6/21/2017 G.R. No.

179807

SECONDDIVISION

RAMYGALLEGO, G.R.No.179807
Petitioner,
Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
versus CARPIOMORALES,
CHICONAZARIO,*

LEONARDODECASTRO,**and
BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., PERALTA,***JJ.
DANPIN GUILLERMO, PRODUCT
IMAGE MARKETING, INC., and
EDGARDOBERGONIA, Promulgated:
Respondents. July31,2009

xx

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:

Ramy Gallego (petitioner) was contracted in April 1992 by Bayer Philippines, Inc. (BAYER) as crop protection
[1]
technician to promote and market BAYER products. Under the supervision of Aristeo Filipino, BAYER sales
representative for Panay Island, petitioner made farm visits to different municipalities in Panay Island to convince
[2]
farmerstobuyBAYERproducts.

In 1996, petitioners employment with BAYER came to a halt, prompting him to seek employment with another
company.BAYEReventuallyreemployedpetitioner,however,in1997throughProductImageandMarketingServices,
Inc.(PRODUCTIMAGE)ofwhichrespondentEdgardoBergonia(Bergonia)wasthePresidentandGeneralManager,
performingthesametaskasthatofcropprotectiontechnicianpromotingBAYERproductstofarmersanddealersin
[3]
PanayIslandsolelyforthebenefitofBAYER.

By petitioners claim, in October, 2001, he was directed by Pet Pascual, the newly assigned BAYER sales
representative, to submit a resignation letter, but he refused and that in January, 2002, he was summoned by his
immediatesupervisorsincludingrespondentDanpinGuillermo(Guillermo),BAYERDistrictSalesManagerforPanay,
andwasorderedtoquithisemploymentwhichcalledforhimtoreturnallpiecesofserviceequipmentissuedtohim,
[4]
butthatagainherefused.

Still by petitioners claim, he continued performing his duties and receiving compensation until the end of January,
2002thatonApril7,2002,hereceivedamemorandumthathisareaofresponsibilitywouldbetransferredtoLuzon,
ofwhichmemorandumhesoughtreconsiderationbuttonoavailandthatGuillermoandBergoniaspreadrumorsthat

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 1/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807

reachedthedealersinAntiquetotheeffectthathewasnotanymoreconnectedwithBAYERandanytransactionwith
[5]
himwouldnolongerbehonoredasofApril30,2002.

Believingthathisemploymentwasterminated,petitionerlodgedonJune6,2002acomplaintforillegaldismissalwith
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against herein respondents BAYER, Guillermo, PRODUCT
IMAGE, and Bergonia, with claims for reinstatement, backwages and/or separation pay, unpaid wages, holiday pay,
[6]
premiumpay,serviceincentiveleaveandallowances,damagesandattorneysfees.

RespondentsBAYERandGuillermodeniedtheexistenceofanemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenBAYERand
petitioner,explainingthatpetitionersworkatBAYERwassimplyoccasionedbytheContractofPromotionalServices
thatBAYERhadexecutedwithPRODUCTIMAGEwherebyPRODUCTIMAGEwastopromoteandmarketBAYER
products on its (PRODUCT IMAGE) own account and in its own manner and method. They added that as an
independentcontractor,PRODUCTIMAGEretainedtheexclusivepowerofcontroloverpetitionerasitassignedfull
[7]
timesupervisorstoexercisecontrolandsupervisionoveritsemployeesassignedatBAYER.

RespondentsPRODUCTIMAGEandBergonia,ontheotherhand,admittedthatpetitionerwashiredasanemployee
ofPRODUCTIMAGEonApril7,1997onacontractualbasistopromoteandmarketBAYERproductspursuanttothe
ContractofPromotionalServicesforgedbetweenitandBAYER.Theyallegedthatpetitionerwasafieldworkerwho
hadnofixedhoursandworkedunderminimalsupervision,hisperformancebeinggaugedonlybyhisaccomplishment
[8]
reportsdulycertifiedtobyBAYERactingashisdefactosupervisor thatpetitionerwasoriginallyassignedtoIloilo
butlatertransferredtoAntiquethatpetitionerwasnotdismissed,butwentonofficialleavefromJanuary23to31,
2002, and stopped reporting for work thereafter and that petitioner was supposed to have been reassigned to South
Luzon effective March 15, 2002 in accordance with a personnel reorganization program, but he likewise failed to
[9]
reporttohisnewworkstation.
[10]
By Decision of May 6, 2004, the Labor Arbiter declared respondents guilty of illegal dismissal, disposing as
follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring respondents, Bayer Phil. Inc./Danpin Guillermo and Product Image
Marketing Services, Inc./Edgardo Begornia [sic] guilty of Illegal Dismissal and is hereby ORDERED to Reinstate
complainant to his former or equivalent position ten (10) days from receipt hereof and to immediately pay complainant
uponreceiptofthisdecisionthefollowing:

BackwagesPhp228,000.00
13thMonthPayPhp19,000.00
HolidayPayPhp9,500.00
ServiceIncentiveLeavePayPhp4,750.00
AttorneysFees`Php26,125.00

Total:Php287,375.00


In so deciding, the Labor Arbiter found, among other things, that there was an employeremployee relationship
betweenBAYERandpetitionersinceBAYERfurnishedpetitionertheneededfacilitiesandparaphernalia,andfixed
themethodologytobeusedintheperformanceofhiswork.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 2/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807

Onappealbyrespondents,theNLRCreversedtheDecisionoftheLaborArbiteranddismissedpetitionerscomplaint
[11]
by Decision of February 22, 2006, holding that as an independent contractor, PRODUCT IMAGE was the
employer of petitioner but there was no evidence that petitioner was dismissed by either PRODUCT IMAGE or
BAYER. Sustaining PRODUCT IMAGEs claim of abandonment, it held that an employee is deemed to have
abandonedhisjobifhefailedtoreportforworkaftertheexpirationofadulyapprovedleaveofabsenceorif,after
beingtransferredtoanewassignment,hedidnotreportforworkanymore.

[12]
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of May 25, 2006, he appealed to the
[13]
CourtofAppealsviaCertiorari.

ByResolutionofSeptember25,2006,theappellatecourtdismissedpetitionerspetitionforfailuretoattachtoitthe
[14]
complaintandthepartiesrespectivepositionpapersfiledwiththeLaborArbiter. HisMotionforReconsideration
[15]
havingbeendeniedbyResolutionofAugust14,2007, petitionercomesbeforethisCourtviathepresentPetition
forReviewonCertiorari.

Petitioner argues that the appellate court erred in dismissing his petition outright considering that it had previously
allowedsubsequentsubmissionofrequireddocumentsnotattachedtoapetitionforcertiorariandthatheattachedthe
requiredpleadingstohisMotionforReconsiderationwiththeappellatecourt.Moreover,hecontendsthatrespondents
failed to discharge the burden of proving the validity of his dismissal in order to overturn the finding of the Labor
[16]
Arbiterthathewasillegallydismissed.

BAYERandGuillermocounterthatpetitionerraisedfactualissuesinhispetitionbeforetheappellatecourtwhichare
notreviewablebycertiorarithatpetitionersfailuretoattachtherequiredpleadingstohispetitionbeforetheappellate
court,coupledwithhisfailuretoofferanyjustificationtherefor,providesnooccasionforaliberalapplicationofthe
rulesinhisfavorthatpetitionerhasnocauseofactionagainstthemashisemployerisPRODUCTIMAGEandthat
assuming that petitioner is entitled to his money claims, the same should be enforced against the performance bond
[17]
postedbyPRODUCTIMAGEtocovertheclaimsofitsemployeesassignedatBAYER.

PRODUCTIMAGEandBergoniapostulateintheirCommentthattheappellatecourtsoutrightdismissalofpetitioners
appeal was proper in view of, among other things, the summary nature of proceedings in labor cases. They also
contendthatpetitionerspresentpetitionsuffersfromthefollowinginfirmities:(1)itdoesnotcontainanaffidavitof
service(2)itisnotaccompaniedbypetitionersPetitionforCertioraribeforetheappellatecourt(3)itdoesnotspecify
theerrorsoflawallegedlycommittedbytheappellatecourt(4)itisnotaccompaniedbyproofofserviceuponthe
adversepartyofacopyofthepaymentofdocketfees(5)itraisesquestionsoffactand(6)itimpleadstheNLRCand
imputesgraveabuseofdiscretiontotheappellatecourt,therebyimplyingthatthepetitionislikewisemadeunderRule
[18]
65oftheRulesofCourt.Lastly,theymaintainthatpetitionerwasnotdismissedasheactuallyabandonedhisjob.

TheCourtshallfirstresolvetheproceduralissues.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 3/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807

Only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the appellate courts
[19]
decisions, andthe question of whether an employeremployee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a
[20]
questionoffact. Bethatasitmay,when,ashere,thefindingsoftheNLRCcontradictthoseoftheLaborArbiter,
thisCourt,intheexerciseofitsequityjurisdiction,maylookintotherecordsofthecaseandreexaminethequestioned
[21]
findings.


Respecting the appellate courts dismissal of petitioners Petition for Certiorari for his failure to attach thereto the
[22]
relevant pleadings filed with the Labor Arbiter, the requirement to attach the same under Section 1, Rule 65 is
[23]
considered vis a vis Section 3, Rule 46 which states that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
documentaryrequirements,suchastheattachmentofrelevantpleadings,shallbesufficientgroundforthedismissalof
thepetition.By and large, the outright dismissal of a petition for failure to comply with said requirement cannot be
[24]
assailedasconstitutingeithergraveabuseofdiscretionorreversibleerroroflaw.

TheCourt,however,isinclinedto,asitdoes,overlookpetitionersfailuretoattachthesubjectrelevantpleadings
tohisPetitionforCertioraribeforetheappellatecourtinviewoftheseriousmattersdealtwithinthiscase.Thatbrings
the Court to consider the substantial merits of the case, thus rendering it unnecessary to still discuss the other
proceduralmattersraisedbyrespondents.
In the main, the substantive issues are: whether PRODUCT IMAGE is a laboronly contactor and BAYER
shouldbedeemedpetitionersprincipalemployerandwhetherpetitionerwasillegallydismissedfromhisemployment.

Permissiblejobcontractingorsubcontractingreferstoanarrangementwherebyaprincipalagreestofarmout
with a contractor or subcontractor the performance of a specific job, work, or service within a definite or
predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or, service is to be performed or completed within or
[25]
outside the premises of the principal. Under this arrangement, the following conditions must be met: (a) the
contractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes the contract work on his account under his
ownresponsibilityaccordingtohisownmannerandmethod,freefromthecontrolanddirectionofhisemployeror
principalinallmattersconnectedwiththeperformanceofhisworkexceptastotheresultsthereof(b)thecontractor
has substantial capital or investment and (c) the agreement between the principal and contractor or subcontractor
assuresthecontractualemployeesentitlementtoalllaborandoccupationalsafetyandhealthstandards,freeexerciseof
[26]
therighttoselforganization,securityoftenure,andsocialwelfarebenefits.

[27]
Indistinguishingbetweenpermissiblejobcontractingandprohibitedlaboronlycontracting, the totality of
[28]
thefactsandthesurroundingcircumstancesofthecasearetobeconsidered, eachcasetobedeterminedbyitsown
[29]
facts,andallthefeaturesoftherelationshipassessed.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 4/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807

In the case at bar, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the finding of the NLRC that PRODUCT
IMAGEisalegitimatejobcontractor.

The Court notes that PRODUCT IMAGE was issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
CertificateofRegistrationNumberedNCR80602176reading:

CERTIFICATEOFREGISTRATION
NumberedNCR80602176

issuedto

Mr.EdgardoV.Bergonia
President
PRODUCTIMAGE&MARKETINGSERVICES,INC.
Unit5&6GFJ&LBldg.,251EDSAGreenhills,
MandaluyongCity

forhavingcompliedwiththerequirementsasprovidedforundertheLaborCode,asamended,anditsimplementingRules
and having paid the registration fee in the amount of ONE HUNDRED (P100) PESOS per Official Receipt Number
[30]
6530485Y,dated21June2002.


TheDOLEcertificatehavingbeenissuedbyapublicofficer,itcarrieswithitthepresumptionthatitwasissued
[31]
intheregularperformanceofofficialduty. Petitionersbareassertionsfailtorebutthispresumption.Further,since
theDOLEistheagencyprimarilyresponsibleforregulatingthebusinessofindependentjobcontractors,theCourtcan
presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it had thoroughly evaluated the requirements submitted by
PRODUCTIMAGEbeforeissuingtheCertificateofRegistration.
IndependentlyoftheDOLEsCertification,amongthecircumstancesthatestablishthestatusofPRODUCTIMAGEas
alegitimatejobcontractorare:(1)PRODUCTIMAGEhad,duringtheperiodinquestion,acontractwithBAYERfor
[32]
the promotion and marketing of BAYER products (2) PRODUCT IMAGE has an independent business and
providesservicesnationwidetobigcompaniessuchasAjinomotoPhilippinesandProcterandGambleCorporation
[33]
and (3) PRODUCT IMAGEs total assets from 1998 to 2000 amounted to P405,639, P559,897, and P644,728,
[34]
respectively. PRODUCT IMAGE also posted a bond in the amount of P100,000 to answer for any claim of its
employeesforunpaidwagesandotherbenefitsthatmayariseoutoftheimplementationofitscontractwithBAYER.
[35]

PRODUCTIMAGEcannotthusbeconsideredalaboronlycontractor.

Theexistenceofanemployeremployeerelationshipisdeterminedonthebasisoffourstandards,namely:(a)the
mannerofselectionandengagementoftheputativeemployee(b)themodeofpaymentofwages(c)thepresenceor
absence of power of dismissal and (d) the presence or absence of control of the putative employees conduct. Most
[36]
determinativeamongthesefactorsisthesocalledcontroltest.

ThepresenceofthefirstrequisitewhichreferstoselectionandengagementisevidencedbyadocumententitledJob
Offer, whereby PRODUCT IMAGE offered to hire petitioner as crop protection technician effective April 7, 1997,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 5/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807

[37]
whichofferpetitioneraccepted.

On the second requisite regarding the payment of wages, it was PRODUCT IMAGE that paid the wages and
otherbenefitsofpetitioner,pursuanttothestipulationinthecontractbetweenPRODUCTIMAGEandBAYERthat
BAYERshallpayPRODUCTIMAGEanamountbasedonservicesactuallyrenderedwithoutregardtothenumberof
personnelemployedbyPRODUCTIMAGEandthatPRODUCTIMAGEshallfaithfullycomplywiththeprovisions
[38]
oftheLaborCodeandholdBAYERfreeandharmlessfromanyclaimofitsemployeesarisingfromthecontract.

Astothethirdrequisitewhichrelatestothepowerofdismissal,andthefourthrequisitewhichrelatestothepowerof
control, both powers are vested in PRODUCT IMAGE. The Contract of Promotional Services provides that
PRODUCT IMAGE shall have the power to discipline its employees assigned at BAYER, such that no control
whatsoevershallbeexercisedbyBAYERoverthosepersonnelonthemannerandmethodbywhichtheyperformtheir
[39]
duties, andthatalldirectives,complaints,orobservationsofBAYERrelatingtotheperformanceoftheemployees
[40]
ofPRODUCTIMAGEshallbeaddressedtothelatter.

Ifatall,theonlycontrolmeasureretainedbyBAYERoverpetitionerwastoactashisdefactosupervisorincertifying
totheveracityoftheaccomplishmentreportshesubmittedtoPRODUCTIMAGE.Thisisbynomeansthekindof
control that establishes an employeremployee relationship as it pertains only to the results and not the manner and
methodofdoingthework.Itwouldbeararecontractofservicethatgivesuntrammelledfreedomtothepartyhired
[41]
andeschewsanyinterventionwhatsoeverinhisperformanceoftheengagement. Surely,itwouldbefoolhardyfor
[42]
anycompanytocompletelygivethereinsandtotallyignoretheoperationsithascontractedout.

Infine,PRODUCTIMAGEisineluctablytheemployerofpetitioner.

Respectingtheissueofillegaldismissal,theCourtappreciatesnoevidencethatpetitionerwasdismissed.Whatitfinds
is that petitioner unilaterally stopped reporting for work before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, based on his
beliefthatGuillermoandBergoniahadspreadrumorsthathistransactionsonbehalfofBAYERwouldnolongerbe
honoredasofApril30,2002.Thisbeliefremainsjustthatitisunsubstantiated.Whileincasesofillegaldismissal,the
employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first
[43]
establishbysubstantialevidencethefactofdismissal.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionis,inlightoftheforegoing,DENIED.

SOORDERED.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 6/9
 6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807

WECONCUR:




LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson


MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice



ATTESTATION


IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.658.
**AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.635.
***AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.664.
[1]
NLRCrecords,p.42.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 7/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807
[2]
Id.at4243.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Id.at4445.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Id.at1.
[7]
VidePositionPaperforBAYERandMr.Guillermo,id.at5188.
[8]
VidePositionPaperforPRODUCTIMAGEandMr.Bergonia,id.at315326.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Id.at459468.
[11]
Id.at717721.
[12]
Id.at769.
[13]
CArollo,pp.311.
[14]
Id.at43.
[15]
Id.at249251.
[16]
VidePetitionforReview,rollo,pp.417.
[17]
VideCommentofBAYERandMr.Guillermo,id.at135182.
[18]
VideCommentofPRODUCTIMAGEandMr.Bergonia,id.at369380.
[19]
MitsubishiMotorsPhilippinesCorporationv.ChryslerPhilippinesLaborUnion,G.R.No.148738,June29,2004,433SCRA206,217.
[20]
ManilaWaterCompany,Inc.v.Pena,G.R.No.158255,July8,2004,434SCRA53,58.
[21]
DiamondMotorsCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,462Phil.452,458(2003).
[22]
SECTION1.Petitionforcertiorari.Whenanytribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicialorquasijudicialfunctionshasactedwithoutorinexcessofitsorhis
jurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof[itsorhis]jurisdiction,andthereisnoappeal,oranyplain,speedy,andadequate
remedyintheordinarycourseoflaw,apersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetitioninthepropercourt,allegingthefactswithcertaintyandprayingthat
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
Thepetitionshallbeaccompaniedbyacertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,orderorresolutionsubjectthereof,copiesofallpleadingsanddocuments
relevantandpertinentthereto,andasworncertificationofnonforumshoppingasprovidedinthethirdparagraphofSection3,Rule46.
[23]
SEC.3.Contents and filing of petition effect of noncompliance with requirements. The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the
petitionersandrespondents,aconcisestatementofthemattersinvolved,thefactualbackgroundofthecase,andthegroundsrelieduponforthereliefprayedfor.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
subjectthereofwasreceived,whenamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration,ifany,wasfiledandwhennoticeofthedenialthereofwasreceived.
Itshallbefiledinseven(7)clearlylegiblecopiestogetherwithproofofservicethereofontherespondentwiththeoriginalcopyintendedforthecourt
indicatedassuchbythepetitionerandshallbeaccompaniedbyaclearlylegibleduplicateoriginalorcertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,order,resolution,or
rulingsubjectthereof,suchmaterialportionsoftherecordasarereferredtotherein,andotherdocumentsrelevantorpertinentthereto.Thecertificationshallbe
accomplishedbytheproperclerkofcourtorbyhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative,orbytheproperofficerofthecourt,tribunal,agencyorofficeinvolvedorby
his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents
attachedtotheoriginal.
xxxx
Thefailureofthepetitionertocomplywithanyoftheforegoingrequirementsshallbesufficientgroundforthedismissalofthepetition.
[24]
VidePhilippineAgilaSatelliteInc.v.TrinidadLichauco,G.R.No.142362,May3,2006,489SCRA22,34.
[25]
Acevedov.AdvanstarCompany,Inc.,G.R.No.157656,November11,2005,474SCRA656,667.
[26]
VidePurefoodsCorporationv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.172241,November20,2008.
[27]
Inlegitimatejobcontracting,thelawcreatesanemployeremployeerelationshipforalimitedpurpose,i.e.,toensurethattheemployeesarepaidtheirwages.
Theprincipalemployerbecomesjointlyandseverallyliablewiththejobcontractoronlyforthepaymentoftheemployeeswageswheneverthecontractorfailsto
paythesame.Otherthanthat,theprincipalemployerisnotresponsibleforanyclaimmadebytheemployees.
On the other hand, in laboronly contracting, the statute creates an employeremployee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a
circumventionoflaborlaws.Thecontractorisconsideredmerelyanagentoftheprincipalemployerandthelatterisresponsibletotheemployeesofthelabor
onlycontractorasifsuchemployeeshadbeendirectlyemployedbytheprincipalemployer.Theprincipalemployerthereforebecomessolidarityliablewiththe
laboronlycontractorforalltherightfulclaimsoftheemployees.[SanMiguelCorporationv.MAERCIntegratedServices,Inc.,453Phil.543,566567(2003)]
[28]
Sasan,Sr.,et.al.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.176240,October17,2008.
[29]
EncyclopaediaBritannica(Phils.),Inc.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,332Phil.1,9(1996).
[30]
Rollo,p.244.
[31]
VideRULESOFCOURT,Rule131Section3(m).
[32]
NLRCRecords,pp.116122.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 8/9
6/21/2017 G.R. No. 179807
[33]
Id.at5354.
[34]
Id.at96113.
[35]
Id.at123124.
[36]
DelosSantosv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,423Phil.1020,1029(2001).
[37]
NLRCRecords,p.362.
[38]
Id.at117.
[39]
Ibid.
[40]
Ibid.
[41]
InsularLifeAssuranceCo.,Ltd.v.NLRC,G.R.No.84484,November15,1989,179SCRA459,464465.
[42]
PurefoodsCorporationv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,supranote26.
[43]
VideLedesma,Jr.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.174585,October19,2007,537SCRA358,370.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179807.htm 9/9