulsor. retire)ent
benefit for officers "as increased fro) %9$: to +,,: effective =anuar. %, %&&9, but "ith the
condition that the benefits shall onl. be e?tended to those "ho re)ain in service as of =une %$,
%&&9.
3
On =une +&, %&&9, Flora a6ain "rote a letter,
'
as(in6 Metroban( for a reconsideration of its condition
that the ne" officers8 benefits shall appl. onl. to those officers still e)plo.ed as of =une %$, %&&9.
Metroban( denied this re;uest on =ul. %', %&&9.
9
!onse;uentl. on -u6ust *%, %&&9, Pata6 and Flora, throu6h their counsel, "rote a letter to
Metroban( de)andin6 the pa.)ent of their unpaid retire)ent benefits a)ountin6 to P+9#,%$,.,,
and P##9,,$,.,,, respectivel., representin6 the increased benefits the. should have received under
the %&&9 Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu).
&
In its letter1repl. dated Septe)ber %', %&&9, Metroban(8s First Vice1President Paul 4i), =r. infor)ed
Pata6 and Flora of their ineli6ibilit. to the i)proved officers8 benefits as the. had alread. ceased
their e)plo.)ent and "ere no lon6er officers of the ban( as of =une %$, %&&9.
%,
On Septe)ber +$, %&&9, Pata6 and Flora filed "ith the 4abor -rbiter their consolidated co)plaint
a6ainst Metroban( for underpa.)ent of retire)ent benefits and da)a6es, assertin6 that pursuant to
the %&&9 Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu), the. "ere entitled to additional retire)ent benefits. Pata6,
for his part, also clai)ed he "as entitled to pa.)ent of his %&&' profit share and %&&9 structural
ad<ust)ent.
On =une 9, %&&&, 4abor -rbiter 2eobel -. 7artolabac rendered a decision,
%%
dis)issin6 the
co)plaint of Pata6 and Flora. -s e?pected, Pata6 and Flora filed an appeal "ith the N4R!. In a
resolution
%+
dated March *%, +,,,, the Third Division of the N4R! partiall. 6ranted the appeal and
directed Metroban( to pa. Pata6 and Flora their unpaid beneficial i)prove)ents under the %&&9
Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu).
-66rieved "ith the rulin6 of the N4R!, Metroban( elevated the )atter to the !- b. "a. of a petition
for certiorari, doc(eted as !-12.R. No. 3*%##.
On Dece)ber %*, +,,%, the !- pro)ul6ated its assailed decision dis)issin6 Metroban(8s petition
and affir)in6 the resolution of the N4R!. In so rulin6, the !- declared5
@pon the other hand, the private respondents8 /Pata6 and Flora0 evidence reveals that fro) %&93 to
%&&$, it has been the practice of the petitioner /Metroban(0 that "henever it enters and si6ns a ne"
!7- "ith its ran( and file e)plo.ees, it li(e"ise issues a )e)orandu) e?tendin6 benefits to its
officers "hich are hi6her or at least the sa)e as those provided in the said !7- for the ran( and file
e)plo.ees effective ever. %st of =anuar. of the .ear, "ithout an. condition that the officers1
beneficiaries should re)ain e)plo.ees of the petitioner as of a certain date of a 6iven .ear. ???.
@nder the circu)stances, the sa)e )a. be dee)ed to have ripened into co)pan. practice or polic.
"hich cannot be pere)ptoril. "ithdra"n.
%*
Petitioner8s subse;uent )otion for reconsideration "as denied b. the !- in its Resolution dated
-pril &, +,,+.
Aence, the instant petition "here Metroban( raised the follo"in6 ar6u)ents5
I. TA AONOR-74 !O@RT OF -PP-4S !OMMITTD SRIO@S RROR IN -FFIRMIN2 TA
N4R!8S D!ISION -ND RSO4@TION 7B R@4IN2 TA-T TA PRIV-T RSPONDNTS -R
NTIT4D TO TAIR 74-TD !4-IM FOR -DDITION-4 /RTIRMNT0 7NFITS VN
-FTR TAB FF!TIV4B !-SD TAIR MP4OBMNT >ITA PTITIONR -ND DSPIT
TAIR @NC@-4IFID -!DNO>4D2MNT -ND R!IPT OF TA P-BMNT IN F@44 OF
TAIR RTIRMNT 7NFITS, !ONTR-RB TO 4-> -S >44 -S OTAR 4->F@4 ORDRS
-ND STT4D =@RISPR@DN! ON TA M-TTR.
%#
II. TA AONOR-74 !O@RT OF -PP-4S8 F-VOR-74 -PP4I!-TION OF TA %&&9
IMPROVD OFFI!RS8 /RTIRMNT0 7NFITS TO TA RSPONDNTS DSPIT TAIR
NON1!OMP4I-N! >ITA TA RC@IRMNTS OF 4I2I7I4ITB TARTO, IS P-TNT4B
!ONTR-RB TO 4-> -ND TA >441STT4D =@RISPR@DN! ON TA M-TTR.
%$
III. TA AONOR-74 !O@RT OF -PP-4S 2R-V4B RRD IN NOT FINDIN2 TA-T
RSPONDNTS -R 7-RRD 7B STOPP4 FROM INSTIT@TIN2 TA -!TION -FTR
A-VIN2 @NC@-4IFID4B -!DNO>4D2D -ND R!IVD TA F@44 P-BMNT OF TAIR
RTIRMNT 7NFITS.
%3
Petitioner contends that respondents Pata6 and Flora, havin6 ;ualified for co)pulsor. retire)ent
under the %&&$ Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu), cannot no" clai) to be eli6ible to hi6her retire)ent
benefits under the %&&9 I)proved 7enefits Me)orandu). In fact, accordin6 to petitioner, Pata6 and
Flora had un;ualifiedl. received the full pa.)ent of their retire)ent benefits. -lso, the %&&9
I)proved 7enefits Me)orandu) "as issued after Pata6 and Flora co)pulsoril. retired on Februar.
%, %&&9 and -pril %, %&&9, respectivel., and there "as an e?press condition in the %&&9 Officers8
7enefits Me)orandu) that the i)proved benefits shall appl. onl. to officers "ho re)ain in service
as of =une %$, %&&9.
Fro) the facts, it is clear that the core issue hin6es on "hether respondents can still recover hi6her
benefits under the %&&9 Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu) despite the fact that the. have co)pulsoril.
retired prior to the issuance of said )e)orandu) and did not )eet the condition therein re;uirin6
the) to be e)plo.ed as of =une %$, %&&9.
The )ain issue in this case involves a ;uestion of fact. -s a rule, the Supre)e !ourt is not a trier of
facts and this applies "ith 6reater force in labor cases. Aence, factual findin6s of ;uasi1<udicial
bodies li(e the N4R!, particularl. "hen the. coincide "ith those of the 4abor -rbiter and if
supported b. substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finalit. b. this !ourt. Ao"ever,
"here the findin6s of the N4R! and the 4abor -rbiter are contradictor., as in this case, the
revie"in6 court )a. delve into the records and e?a)ine for itself the ;uestioned findin6s.
%'
It is Metroban(8s position that the !- and the N4R! erred "hen the. reco6niEed that there "as an
established co)pan. practice or polic. of 6rantin6 i)proved benefits to its officers effective =anuar.
% of the .ear and "ithout an. condition that the officers should re)ain e)plo.ees of Metroban( as of
a certain date. Metroban( clai)s that althou6h its officers "ere e?tended the sa)e as or hi6her
benefits than those contained in its !7- "ith its ran( and file e)plo.ees fro) %&93 to %&&', the
sa)e cannot be concluded to have ripened into a co)pan. practice since the provisions of the
retire)ent plan itself and the la" on retire)ent should be controllin6.
>e do not a6ree.
To be considered a co)pan. practice, the 6ivin6 of the benefits should have been done over a lon6
period of ti)e, and )ust be sho"n to have been consistent and deliberate. The test or rationale of
this rule on lon6 practice re;uires an indubitable sho"in6 that the e)plo.er a6reed to continue
6ivin6 the benefits (no"in6 full. "ell that said e)plo.ees are not covered b. the la" re;uirin6
pa.)ent thereof.
%9
It "as the N4R!8s findin6, as affir)ed b. the !-, that there is a co)pan. practice of pa.in6
i)proved benefits to petitioner ban(8s officers effective ever. =anuar. % of the sa)e .ear the
i)proved benefits are 6ranted to ran( and file e)plo.ees in a !7-. >e find that the N4R!8s and
!-8s factual conclusions "ere full. supported b. substantial evidence on record. Respondents "ere
able to prove that for the period %&931%&&', Metroban( issued at least four /#0 separate )e)oranda,
coincidin6 "ith the approval of four /#0 different !7-s "ith the ran( and file, "herein ban( officers
"ere 6ranted benefits, includin6 retire)ent benefits, that "ere co))ensurate or superior to those
provided for in Metroban(8s !7- "ith its ran( and file e)plo.ees. Respondents attached to their
position paper filed "ith the 4abor -rbiter copies of the !7-s that petitioner entered into "ith its ran(
and file e)plo.ees for the period %&931%&&' and also the various officers8 benefits )e)oranda
issued b. the ban( after each !7- si6nin6. Respondents had no hand in the preparation of these
officers8 benefits )e)oranda for the. appeared to be issuances of the ban( alone, si6ned b. its
President or other proper officer. Thus, petitioner cannot credibl. ar6ue that respondents8 clai) of a
co)pan. practice "as baseless or self1servin6.
The record further reveals that these i)proved officers8 benefits "ere al"a.s )ade to retroact
effective ever. =anuar. % of the .ear of issuance of said )e)oranda and "ithout an. condition
re6ardin6 the ter) or date of e)plo.)ent. The condition that the )ana6erial e)plo.ee or ban(
officer )ust still be e)plo.ed b. petitioner as of a certain date "as i)posed for the first ti)e in the
%&&9 Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu).
In other "ords, for over a decade, Metroban( has consistentl., deliberatel. and voluntaril. 6ranted
i)proved benefits to its officers, after the si6nin6 of each !7- "ith its ran( and file e)plo.ees,
retroactive to =anuar. %st of the sa)e .ear as the 6rant of i)proved benefits and "ithout the
condition that the officers should re)ain e)plo.ees as of a certain date. This undeniabl. indicates a
unilateral and voluntar. act on Metroban(8s part, to 6ive said benefits to its officers, (no"in6 that
such act "as not re;uired b. la" or the co)pan. retire)ent plan.
>ith re6ard to the len6th of ti)e the co)pan. practice should have been e?ercised to constitute
voluntar. e)plo.er practice "hich cannot be unilaterall. "ithdra"n b. the e)plo.er, <urisprudence
has not laid do"n an. hard and fast rule. In the case of Davao Fruits !orporation v. -ssociated
4abor @nions,
%&
the co)pan. practice of includin6 in the co)putation of the %*th1)onth pa. the
)aternit. leave pa. and cash e;uivalent of unused vacation and sic( leave lasted for si? /30 .ears.
In another case, Tian6co v. 4eo6ardo, =r.,
+,
the e)plo.er carried on the practice of 6ivin6 a fi?ed
)onthl. e)er6enc. allo"ance fro) Nove)ber %&'3 to Februar. %&9,, or three /*0 .ears and four
/#0 )onths. >hile in Sevilla Tradin6 v. Se)ana,
+%
the e)plo.er (ept the practice of includin6 non1
basic benefits such as paid leaves for unused sic( leave and vacation leave in the co)putation of
their %*th1)onth pa. for at least t"o /+0 .ears. In all these cases, this !ourt held that the 6rant of
these benefits has ripened into co)pan. practice or polic. "hich cannot be pere)ptoril. "ithdra"n.
The co))on deno)inator in these cases appears to be the re6ularit. and deliberateness of the
6rant of benefits over a si6nificant period of ti)e.
In the case at bar, petitioner Metroban( favorabl. ad<usted its officers8 benefits, includin6 retire)ent
benefits, after the approval of each !7- "ith the ran( and file e)plo.ees, to be effective ever.
=anuar. %st of the sa)e .ear as the !7-8s approval, and "ithout an. condition re6ardin6 the date of
e)plo.)ent of the officer, fro) %&93 to %&&' or for about eleven /%%0 .ears. This constitutes
voluntar. e)plo.er practice "hich cannot be unilaterall. "ithdra"n or di)inished b. the e)plo.er
"ithout violatin6 the spirit and intent of -rt. %,, of the 4abor !ode, to "it5
-rt. %,,. Prohibition a6ainst eli)ination or di)inution of benefits.F Nothin6 in this 7oo( shall be
construed to eli)inate or in an. "a. di)inish supple)ents, or other e)plo.ee benefits bein6
en<o.ed at the ti)e of pro)ul6ation of this !ode.
The condition that an officer )ust still be in the service of petitioner ban( as of =une %$, %&&9
effectivel. reduced benefits of e)plo.ees "ho retired prior to the issuance of the %&&9 Officers8
7enefits Me)orandu) despite the fact in the past no such condition "as i)posed b. the ban( and
previous retirees presu)abl. en<o.ed the hi6her benefits re6ardless of their date of retire)ent as
lon6 as the. "ere still e)plo.ees of petitioner as of the =anuar. %st effectivit. date.
If it "ere true that not"ithstandin6 the e?istence of the previous officers8 benefits )e)oranda /"hich
all did not contain the sa)e condition as the %&&9 )e)orandu)0 there "as no co)pan. practice of
6rantin6 the i)proved benefits to officers "ho retired fro) the ban( prior to the issuance of the
officers8 benefits )e)orandu), it "ould have been si)ple enou6h for the ban( to prove this. -
co)pan. as lar6e and presti6ious as petitioner "ould certainl. have a co)prehensive and efficient
s.ste) of (eepin6 e)plo.ee records. -ll it had to do "as sho" so)e e?a)ples of past retirees over
the period %&93 to %&&' "ho retired prior to the issuance of the relevant officers8 benefits
)e)orandu) but after the usual =anuar. %st )e)orandu) effectivit. date and "hose retire)ent
benefits "ere co)puted at the old rate and not at the i)proved rate. @nfatho)abl., Metroban(
presented no such evidence. !ontrar. to petitioner8s insistent vie", the !- co))itted no error "hen
it ruled that petitioner failed to present convincin6 evidence to substantiate its clai)s.l awphil .net
-nent petitioner8s line of reasonin6 that it had no obli6ation under -rticle +9' of the 4abor !ode or
the e?press ter)s of the retire)ent plan to 6rant i)proved benefits to e)plo.ees "ho are no lon6er
in the service at the ti)e of the 6rant, it appears to us that petitioner is deliberatel. )issin6 the point.
Ordinaril., an e)plo.ee "ould have no ri6ht to de)and benefits that the e)plo.er "as not obli6ated
b. la" or contract to 6ive. Ao"ever, it is the <urisprudential rule that "here there is an established
e)plo.er practice of re6ularl., (no"in6l. and voluntaril. 6rantin6 benefits to e)plo.ees over a
si6nificant period of ti)e, despite the lac( of a le6al or contractual obli6ation on the part of the
e)plo.er to do so, the 6rant of such benefits ripens into a vested ri6ht of the e)plo.ees and can no
lon6er be unilaterall. reduced or "ithdra"n b. the e)plo.er.
++
>ith respect to petitioner8s ar6u)ent that respondents should be dee)ed GestoppedG fro) clai)in6
additional benefits in vie" of their Gun;ualified receiptG of their retire)ent benefits and other benefits,
"e find the sa)e lac(in6 in )erit. There "as nothin6 in the receiptsHvouchers si6ned b. respondents
to indicate that the. ac(no"led6ed full receipt of all a)ounts due the) or that the. are "aivin6 their
ri6ht to clai) an. deficienc. in their benefits. Indeed, in this <urisdiction, even "ritten, e?press
;uitclai)s, releases and "aivers in labor cases )a. be invalidated under certain circu)stances. -s
a rule, ;uitclai)s, "aivers or releases are loo(ed upon "ith disfavor and are co))onl. fro"ned
upon as contrar. to public polic. and ineffective to bar clai)s for the )easure of a "or(er8s le6al
ri6hts.
+*
In this case, respondents8 consistent acts of de)andin6 the i)proved benefits before and
after their actual receipt of their partial benefits belie an. intention to "aive their le6al ri6ht to
de)and the deficienc. in their benefits. Thus, "e cannot accept petitioner8s vie" that there is
estoppel or even i)plied "aiver on the part of respondents.
Finall., petitioner contends that the !-8s rulin6 "ould result in unfair discri)ination since there "ere
at least t"elve /%+0 other retirees in %&&9 si)ilarl. situated as respondents "hose retire)ent
benefits "ere co)puted at the old rate but "ho did not file cases a6ainst Metroban(. Petitioner
posits the vie" that the !- rulin6 "ould unla"full. 6rant 6reater benefits to respondents vis a vis the
other retirees "ho did not de)and the i)proved benefits. This ar6u)ent si)ilarl. deserves no
credit. The ri6ht to file a labor co)plaint or assert a cause of action a6ainst an e)plo.er is a
personal ri6ht of each e)plo.ee. It is )ost certainl. not dependent on "hether or not other
e)plo.ees si)ilarl. situated "ould also file a case a6ainst the e)plo.er. If there are other
e)plo.ees in the sa)e boat as respondents "ho decided, for "hatever reason, not to de)and
pa.)ent of the i)proved benefits, that "ould be their prero6ative and their o"n loo( out.1avvphi1 It should
not pre<udice respondents or ban the) fro) assertin6 their ri6hts and pursuin6 their le6al re)edies
a6ainst petitioner.
It is "orth reiteratin6 that the condition re;uirin6 ban( officers to be still e)plo.ed as of =une %$,
%&&9 to be eli6ible to the ad<usted benefits, "as included b. Metroban( for the first ti)e in the %&&9
Officers8 7enefits Me)orandu) dated =une %,, %&&9.
+#
Si6nificantl., petitioner too( such action onl.
after Pata6 and Flora "rote letters dated Februar. +, %&&9
+$
and March +$, %&&9,
+3
respectivel.,
re;uestin6 the ban( to use as basis in the co)putation of their retire)ent benefits the increased rate
that )i6ht be 6ranted "ith the si6nin6 of the %&&91+,,, !7- bet"een the ban( and its ran( and file
e)plo.ees. Thus, "hen Metroban( opted to i)pose a ne" condition in its Officers8 7enefits
Me)orandu) dated =une %,, %&&9, it alread. had (no"led6e of respondents8 re;uests. Indeed, the
i)position of the said condition shortl. after respondents )ade their re;uests is suspicious, to sa.
the least. Such conduct on the part of Metroban( deserves no s.)path. fro) this !ourt.
It is a ti)e1honored rule that in controversies bet"een a laborer and his )aster, doubts reasonabl.
arisin6 fro) the evidence or in the interpretation of a6ree)ents and "ritin6s should be resolved in
the for)er8s favor. The polic. is to e?tend the applicabilit. to a 6reater nu)ber of e)plo.ees "ho
can avail of the benefits under the la", "hich is in consonance "ith the avo"ed polic. of the State to
6ive )a?i)u) aid and protection to labor.
+'
This principle 6ives us even 6reater reason to affir) the
findin6s of the !-.
>ARFOR, the petition for revie" is hereb. DNID. The assailed decision and resolution of the
!- in !-12.R. No. 3*%## are hereb. -FFIRMD.
SO ORDRD.
TERESITA J. LEONAR$O%$E CASTRO
-ssociate =ustice
> !ON!@R5
RE!NATO S. PUNO
!hief =ustice
!hairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
-ssociate =ustice
RENATO C. CORONA
-ssociate =ustice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
-ssociate =ustice
! R T I F I ! - T I O N
Pursuant to Section %*, -rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif. that the conclusions in the above
decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi6ned to the "riter of the opinion
of the !ourt8s Division.
RE!NATO S. PUNO
!hief =ustice
"oo&no&e'
%
Penned b. -ssociate =ustice Delilah Vidallon1Ma6tolis /ret.0, "ith -ssociate =ustices
!andido V. Rivero /ret.0 and =uan C. nri;ueE, =r. concurrin6I rollo, pp. 3,133.
+
Id. at 39.
*
Id. at %3,1%3&.
#
Id. at +##.
$
Id. at +#3.
3
Id. at +$,1+$*.
'
Id. at +$$.
9
Id. at +$#.
&
Id. at %#&.
%,
Id. at %$,.
%%
Id. at %$%1%$9.
%+
Id. at %3,1%3&.
%*
Id. at 3$.
%#
Id. at +'.
%$
Id. at #,.
%3
Id. at #91#&.
%'
Tres Re.es v. Ma?i)8s Tea Aouse, 2.R. No. %#,9$*, Februar. +', +,,*, *&9 S!R- +99,
+&9.
%9
National Su6ar Refineries !orporation v. N4R!, 2.R. No. %,%'3%, March +#, %&&*, ++,
S!R- #$*, #3*.
%&
2.R. No. 9$,'*, -u6ust +#, %&&*, ++$ S!R- $3+.
+,
No. 41$'3*3, Ma. %3, %&9*, %++ S!R- +3'.
+%
2.R. No. %$+#$3, -pril +9, +,,#, #+9 S!R- +*&.
++
See, for e?a)ple, Oceanic Phar)acal )plo.ees @nion v. Incion6, No. 41$,$39,
Nove)ber ', %&'&, &# S!R- +',, +'#I Davao Inte6rated Port Services, Inc. v. -bar;ueE,,
2.R. No. %,+%*+, March %&, %&&*, ++, S!R- %&', +,'I Republic Planters 7an( v. N4R!,
2.R. No. %%'#3,, =anuar. 3, %&&', +33 S!R- %#+, %#9 and Manila lectric !o)pan. v.
Cuisu)bin6, 2.R. No. %+'$&9, =anuar. +', %&&&, *,+ S!R- %'*, +,,.
+*
Phil. )plo. Services and Resources, Inc. v. Para)io, 2.R. No. %##'93, -pril %$, +,,#,
#+' S!R- '*+, '$$.
+#
Rollo, pp. +$,1+$*.
+$
Supra note #.
+3
Supra note $.
+'
Travelaire J Tours !orp. v. N4R!, 2.R. No. %*%$+*, -u6ust +,, %&&9, +&# S!R- $,$,
$%%.