Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 159668 March 7, 2008
MNDUE G!!EON TRDE, INC. a"#$or GM!!OSONS TRDERS, INC.,
petitioners,
vs.
VICENTE ND!ES, RESTITUT SO!ITN,
*
E!PIDIO SUE!TO, ET !.
**
,
respondents
1
.
.
D E C I S I O N
USTRI%MRTINE&, J.'
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the ecision
!
dated Ma" !1, !##$ and the %&ended ecision
$
dated %ugust 1', !##$ of
the Court of %ppeals (C%) in C%*+.R. ,P -o. .#!14.
/he facts0
Petitioners Mandaue +alleon /rade, 1nc. (M+/1) and +a&allosons /raders, 1nc.
4
(+/1) are
business entities engaged in rattan furniture &anufacturing for e2port, with principal place of
business at Cabangcalan, Mandaue Cit".
Respondent 3icente %ndales
5
(%ndales) filed a co&plaint with the 4abor %rbiter (4%) against
both petitioners for illegal dis&issal and non*pa"&ent of 1$
th
&onth pa" and service incentive
leave pa". 5is other co*wor6ers nu&bering !7# filed a si&ilar co&plaint against petitioner
M+/1 onl".
/he co&plainants alleged that M+/1 hired the& on various dates as weavers, grinders, sanders
and finishers8 so&eti&e in %ugust 1''9, wor6ers in the :inishing epart&ent were told that the"
would be transferred to a contractor and the" were given 3isitor 1dentification Cards (1s), while
wor6ers in the ;eaving epart&ent were told to loo6 for wor6 elsewhere as the co&pan" had no
wor6 for the&8 so&eti&e in ,epte&ber 1''9, wor6ers in the +rinding epart&ent were not
allowed to enter the co&pan" pre&ises, while wor6ers in the ,anding epart&ent were told that
the" could no longer wor6 since there was no wor6 available8 wor6ers who were issued 1s were
allowed to go inside the pre&ises8 and the" were dis&issed without notice and <ust cause.
/he" further alleged that the" are regular e&plo"ees of M+/1 because0 (a) the" perfor&ed their
wor6 inside the co&pan" pre&ises in Cabangcalan, Mandaue Cit"8 (b) the" were issued unifor&s
b" M+/1 and were told to strictl" follow co&pan" rules and regulations8 (c) the" were under the
supervision of M+/1=s fore&en, >ualit" control personnel and chec6ers8 (d) M+/1 supplied the
&aterials, designs, tools and e>uip&ent in the production of furniture8 (e) M+/1 conducts
orientations on how the wor6 was to be done and the safe and efficient use of tools and
e>uip&ent8 (f) M+/1 issues &e&oranda regarding absences and waste of &aterials8 and (g)
M+/1 e2ercises the power to discipline the&.
?n the other hand, M+/1 denied the e2istence of e&plo"er*e&plo"ee relationship with
co&plainants, clai&ing that the" are wor6ers of independent contractors whose services were
engaged te&poraril" and seasonall" when the de&ands for its products are high and could not be
&et b" its regular wor6force8 the independent contractors recruited and hired the co&plainants,
prepared the pa"roll and paid their wages, supervised and directed their wor6, and had authorit"
to dis&iss the&. 1t averred that due to the econo&ic crisis and internal s>uabble in the co&pan",
the volu&e of orders fro& foreign bu"ers dived8 as a survival &easure, &anage&ent decided to
retrench its e&plo"ees8 and the substantial separation pa" paid to retrenched e&plo"ees caught
the <ealous e"es of co&plainants who caused the filing of the co&plaint for illegal dis&issal.
?n %ugust !$, 1''', the 4% rendered a ecision
7
holding that 19$
.
co&plainants are regular
piece*rate e&plo"ees of M+/1 since the" were &ade to perfor& functions which are necessar"
to M+/1=s rattan furniture &anufacturing business8 the independent contractors were not
properl" identified8 the absence of proof that the independent contractors have wor6 pre&ises of
their own, substantial capital or invest&ent in the for& of tools, e>uip&ent and &achineries
&a6e the& onl" labor contractors8 and there was no dis&issal but onl" a clai& for separation
pa". /he 4% ordered petitioners to ta6e bac6 co&plainants and directed it to pa" their 1$
th
&onth
pa" in the total su& of P545,$97.4$.
Both parties appealed. ?n %pril $#, !##1, the -ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission (-4RC)
rendered a ecision
9
affir&ing the 4%=s finding of e&plo"er*e&plo"ee relationship. 1t held that
labor*onl" contracting and not <ob*contracting was present since the alleged contractors did not
have substantial capital in the for& of e>uip&ent, &achineries and wor6 pre&ises. /he -4RC,
however, did not agree with the 4%=s finding that there was no dis&issal. 1t held that
co&plainants were constructivel" dis&issed when the" were unilaterall" transferred to a
contractor to evade pa"&ent of separation pa" as a result of the retrench&ent. /hus, it directed
M+/1 to pa" co&plainants separation pa" of one &onth for ever" "ear of service based on the
prevailing &ini&u& wage at the ti&e of their dis&issal, in addition to pa"&ent of 1$
th
&onth
pa".
Both parties filed separate &otions for reconsideration
'
but the -4RC denied the& in a
Resolution
1#
dated :ebruar" 1!, !##!.
?n %pril 1', !##!, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari
11
with the C%. ?n Ma" !1, !##$ the
C% rendered a ecision
1!
dis&issing the petition and affir&ing the findings of the -4RC. 1t held
that M+/1 is liable to the respondents because the alleged contractors are not independent
contractors but labor*onl" contractors8 that respondents were constructivel" dis&issed when the"
were unilaterall" transferred to another contractor8 and that the allegation of retrench&ent was
not proven.
?n @une 1!, !##$, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
1$
?n %ugust 1', !##$, the C% rendered an %&ended ecision
14
partiall" granting the &otion, in
this wise0
%fter ta6ing a second loo6 at the petition and in consonance with %rticle !9$ of the 4abor
Code, ;e are co&puting the separation pa" of the 19$ private respondents at one*half
&onth salar" per "ear of service up to the pro&ulgation of this %&ended ecision.
;5ARA:?RA, petitioners= &otion for reconsideration is P%R/1%44B +R%-/A. /his
Court=s decision dated Ma" !1, !##$ is hereb" a&ended. Petitioners are ordered to pa"
the 19$ respondents their separation pa" co&puted at one*half &onth salar" per "ear of
service up to the pro&ulgation of this %&ended ecision.
,? ?RARA.
15
?n ,epte&ber 17, !##$, petitioners filed with this Court a Motion for A2tension of /i&e to file a
petition for review, which was granted b" the Court,
17
and petitioners filed herein petition on
?ctober !$, !##$.
Meanwhile, on ,epte&ber !4, !##$, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the C%
assailing the reduction of the separation pa" in the %&ended ecision.
1.
?n ece&ber ', !##$,
the C% issued a Resolution
19
&erel" noting the Motion for Reconsideration filed b" respondents
on the ground that the case had alread" been referred to this Court b" wa" of the present petition.
Respondents then filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari with Motion to Consolidate the
Petition with the present petition, assailing the %ugust 1', !##$ %&ended ecision and
ece&ber ', !##$ C% Resolution. Respondents= petition, doc6eted as +.R. -o. 17!!!., was
dis&issed in a Resolution
1'
dated %pril 14, !##4 for failure to attach a clearl" legible duplicate
original or certified true cop" of the %&ended ecision. ?n %ugust !7, !##4, entr" of <udg&ent
was &ade.
!#
1n the present petition, petitioners raise the sole issue0
1
;5A/5AR ?R -?/ /5A C?CR/ ?: %PPA%4, C?MM1//A +R%3A %-
RA3AR,1B4A ARR?R 1- C?-,1AR1-+ /5A RA,P?-A-/, %, AMP4?BAA,
?: /5A PA/1/1?-AR, %B,A-/ /5A RADC1,1/A,E A4AMA-/, 1- /5A
@CR1,PRCA-CA %, A/ARM1-%/13A :%C/?R 1- /5A AF1,/A-CA ?:
AMP4?BAR*AMP4?BAA RA4%/1?-,51P.
!1
Petitioners sub&it that respondents are e&plo"ees of independent contractors who have their
own &anpower, tools, e>uip&ent and capital8 the" did not have a hand in respondents=
recruit&ent and hiring, pa"&ent of wages, control and supervision, and dis&issal8 and
respondents did not have ti&e cards or unifor&s, nor were the" sub<ected to petitioner=s co&pan"
policies.
?n the other hand, respondents, in their Co&&ent and Me&orandu&, assail the C%=s %&ended
ecision which reduced the separation pa" fro& one &onth to one*half &onth, clai&ing there
was no <ustification to support such order. Moreover, the" contend that the" were denied their
da" in court when the C% did not resolve their Motion for Reconsideration of the %&ended
ecision. /he" aver that since the" were illegall" dis&issed, the" are entitled to bac6wages and
not onl" separation pa".
/he petition is bereft of &erit.
:actual findings of >uasi*<udicial bodies li6e the -4RC, when adopted and confir&ed b" the C%
and if supported b" substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finalit" b" this Court.
!!

/he e2istence of an e&plo"er*e&plo"ee relationship is a factual &atter that will not be delved
into b" this Court, since onl" >uestions of law &a" be raised in petitions for review.
!$
/he Court
has recogniGed several e2ceptions to this rule, such as0 (1) when the findings are grounded
entirel" on speculation, sur&ises or con<ectures8 (!) when the inference &ade is &anifestl"
&ista6en, absurd or i&possible8 ($) when there is grave abuse of discretion8 (4) when the
<udg&ent is based on a &isapprehension of facts8 (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting8
(7) when in &a6ing its findings, the C% went be"ond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrar" to the ad&issions of both the appellant and the appellee8 (.) when the findings are
contrar" to the trial court8 (9) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which the" are based8 (') when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner=s &ain and repl" briefs are not disputed b" the respondent8 (1#) when the findings of
fact are pre&ised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted b" the evidence on
record8 and (11) when the C% &anifestl" overloo6ed certain relevant facts not disputed b" the
parties, which, if properl" considered, would <ustif" a different conclusion.
!4
-one of these
e2ceptions, however, has been convincingl" shown b" petitioners to appl" in the present case.
%rticle 1#7 of the 4abor Code e2plains the relations which &a" arise between an e&plo"er, a
contractor and the contractor=s e&plo"ees thus0
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. H ;henever an e&plo"er enters into a contract
with another person for the perfor&ance of the for&er=s wor6, the e&plo"ees of the
contractor and of the latter=s subcontractor, if an", shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
1n the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pa" the wages of his e&plo"ees in
accordance with this Code, the e&plo"er shall be <ointl" and severall" liable with his
contractor or subcontractor to such e&plo"ees to the e2tent of the wor6 perfor&ed under
the contract, in the sa&e &anner and e2tent that he is liable to e&plo"ees directl"
e&plo"ed b" hi&.
/he ,ecretar" of 4abor &a", b" appropriate regulations, restrict or prohibit the
contracting out of labor to protect the rights of wor6ers established under this Code. 1n so
prohibiting or restricting, he &a" &a6e appropriate distinctions between labor*onl"
contracting and <ob contracting as well as differentiations within these t"pes of
contracting and deter&ine who a&ong the parties involved shall be considered the
e&plo"er for purposes of this Code, to prevent an" violation or circu&vention of an"
provision of this Code.
/here is Ilabor*onl"I contracting where the person suppl"ing wor6ers to an e&plo"er
does not have substantial capital or invest&ent in the for& of tools, e>uip&ent,
&achineries, wor6 pre&ises, a&ong others, and the wor6ers recruited and placed b" such
persons are perfor&ing activities which directl" related to the principal business of such
e&plo"er. 1n such cases, the person or inter&ediar" shall be considered &erel" as an
agent of the e&plo"er who shall be responsible to the wor6ers in the sa&e &anner and
e2tent as if the latter were directl" e&plo"ed b" hi&.
/he first two paragraphs of %rticle 1#7 set the general rule that a principal is per&itted b" law to
engage the services of a contractor for the perfor&ance of a particular <ob, but the principal,
nevertheless, beco&es solidaril" liable with the contractor for the wages of the contractor=s
e&plo"ees. /he third paragraph of %rticle 1#7, however, e&powers the ,ecretar" of 4abor to
&a6e distinctions between per&issible <ob contracting and Ilabor*onl"I contracting, which is a
prohibited act further defined under the last paragraph. % finding that a contractor is a Ilabor*
onl"I contractor is e>uivalent to declaring that there is an e&plo"er*e&plo"ee relationship
between the principal and the e&plo"ees of the supposed contractor, and the Ilabor*onl"I
contractor is considered as a &ere agent of the principal, the real e&plo"er.
!5
,ections 5 and . of the Rules 1&ple&enting %rticles 1#7 to 1#' of the 4abor Code, as a&ended
!7

(1&ple&enting Rules), reinforce the rules in deter&ining the e2istence of e&plo"er*e&plo"ee
relationship between e&plo"er, contractor or subcontractor, and the contractor=s or
subcontractor=s e&plo"ee, to wit0
Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting. H 4abor*onl" contracting is
hereb" declared prohibited. :or this purpose, labor*onl" contracting shall refer to an
arrange&ent where the contractor or subcontractor &erel" recruits, supplies or places
wor6ers to perfor& a <ob, wor6 or service for a principal, and an" of the following
ele&ents are JisK present0
i) /he contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or invest&ent
which relates to the <ob, wor6 or service to be perfor&ed and the e&plo"ees
recruited, supplied or placed b" such contractor or subcontractor are perfor&ing
activities which are directl" related to the &ain business of the principal8 or
ii) /he contractor does not e2ercise the right to control over the perfor&ance of
the wor6 of the contractual e&plo"ee.
/he forgoing provisions shall be without pre<udice to the application of %rticle !49 (C) of
the 4abor Code, as a&ended.
I,ubstantial capital or invest&entI refers to capital stoc6s and subscribed capitaliGation in
the case of corporations, tools, e>uip&ent, i&ple&ents, &achineries and wor6 pre&ises,
actuall" and directl" used b" the contractor or subcontractor in the perfor&ance or
co&pletion of the <ob, wor6 or service contracted out.
/he Iright to controlI shall refer to the right reserved to the person for who& the services
of the contractual wor6ers are perfor&ed, to deter&ine not onl" the end to be achieved,
but also the &anner and &eans to be used in reaching that end.
Section 7. Eistence o! an e"#loyer-e"#loyee relationshi#. H /he contractor or
subcontractor shall be considered the e&plo"er of the contractual e&plo"ee for purposes
of enforcing the provisions of the 4abor Code and other social legislation. /he principal,
however, shall be solidaril" liable with the contractor in the event of an" violation of an"
provision of the 4abor Code, including the failure to pa" wages.
/he principal shall be dee&ed the e&plo"er of the contractual e&plo"ee in an" of the
following cases, as declared b" a co&petent authorit"0
a. where there is a labor*onl" contracting8 or
b. where the contracting arrange&ent falls within the prohibitions provided in
,ection 7 (Prohibitions) hereof.
/hus, based on %rticle 1#7 of the 4abor Code and ,ections 5 and . of the 1&ple&enting Rules,
Ilabor*onl"I contracting e2ists when the following criteria are present0 (1) where the contractor
or subcontractor suppl"ing wor6ers to an e&plo"er does not have substantial capital or
invest&ent in the for& of tools, e>uip&ent, &achineries, wor6 pre&ises, a&ong other things8 and
the wor6ers recruited and placed b" the contractor or subcontractor are perfor&ing activities
which are directl" related to the principal business of such e&plo"er8 or (!) where the contractor
does not e2ercise the right to control the perfor&ance of the wor6 of the contractual e&plo"ee.
1n the present case, petitioners= clai& that their contractors are independent contractors, and,
therefore, this case is one of per&issible <ob contracting, is without basis.
First, respondents= wor6 as weavers, grinders, sanders and finishers is directl" related to M+/1=s
principal business of rattan furniture &anufacturing. ;here the e&plo"ees are tas6ed to
underta6e activities usuall" desirable or necessar" in the usual business of the e&plo"er, the
contractor is considered as a Ilabor*onl"I contractor and such e&plo"ees are considered as
regular e&plo"ees of the e&plo"er.
!.
Second, M+/1 was unable to present an" proof that its contractors had substantial capital. /here
was no evidence pertaining to the contractors= capitaliGation8 nor to their invest&ent in tools,
e>uip&ent or i&ple&ents actuall" used in the perfor&ance or co&pletion of the <ob, wor6, or
service that the" were contracted to render. /he law casts the burden on the contractor to prove
that it has substantial capital, invest&ent, tools, etc. A&plo"ees, on the other hand, need not
prove that the contractor does not have substantial capital, invest&ent, and tools to engage in
<ob*contracting.
!9
/hus, the contractors are Ilabor*onl"I contractors since the" do not have substantial capital or
invest&ent which relates to the service perfor&ed and respondents perfor&ed activities which
were directl" related to M+/1=s &ain business. M+/1, the principal e&plo"er, is solidaril" liable
with the labor*onl" contractors, for the rightful clai&s of the e&plo"ees. Cnder this set*up,
Ilabor*onl"I contractors are dee&ed agents of the principal, M+/1, and the law &a6es the
principal responsible to the e&plo"ees of the Ilabor*onl"I contractor as if the principal itself
directl" hired or e&plo"ed the e&plo"ees. 1n prohibiting Ilabor*onl"I contracting and creating an
e&plo"er*e&plo"ee relationship between the principal and the supposed contractor=s e&plo"ees,
the law intends to prevent e&plo"ers fro& circu&venting labor laws intended to protect
e&plo"ees.
5ence, the Court sees no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the -4RC and the C%.
Respondents= contention that the C% erred in lowering the award of separation pa" fro& one
&onth to one*half &onth for ever" "ear of service cannot prosper in the present petition.
;hether right or wrong, the decision of the C% on that &atter had long beco&e final and
e2ecutor" with the dis&issal of respondents= Petition for Certiorari, doc6eted as +.R. -o.
17!!!., assailing the reduction of the award of separation pa". Antr" of <udg&ent was &ade
therein on %ugust !7, !##48 hence, the reduction of the separation pa" is now i&&utable, be"ond
the <urisdiction of this Court to a&end, &odif" or reverse.
!'
-othing is &ore settled in the law than that a decision that has ac>uired finalit" beco&es
i&&utable and unalterable and &a" no longer be &odified in an" respect even if the
&odification is &eant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be &ade
b" the Court that rendered it or b" the highest Court of the land.
$#
/he doctrine is founded on
considerations of public polic" and sound practice that, at the ris6 of occasional errors,
<udg&ents &ust beco&e final at so&e definite point in ti&e.
$1
/he onl" recogniGed e2ceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so*
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no pre<udice to an" part", void <udg&ents, and
whenever circu&stances transpire after the finalit" of the decision rendering its e2ecution un<ust
and ine>uitable.
$!
-one of the e2ceptions are present in the instant case.
/he C% %&ended ecision cannot be considered b" the Court as a void <udg&ent, as it was
rendered b" a tribunal with <urisdiction over the sub<ect &atter of the petition.
$$
-either can
respondents co&plain that the" were denied due process of law since the" had the opportunit" to
be heard when the" assailed the reduction of separation pa" in their Petition for Certiorari, +.R.
-o. 17!!!., but bungled the sa&e when the" failed to co&pl" with the basic procedural
re>uire&ents in filing the petition. Respondents cannot be allowed to resurrect a cause lost thru
negligence in properl" pursuing their case.
(HERE)ORE, the present petition is DENIED for lac6 of &erit.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.
)oo*"o*+,
* Referred to as I,olanaI in other parts of the record.
** /here were I19$I co&plainants who were awarded 1$
th
&onth pa" b" the 4abor
%rbiter in his ecision dated %ugust !$, 1'''8 C% rollo , pp. !9'*!'!.
1
/he na&e of the Court of %ppeals, as respondent, is deleted fro& the title, pursuant to
,ection 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
!
Penned b" %ssociate @ustice AlieGer R. de los ,antos and concurred in b" %ssociate
@ustices Ro&eo %. Brawner and Regalado A. Maa&bong, C% rollo, p. 4.9.
$
1d. at5!4.
4
Referred to as I+a&ollo ,on=s 1nc.I in other parts of the record. Records do not show
an" specific finding as to the liabilit" of +/1 to %ndales. /he findings of fact of the 4%
and the -4RC are focused onl" on M+/1. Pleadings filed b" the parties in the present
petition do not discuss the relationship of %ndales to +/1.
5
?&itted as respondent in the Motion for A2tension of /i&e filed b" petitioners on
,epte&ber 17, !##$, rollo, p. $.
7
C% rollo, p. !.5.
.
,hould be 19! because IRebecca +utibI is na&ed twice in the list of winning
co&plainants specificall" enu&erated in pp. 15*19 of the 4% ecision, C% rollo, pp. !9'*
!'!.
9
C% rollo, p. $7.
'
1d. at $57, $7#.
1#
1d. at 44*47.
11
1d. at !.
1!
1d. at 4.9.
1$
1d. at4'1.
14
1d. at5!4.
15
C% rollo, pp. 5!4*5!5.
17
Rollo, p. $.
1.
C% rollo, p. 5!'.
19
1d. at54#.
1'
1d. at 5.9.
!#
1d. at 591.
!1
Rollo, p. !1.
!!
4aGaro v. Court of %ppeals, 4!$ Phil. 554, 559 (!##1)8 ,pouses +arrido v. Court of
%ppeals, 4!1 Phil. 9.!, 991 (!##1)8 ,antos v. ,pouses Re"es, 4!# Phil. $1$, $1. (!##1)8
Bu Bun +uan v. ?ng, 41' Phil. 945, 954 (!##1)8 :ernandeG v. :ernandeG, 417 Phil. $!!,
$$. (!##1)8 -ag6a6aisang Lapisanan Lapitbaha"an sa Co&&onwealth %venue v. Court
of %ppeals, 414 Phil. 147, 15$*154 (!##1).
!$
Manila ;ater Co&pan", 1nc. v. Pena, +.R. -o. 159!55, @ul" 9, !##4, 4$4 ,CR% 5$,
598 Fleischer Co&pan", 1nc. v. -ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission, 4#. Phil. $'1, $''
(!##1).
!4
%siatic evelop&ent Corporation v. Brogada, +.R. -o. 17'1$7, @ul" 14, !##7, 4'5
,CR% 177, 17'.
!5
%cevedo v. %dvanstar Co&pan", 1nc., +.R. -o. 15.757, -ove&ber 11, !##5, 4.4
,CR% 757, 7778 Baguio v. -ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission, +.R. -os. .'##4*#9,
?ctober 4, 1''1, !#! ,CR% 475, 4.!*4.$.
!7
epart&ent ?rder -o. 19*#! (!##!).
!.
Manila ;ater Co&pan", 1nc. v. Pena, supra note !$, at 7#*718 +uinnu2 1nteriors, 1nc. v.
-ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission, $$' Phil. .5, .'*9# (1''.).
!9
.L Corporation v. -ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission, +.R. -o. 1494'#, -ove&ber
!!, !##7, 5#. ,CR% 5#', 5!$8 Coca*Cola Bottlers, Phils., 1nc. v. 5ingpit, $57 Phil. '#,
1#$ (1''9)8 +uarin v. -ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission, +.R. -o. 97#1#, ?ctober $,
1'9', 1.9 ,CR% !7., !.$.
!'
,ee Mayon Estate Corporation v. ltura , +.R. -o. 1$447!, ?ctober 19, !##4, 44#
,CR% $.., $95*$97.
$#
!e"a v. #overn$ent Service %nsurance Syste$ , +.R -o. 15'5!#, ,epte&ber 1', !##7,
5#! ,CR% $9$, 4#48 ,i" v. -ational 4abor Relations Co&&ission, +.R. -o. 159'.1,
%ugust !5, !##5, 479 ,CR% 154, 171*17!8 Sacdalan v. Court o& ppeals , +.R. -o.
1!9'7., Ma" !#, !##4, 4!9 ,CR% 597, 5''.
$1
,ocial ,ecurit" ,"ste& v. 1sip, +.R. -o. 17541., %pril $, !##., 5!# ,CR% $1#, $158
Cervantes v. Court of %ppeals, +.R. -o. 177.55, -ove&ber 19, !##5, 4.5 ,CR% 57!,
5.18 Ma"on Astate Corporation v. %ltura, supra note !', at $97.
$!
!e"a v. #overn$ent Service %nsurance Syste$, supra note '() Siy v. National *a+or
Relations Co$$ission, supra note '(, at ,-.) Sacdalan v. Court o& ppeals, supra note
'(.
$$
Pilapil v. 5eirs of Ma2i&ino R. Briones, +.R. -o. 15#1.5, :ebruar" 5, !##., 514
,CR% 1'.8 +o&eG v. Concepcion, 4. Phil. .1., .!!*.!$ (1'!5).
/he 4awphil Pro<ect * %rellano 4aw :oundation