THIRD
DIVISION
|
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE PANFILO V. PAJARILLO, Petitioners, -versus - THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG PANFILO V. PAJARILLO,
ALFREDO HOYOHOY, HERMINIO CASTILLO, BERNARDO ROCO, RODOLFO TORRES, JULIAN
JORVINA, LOURDES ROCO, FLORITA YAPOC, MARLON ALDANA, PARALUMAN ULANG,
TOLENTINO SANHI, JOHNNY SORIANO, ANDRES CALAQUE, ROBERTO LAVAREZ, FRANCISCO
MORALES, SALVACION PERINA, ANTONIO ABALA, ROMEO SALONGA, AUGUR M. MANIPOL,
BIENVENIDA TEQUIL, MARIO ELEP, ALADINO LATIGO, BERNARDINE BANSAL, PEDRO DE
BAGUIO, RICARDO CALICA, LAURA CO, VICENTE RECANA, ELENA TOLLEDO, ALFREDO
PLAZA, SR., HERMINIO BALDONO, FELIPE YAPOC, ARISTON NIPA, and ALFONSO C. BALDOMAR, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No.
155056-57 Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court,[1]
petitioners, heirs of Panfilo V. Pajarillo, seek to set aside the Decision,[2]
and Resolution,[3] dated 12
March 2002 and 28 August 2002, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 54330 and CA-G.R. SP No. 54331, reversing the two Per Curiam Orders dated 28 October 1996 and 10 January 1997,[4] of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Cases No.
08-03013-87 and 01-00331-88.
Stripped of the non-essentials, the
facts are as follows:
Panfilo V. Pajarillo (Panfilo) was
the owner and operator of several buses plying certain routes in Metro Manila.
He used the name “PVP Liner” in his
buses. Private respondents were employed as drivers, conductors and
conductresses by Panfilo.
During their employment with Panfilo,
private respondents worked at least four times a week or for an average of
fifteen working days per month. They were required to observe a work schedule starting
from P150.00 a day. They were not given emergency cost of living
allowance (ECOLA), 13th month pay, legal holiday pay and service
incentive leave pay.[5]
The following were deducted from the
private respondents’ daily commissions: (a) costs of washing the assigned
buses; (b) terminal fees; (c) fees for sweeping the assigned buses; (d) fees
paid to the barangay tanod at bus
terminals; and (e) rental fees for the use of stereo in the assigned buses. Any
employee who refused such deductions were either barred from working or
dismissed from work.[6]
Thereafter, private respondents and
several co-employees formed a union called “SAMAHAN
NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG PANFILO V. PAJARILLO” (respondent union). The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
issued a Certificate of Registration in favor of the respondent union.[7]
Upon learning of the formation of
respondent union, Panfilo and his children ordered some of the private
respondents to sign a document affirming their trust and confidence in Panfilo
and denying any irregularities on his part. Other private respondents were directed to
sign a blank document which turned out to be a resignation letter. Private respondents refused to sign the said
documents, hence, they were barred from working or were dismissed without hearing
and notice. Panfilo and his children and
relatives also formed a company union where they acted as its directors and
officers.[8]
On
On
Notifications and summons with respect
to NLRC/NCR Case No. 00-08-03013-87 were
addressed and sent to “PANFILO V.
PAJARILLO, President/Manager, Panfilo V. Pajarillo Liner,
Panfilo denied the charges in the
complaints. He maintained that private
respondents were not dismissed from work on account of their union activities;
that private respondents and several of their co-employees either resigned or were
separated from work, or simply abandoned their employment long before the
respondent union was organized and registered with the DOLE; that the private
respondents are not entitled to ECOLA and 13th month pay because
they received wages above the minimum provided by law; that the private
respondents are not entitled to overtime and legal holiday pay because these
are already included in their daily commissions; that the private respondents
are not entitled to five days incentive leave pay because they work only four
days a week; that no deductions were made in the daily commissions of the
private respondents; that the private respondents voluntarily and directly paid
certain individuals for barangay
protection and for the cleaning of the assigned buses; that he had no
participation in these activities/arrangements; that the private respondents
were not dismissed from work; and that the private respondents either abandoned
their jobs or voluntarily resigned from work.[14]
Upon motion of Panfilo, the
complaints in NLRC/NCR Case No.
00-08-03013-87 and NLRC Case No.
00-01-00331-88 were consolidated.[15] On
After hearing and submission by both
parties of their respective position papers and memoranda, Labor Arbiter Manuel
P. Asuncion (Arbiter Asuncion) rendered a Decision[17]
dated
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the
complaint should be as it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
Respondent union appealed to the NLRC.
On
Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby set aside. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered directing:
(1) The respondent, PVP Liner, Inc. to reinstate to their former positions, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, the following complainants: Alfredo [Hoyohoy], Bernardo Roco, Rodolfo Torres, Julian Jorvina, Florita Yapoc, Marlon Aldana, Paraluman Ulang, Tolentino Sanhi, Johnny Soriano, Andres Calaque, Roberto Lavarez, Francisco Morales, Salvacion Perina, Antonio Abala, Alfonso Baldomar, Jr., Romeo Salonga, Augur Manipol, Bienvenida Tequil, Mario Elep, Aladino Latigo, Bernardine Bansal, Pedro de Baguio, Ricardo Calica, Laura Co, Vicente Recana, Elena Tolledo, Alfredo Plaza, Sr., Herminio Baldono, Felioe Yapoc, Ariston Nipa and Herminia Castillo and to pay them their backwages corresponding to a period of three (3) years without qualifications and deductions;
(2) The same respondent PVP Liner, Inc. to pay amounts to be computed in a hearing called for said purpose by the Arbitration Branch of Origin, the aforesaid complainants their claims for emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA), 13th month pay, legal holiday pay and service incentive leave benefits subject to the three-year prescriptive period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended;
(3) The dismissal of the claims on alleged illegal deductions of the respondents for lack of merits; and
(4) The dismissal of the case of Lourdes Roco due to prescription.
All other claims of the complainants and the respondents are likewise DISMISSED, for being without merit.
The Arbitration Branch of Origin is hereby directed to enforce this decision.
Panfilo’s counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration which was partially granted by the NLRC in its Order dated
Dictated,
however, by the imperatives of due process, we find it more judicious to just
remand this case for further hearing on key questions of:
1) whether or not PVP Liner Inc. was properly
impleaded as party respondent in the consolidated cases below;
2) whether or not summons was properly served on
said corporation below; and
3) whether or not the subject cases can be considered as principally money claims which have to be litigated in intestate/testate proceedings involving the estate of the late Panfilo V. Pajarillo.
WHEREFORE, our decision dated
Respondent union filed a motion for
reconsideration of the above-stated Order, but this was denied by the NLRC in
its Order dated
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the PETITION FOR CERTIORARI is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Order dated
Panfilo’s counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration of the said decision but this was denied by the appellate court
in its Resolution dated
Herein petitioners, as heirs of
Panfilo, filed the instant petition before this Court assigning the following
errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT PVP LINER INC. WAS PROPERLY MISPLEADED, WHICH IS A NON-EXISTING CORPORATION.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER AND EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE ENTITY OF PVP PAJARILLO LINER INC.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN REINSTATING THE ORDER OF THE NLRC DATED
Anent the first issue, petitioners alleged that the Decision
dated 18 June 1996 of the NLRC, ordered PVP
Liner Inc. to reinstate private respondents and pay their backwages, ECOLA,
13th month pay,
legal holiday pay and service incentive leave pay; that there was no such
entity as PVP Liner Inc. organized
and existing in the Philippines; that
it was not possible for Arbiter Asuncion and the NLRC to acquire jurisdiction over
a non-existing company; that there can never be a service of summons or notice
to a non-existent entity; that the true employer of private respondents was
Panfilo as the sole proprietor/operator of passenger buses doing business under
the tradename, PVP Liner, and not PVP Liner Inc. which was non-existent; that Panfilo never
used PVP Liner Inc. as
his tradename; that the present operator of PVP Liner buses is P.V. PAJARILLO LINER, a corporation duly registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission; that at the time the instant case was filed before
Arbiter Asuncion in 1987, the latter
did not have jurisdiction over P.V. PAJARILLO LINER because it was
organized and duly registered only on 22 January 1990; that P.V. PAJARILLO LINER has a separate and
distinct personality from Panfilo as the sole operator of PVP Liner buses;
that, therefore, P.V. PAJARILLO LINER cannot be made a party
or impleaded in the present case; that the amended complaint in NLRC/NCR Case
No. 00-08-03013-87 impleaded as
party-respondent “PANFILO V. PAJARILLO
LINER and PANFILO V. PAJARILLO, as
operator and responsible officer”; that PVP Liner Inc. was not impleaded in the instant case; and
that no summons was ever served on PVP
Liner Inc. in NLRC/NCR Case No.
00-08-03013-87.[25]
The contentions are bereft of merit.
In the Complaint dated
That respondent PVP Liner, Inc., is a private business entity, engaged in transportation of passengers, duly organized and existing pursuant to law and for this purpose maintains its principal office at 2175, Zamora Street, Sta. Ana, Manila; while individual respondent [Panfilo] is the General Manager/Operator and may be served with summons, notices and other processes at the aforementioned principal office.[26]
Panfilo did not question in his
position paper or in his motion for consolidation of the complaints the foregoing
allegations. Neither did he assail the inclusion
of PVP Liner Inc. as
party-respondent in respondent union’s position paper dated
In Panfilo’s position paper as well
as in the records of the proceedings before Arbiter Asuncion, there is nothing
that shows that Panfilo challenged the jurisdiction of Arbiter Asuncion over PVP Liner Inc. When Arbiter Asuncion decided in favor of
Panfilo, the latter said nothing about the inclusion of PVP Liner Inc. as party respondent and the lack of jurisdiction of Arbiter
Asuncion over the same. It was only when
the NLRC rendered a Decision adverse to Panfilo that the latter alleged the
non-existence of PVP Liner Inc. and
the fact that Arbiter Asuncion and the NLRC had no jurisdiction over it.
Petitioners are now precluded
from questioning the inclusion of PVP
Liner Inc. as party-respondent as well as the jurisdiction of Arbiter
Asuncion and the NLRC over them under the principle of estoppel. It is settled that the active
participation of a party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his
failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where
the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and
a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party
from later on impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction.[27] This Court has time and again frowned upon the
undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then
accepting the judgment only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of
jurisdiction when adverse.[28]
It is apparent that Panfilo V. Pajarillo Liner and PVP Liner Inc. are one and the same
entity belonging to one and the same person, Panfilo. When PVP
Liner Inc. and Panfilo V. Pajarillo
Liner were impleaded as party-respondents, it was Panfilo, through counsel,
who answered the complaints and filed the position papers, motions for
reconsideration and appeals. It was also
Panfilo, through counsel, who participated in the hearings and proceedings. In
fact, Abel Pajarillo (Abel), son of Panfilo, testified before Arbiter Asuncion
that he was the operations manager of PVP
Liner Inc.[29] Further, both Panfilo and PVP Liner Inc. were
charged jointly and severally in the aforesaid complaints.
Apropos the
second issue, petitioners alleged that the notices and summons were received by
a certain Irene G. Pajarillo (Irene) for and in behalf of the PVP Liner Inc.;
that Irene was neither and could not have been the President/Manager of PVP
Liner Inc., the latter being non-existent; and that Irene was not an officer of
P.V. Pajarillo Liner.[30]
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule
IV of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides the rule for the
service of summonses and notices in NLRC cases, viz:
Sec. 4. Service of
notices and resolutions. – a) Notices or summons and copies of orders,
resolutions or decisions shall be served personally by the bailiff or the duly
authorized public officer or by registered mail on the parties to the case
within five (5) days from receipt thereof by the serving officer.
Sec. 5. Proof and
completeness of service. – The return is prima
facie proof of the facts indicated
therein. Service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee
or his agent.[31]
Records show that Irene received the
summons for NLRC Case No. 00-01-00331-88
on
Regarding the third issue,
petitioners posited that P.V. Pajarillo
Liner Inc. is an independent corporation and cannot be considered as an adjunct
or extension of Panfilo as the sole operator of PVP Liner buses; and that at
the time P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc.
was established, it had no liability or obligation which it tried to shield or
circumvent.[34]
It is a fundamental
principle of corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and
distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be
connected. However, this separate and
distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for
convenience and to promote justice. Hence,
when the notion of separate juridical personality is used to defeat public
convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a
device to defeat labor laws, this separate personality of the corporation may be
disregarded or the veil of the corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is
merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation.
The corporate mask may be lifted and the corporate veil may be pierced when a
corporation is but the alter ego of a person or another corporation.[35]
It is apparent that Panfilo
started his transportation business as the sole owner and operator of passenger
buses utilizing the name PVP Liner
for his buses. After being charged by
respondent union of unfair labor practice, illegal deductions, illegal
dismissal and violation of labor standard laws, Panfilo transformed his
transportation business into a family corporation, namely, P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. He
and petitioners were the incorporators, stockholders and officers therein. P.V. Pajarillo Inc. and the sole
proprietorship of Panfilo have the same business address. P.V. Pajarillo Inc. also uses the name “PVP Liner” in its buses. Further, the license to operate or
franchise of the sole proprietorship was merely transferred to P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. The
testimony of Abel during the hearing before Arbiter Asuncion is revealing,
thus:
Q: Mr. Pajarillo, when did you start assuming the functions of operations manager of PVP Liner?
A: Seven years from now, sometime in the year 1984 or 1985, sir.
Q: Do you have any written appointment as Operations Manager?
A: No, sir.
Q: I noticed that your surname is Pajarillo you are one way or another related to Mr. Panfilo V. Pajarillo, is that correct?
Witness:
A: I am the son of Panfilo Pajarillo, sir.
Q: In so far as PVP Liner is concerned and being the operations manager, are you aware if it is a single proprietor or a corporation?
A: At the start it was a single proprietorship, lately, it has become a family corporation.
Atty. Flores, Jr. (to witness)
Q: When you became the Operations Manager of PVP Liner, is it a single proprietor or a family Corporation?
A: It was a single proprietorship.
Q: Mr. Witness, since PVP Liner is a transportation business it has a license to operate these buses?
A: Yes, there is, sir.
Atty. Flores, Jr. (to witness)
Q: In whose name was it registered?
A: Before it was with my father Panfilo V. Pajarillo, sir.
Q: Do
I understand that the licensing of this transportation company was transferred
to another person?
A: It was never transferred to another person, except now, that it has been transferred to a corporation.[36]
It is clear from the
foregoing that P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc.
was a mere continuation and successor of the sole proprietorship of Panfilo. It is also quite obvious that Panfilo
transformed his sole proprietorship into a family corporation in a
surreptitious attempt to evade the charges of respondent union. Given these
considerations, Panfilo and P.V.
Pajarillo Liner Inc. should be
treated as one and the same person for purposes of liability.[37]
Finally, petitioners averred
that no unfair labor practice was committed, and that private respondents were
not illegally dismissed from work.
In its Decision dated
The rule is that findings
of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded by this Court not
only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence,
or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.[38]
We find no compelling reason to deviate
from such findings of the NLRC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Consequently, the private
respondents are entitled to reinstatement, backwages and other privileges and
benefits under Article 279 of the Labor Code. Separation pay may be given in lieu of
reinstatement if the employee concerned occupies a position of trust and
confidence. In the case at bar, however,
the private respondents, as former bus drivers, conductors and conductresses of
petitioners, do not hold the
position of trust and confidence.[39]
Nonetheless, it appears
from the records that some of the private respondents, namely, Augur Manipol, Rodolfo Torres,
Ricardo Calica, Paraluman Ulang, Edith Chua, Alfredo Hoyohoy, Johnny Soriano,
Bernardo Roco, Tolentino Sanhi, Salvacion Perina, Pedro L. de Baguio, Ariston
Nipa, Felipe Yapoc, Laura Co, Bienvenida Tequil, Roberto Lavarez, Francisco
Morales and Herminio Castillo, had executed a
Quitclaim/Release discharging petitioners “from
any and all claims by way of unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime pay,
differential pay, ECOLA, 13th month pay, holiday pay, service incentive
leave pay or otherwise.”[40]
Generally, deeds of
release, waivers, or quitclaims cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to
which they are legally entitled or from contesting the legality of their
dismissal, since quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor and are frowned upon
as contrary to public policy. Where, however, the person making the waiver has
done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration
for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be
recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking.[41]
There is no showing that
the executions of these quitclaims were tainted with deceit or coercion. On the contrary, each of the private respondents’
Sinumpaang Salaysay, which
accompanied the quitclaims, evinces voluntariness and full understanding of the
execution and consequence of the quitclaim. In their said Sinumpaang Salaysay, the private respondents stated that their
lawyer had extensively explained to them the computation and the actual amount
of consideration they would receive; that they were not forced or tricked by
their lawyer in accepting the same; and that they already received the amount
of consideration.[42]
Further, the
considerations received by the private respondents were credible and reasonable
because they were not grossly disproportionate to the computation by the NLRC
of the amount of backwages and other money claims.[43]
Given these
circumstances, the quitclaims should be considered as binding on the private
respondents who executed them. It is
settled that a legitimate waiver which represents a voluntary and reasonable
settlement of a worker’s claim should be respected as the law between the
parties.[44] Accordingly, the private respondents who made
such quitclaims are already precluded from claiming reinstatement, backwages, ECOLA,
13TH month pay, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and other
monetary claims.
With regard to the other
private respondents who did not execute such quitclaims, they are entitled to
reinstatement, backwages, ECOLA, 13TH month pay, legal holiday pay
and service incentive leave pay in accordance with the computation of the NLRC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution dated 12
March 2002 and 28 August 2002, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 54330 and CA-G.R. SP No. 54331, are hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) Private respondents Augur Manipol, Rodolfo M. Torres, Ricardo
Calica, Paraluman Ulang, Edith Chua, Alfredo Hoyohoy, Johnny Soriano, Bernardo
Roco, Tolentino Sanhi, Salvacion Perina, Pedro L. de Baguio, Ariston Nipa,
Felipe Yapoc, Laura Co, Bienvenida Tequil, Roberto Lavarez, Francisco Morales
and Herminio Castillo are hereby precluded
from claiming reinstatement, backwages,
ECOLA, 13TH month pay, legal holiday pay
and service incentive leave pay by reason of their respective quitclaims; (2) Petitioners are hereby
ordered to reinstate private respondents Julian Jorvina, Florita Yapoc,
Marlon Aldana, Andres Calaque, Antonio Abala, Alfonso Baldomar, Romeo Salonga,
Mario Elep, Aladino Latigo, Bernardine Bansal, Vicente Recana, Elena Tolledo
and Alfredo Plaza, Sr., and to
pay these respondents backwages from the time of their dismissal up to the
finality of this Decision. Petitioners are also
ordered to pay the foregoing private respondents ECOLA,
13TH month pay, legal holiday pay and service incentive leave pay in
accordance with the computation of the NLRC. Costs against petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 39-56.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, concurring; rollo, pp. 9-29.
[3] Rollo, pp. 31-33.
[4]
[5] Records, Vol. I, pp. 150-155, 158-159, 166-167, 182-186 and 260-263.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Records, Vol. II, pp. 2-4.
[12] Records, Vol. I, pp. 3-4.
[13] Records, Vol. II, pp. 5 and 13.
[14] Records, Vol. I, pp. 110- 121.
[15]
[16]
[17] Rollo, pp. 86-98.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
[22] Rollo, p. 29.
[23]
[24]
[25] Id.at 45-46.
[26] Records, Vol. II, p. 2.
[27] Pastor
[28] Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Reyes, 404 Phil. 961, 973 (2001), citing Banaga v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 66386, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 599, 608.
[29] TSN,
[30] Rollo, p. 46.
[31] This has been amended by the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.
[32] Records, Vol. II, pp. 5 and 13.
[33]
[34] Rollo, p. 47.
[35] Concept Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 955, 964-965 (1996).
[36] TSN,
[37] Jacinto
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80043,
[38] Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative (NEECO) II v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 157603, 23 June 2005, 461 SCRA 169, 184-185.
[39] Vallacar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 316 Phil. 556, 561-562 (1995).
[40] Records, Vols. I and II.
[41] Wack
Wack Golf and Country Club v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
149793,
[42] Records, Vols. I and V.
[43] Records, Vol. I.
[44] Mendoza, Jr. v. San Miguel Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 158684, 16 May 2005, 458 SCRA 664, 680.