Republic of the
Supreme Court
FARLEY
FULACHE, MANOLO JABONERO, DAVID CASTILLO, JEFFREY LAGUNZAD, MAGDALENA
MALIG-ON BIGNO, FRANCISCO CABAS, JR., HARVEY PONCE and ALAN C. ALMENDRAS,
Petitioners, - versus - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 183810
Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, ABAD, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated:
January 21, 2010 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
D
E C I
S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
The
petition for review on certiorari[1]
now before us seeks to set aside the decision[2]
and resolution[3] of the
Court of Appeals, Nineteenth Division (CA) promulgated on
The Antecedents
The Regularization Case.
In
June 2001, petitioners Farley Fulache, Manolo Jabonero, David Castillo, Jeffrey
Lagunzad, Magdalena Malig-on Bigno, Francisco Cabas, Jr., Harvey Ponce and Alan
C. Almendras (petitioners) and
Cresente Atinen (Atinen) filed two separate complaints for regularization,
unfair labor practice and several money claims (regularization case)
against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation-Cebu (ABS-CBN). Fulache and Castillo were drivers/cameramen;
Atinen, Lagunzad and Jabonero were drivers;
The petitioners alleged that on December 17, 1999, ABS-CBN
and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union (Union) executed a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective December 11, 1999 to
December 10, 2002; they only became aware of the CBA when they obtained copies
of the agreement; they learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as
ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular employees, in violation of
the Labor Code. They claimed they had
already rendered more than a year of service in the company and, therefore,
should have been recognized as regular employees entitled to security of tenure
and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees. They asked that they be paid overtime, night
shift differential, holiday, rest day and service incentive leave pay. They also prayed for an award of moral
damages and attorney’s fees.
ABS-CBN explained the nature of the petitioners’ employment
within the framework of its operations.
It claimed that: it operates in several divisions, one of which is the
Regional Network Group (RNG). The
RNG exercises control and supervision over all the ABS-CBN local stations to
ensure that ABS-CBN programs are extended to the provinces. A local station,
like the
ABS-CBN further claimed that to cope with fluctuating
business conditions, it contracts on a case-to-case basis the services of
persons who possess the necessary talent, skills, training, expertise or
qualifications to meet the requirements of its programs and productions. These contracted persons are called “talents”
and are considered independent contractors who offer their services to
broadcasting companies.
Instead of salaries, ABS-CBN pointed out that talents are
paid a pre-arranged consideration called “talent fee” taken from the
budget of a particular program and subject to a ten percent (10%) withholding
tax. Talents do not undergo
probation. Their services are engaged
for a specific program or production, or a segment thereof. Their contracts are terminated once the
program, production or segment is completed.
ABS-CBN alleged that the petitioners’ services were
contracted on various dates by its
On
ABS-CBN appealed the ruling to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) Fourth Division, mainly contending that the
petitioners were independent contractors, not regular employees.[6]
The Illegal Dismissal Case.
While the appeal of
the regularization case was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen (all drivers) for their refusal to sign up
contracts of employment with service contractor Able Services. The four drivers and Atinen responded by
filing a complaint for illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal case). The
case (RAB VII Case No. 07-1300-2002) was likewise handled by Labor Arbiter
Rendoque.
In defense, ABS-CBN alleged that even before the labor
arbiter rendered his decision of
In her
Again, ABS-CBN appealed to the NLRC which rendered on
The NLRC
reversed the labor arbiter’s ruling in the illegal dismissal case; it found
that petitioners Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been
illegally dismissed and awarded them backwages and separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement. Under both cases, the petitioners were awarded CBA benefits and
privileges from the time they became regular employees up to the time of their
dismissal.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration, contending that
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad are entitled to reinstatement and full
backwages, salary increases and other CBA benefits as well as 13th
month pay, cash conversion of sick and vacation leaves, medical and dental
allowances, educational benefits and service awards. Atinen appeared to have been excluded from
the motion and there was no showing that he sought reconsideration on his own.
ABS-CBN likewise moved for the reconsideration of the
decision, reiterating that Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad were
independent contractors, whose services had been terminated due to redundancy;
thus, no backwages should have been awarded.
It further argued that the petitioners were not entitled to the CBA
benefits because they never claimed these benefits in their position paper
before the labor arbiter while the NLRC failed to make a clear and positive
finding that that they were part of the bargaining unit; neither was there
evidence to support this finding.
The NLRC resolved the motions for reconsideration on
The CA Petition and Decision
The
petitioners went to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court.[14] They
charged the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying them the
benefits under the CBA; (2) finding no evidence that they are part of the
company’s bargaining unit; (3) not reinstating and awarding backwages to
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad; and (4) ruling that they are not entitled
to damages and attorney’s fees.
ABS-CBN, on the other hand, questioned the propriety of the
petitioners’ use of a certiorari petition. It argued that the proper remedy for the
petitioners was an appeal from the reinstated decisions of the labor arbiter.
In its
decision of March 25, 2008,[15]
the appellate court brushed aside ABS-CBN’s procedural question, holding that
the petition was justified because there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
from a final decision, order or resolution of the NLRC; the reinstatement of
the labor arbiter’s decisions did not mean that the proceedings reverted back to
the level of the arbiter. It likewise
affirmed the NLRC ruling that the petitioners’ second motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the NLRC rules.[16]
On the merits of the case, the CA ruled that the
petitioners failed to prove their claim to CBA benefits since they never raised
the issue in the compulsory arbitration proceedings, and did not appeal the labor
arbiter’s decision which was silent on their entitlement to CBA benefits. The CA found that the petitioners failed to
show with specificity how Section 1 (Appropriate Bargaining Unit) and the other
provisions of the CBA applied to them.
On the illegal dismissal issue, the CA upheld the NLRC
decision reinstating the labor arbiter’s
The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA
denied the motion in a resolution promulgated on
The
Petition
The petitioners challenge the CA ruling on both procedural
and substantive grounds. As procedural questions, they submit that the CA erred
in: (1) affirming the NLRC resolution which reversed its own decision; (2)
sustaining the NLRC ruling that their second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading; (3) not ruling that ABS-CBN admitted in its position paper before the
labor arbiter that they were members of the bargaining unit as the matter was
not raised in its appeal to the NLRC; and, (4) not ruling that notwithstanding
their failure to appeal from the first decision of the Labor Arbiter, they can
still participate in the appeal filed by ABS-CBN regarding their employment
status.
On the substantive aspect, the petitioners contend that the
CA gravely erred in: (1) not considering the evidence submitted to the NLRC on
appeal to bolster their claim that they were members of the bargaining unit and
therefore entitled to the CBA benefits; (2) not ordering ABS-CBN to pay the
petitioners’ salaries, allowances and CBA benefits after the NLRC has declared that
they were regular employees of ABS-CBN; (3) not ruling that under existing
jurisprudence, the position of driver cannot be declared redundant, and that
the petitioners-drivers were illegally
dismissed; and, (4) not ruling that the petitioners were entitled to damages
and attorney’s fees.
The petitioners argue that the NLRC resolution of
On the question of their CBA coverage, the petitioners
contend that the CA erred in not considering that ABS-CBN admitted their
membership in the bargaining unit, for nowhere in its partial appeal from the
labor arbiter’s decision in the regularization case did it allege that the
petitioners failed to prove that they are members of the bargaining unit;
instead, the company stood by its position that the petitioners were not
entitled to the CBA benefits since they were independent contractors/program
employees.
The petitioners submit that while they did not appeal the labor
arbiter’s decision in the regularization case, ABS-CBN raised the employment
status issue in its own appeal to the NLRC; this appeal laid this issue open
for review. They argue that they could
still participate in the appeal proceedings at the NLRC; pursue their position
on the issue; and introduce evidence as they did in their reply to the company’s
appeal.[22] They bewail the appellate court’s failure to
consider the evidence they presented to the NLRC (consisting of documents and
sworn statements enumerating the activities they are performing) clearly
indicating that they are part of the rank-and-file bargaining unit at ABS-CBN.
The petitioners then proceeded to describe the work they
render for the company. Collectively,
they claim that they work as assistants in the production of the Cebuano news
program broadcast daily over ABS-CBN Channel 3, as follows: Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo and Lagunzad as production assistants to drive the news team; Ponce
and Almendras, to shoot scenes and events with the use of cameras owned by
ABS-CBN; Malig-on Bigno, as studio production assistant and assistant editor/teleprompter
operator; and Cabas, Jr., as production assistant for video editing and
operating the VTR machine recorder. As
production assistants, the petitioners submit that they are rank-and-file
employees (citing in support of their position the Court’s ruling in ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno[23])
who are entitled to salary increases and other benefits under the CBA. Relying on the Court’s ruling in New
Pacific Timber and Supply Company, Inc. v. NLRC,[24] they posit that to exclude them from the CBA
“would constitute undue discrimination and would deprive them of monetary
benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.”
As their final point, the petitioners argue that even
if they were not able to prove that they were members of the bargaining unit,
the CA should not have dismissed their petition. When the CA affirmed the rulings of both the
labor arbiter and the NLRC that they are regular employees, the CA should have
ordered ABS-CBN to recognize their regular employee status and to give them the
salaries, allowances and other benefits and privileges under the CBA.
On the dismissal of Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and
Lagunzad, the petitioners impute bad faith on ABS-CBN when it abolished the
positions of drivers claiming that the company failed to comply with the
requisites of a valid redundancy action.
They maintain that ABS-CBN did not present any evidence on the new
staffing pattern as approved by the management of the company, and did not even
bother to show why it considered the positions of drivers superfluous and
unnecessary; it is not true that the positions of drivers no longer existed
because these positions were contracted out to an agency that, in turn,
recruited four drivers to take the place of Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and
Lagunzad. As further indication that the
redundancy action against the four drivers was done in bad faith, the
petitioners call attention to ABS-CBN’s abolition of the position of drivers
after the labor arbiter rendered her decision declaring Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo and Lagunzad regular company employees. The petitioners object to the
dismissal of the four drivers when they refused to sign resignation letters and
join Able Services, a contracting agency, contending that the four had no
reason to resign after the labor arbiter declared them regular company employees.
Since their dismissal was illegal and attended by bad
faith, the petitioners insist that they should be reinstated with backwages, and
should likewise be awarded moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
The
Case for ABS-CBN
In its Comment filed on
1. The petition raises questions of fact
and not of law.
2. The CA committed no error in
affirming the resolution of the NLRC reinstating the decisions of the labor arbiter.
ABS-CBN submits that the petition should be dismissed for
having raised questions of fact and not of law in violation of Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. It argues that the
question of whether the petitioners were covered by the CBA (and therefore
entitled to the CBA benefits) and whether the petitioners were illegally
dismissed because of redundancy, are factual questions that cannot be reviewed
on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.
ABS-CBN dismisses the petitioners’ issues and arguments as
mere rehash of what they raised in their pleadings with the CA and as grounds
that do not warrant further consideration. It further contends that because the
petitioners did not appeal the labor arbiter decisions, these decisions had
lapsed to finality and could no longer be the subject of a petition for certiorari; the petitioners cannot
obtain from the appellate court affirmative relief other than those granted in
the appealed decision. It also argues
that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the
twin decisions of the labor arbiter, thereby affirming that no CBA benefits can
be awarded to the petitioners; in the absence of any illegal dismissal, the
petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, damages, and
attorney's fees.
The
Court's Ruling
We first resolve the parties’ procedural questions.
ABS-CBN wants the petition to be dismissed outright for its alleged failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that the petition raises only questions of law.[26]
We find no impropriety in the petition from the standpoint
of Rule 45. The petitioners do not
question the findings of facts of the assailed decisions. They question the misapplication of the law
and jurisprudence on the facts recognized by the decisions. For example, they question as contrary to law
their exclusion from the CBA after they were recognized as regular
rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN. They
also question the basis in law of the dismissal of the four drivers and the legal
propriety of the redundancy action taken against. To reiterate the established
distinctions between questions of law and questions of fact, we quote hereunder
our ruling in New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) Inc. v. Fermina S. Abad and
Rafael Susan:[27]
We also find no error in the CA’s affirmation of the denial
of the petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration of the
The parties’ other procedural questions directly bear on
the merits of their positions and are discussed and resolved below, together
with the core substantive issues of: (1)
whether the petitioners, as regular employees, are members of the bargaining
unit entitled to CBA benefits; and (2) whether petitioners Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo and Lagunzad were illegally dismissed.
The Claim for CBA Benefits
We find merit in the petitioners’ positions.
As
regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining
unit and are therefore entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract.
In the root decision (the labor
arbiter’s decision of
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, taking into account the factual scenario and the evidence adduced by both parties, it is declared that complainants in these cases are REGULAR EMPLOYEES of respondent ABS-CBN and not INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS and thus henceforth they are entitled to the benefits and privileges attached to regular status of their employment.
This declaration unequivocally
settled the petitioners’ employment status: they are ABS-CBN’s regular
employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees. These
benefits and privileges arise from entitlements under the law (specifically,
the Labor Code and its related laws), and from their employment contract as
regular ABS-CBN employees, part of which is the CBA if they fall within the
coverage of this agreement. Thus, what
only needs to be resolved as an issue for
purposes of implementation of the decision is whether the petitioners fall
within CBA coverage.
The parties’ 1999-2002 CBA provided
in its Article I (Scope of the Agreement) that:[29]
Section
1. APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. – The
parties agree that the appropriate bargaining unit shall be regular rank-and-file
employees of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION but shall not include:
a) Personnel classified as Supervisor and
Confidential employees;
b)
Personnel who are on “casual” or “probationary” status as
defined in Section 2 hereof;
c)
Personnel who are on “contract” status or who are paid for
specified units of work such as writer-producers, talent-artists, and singers.
The inclusion or
exclusion of new job classifications into the bargaining unit shall be subject
of discussion between the COMPANY and the
Under these terms, the petitioners
are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are regular rank-and-file
employees and do not belong to any of the excluded categories. Specifically,
nothing in the records shows that they are supervisory or confidential
employees; neither are they casual nor probationary employees. Most importantly,
the labor arbiter’s decision of
We see no merit in ABS-CBN’s
arguments that the petitioners are not entitled to CBA benefits because: (1) they
did not claim these benefits in their position paper; (2) the NLRC did not
categorically rule that the petitioners were members of the bargaining unit;
and (3) there was no evidence of this membership. To further clarify what we stated above, CBA
coverage is not only a question of fact, but of law and contract. The factual issue is whether the petitioners
are regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN.
The tribunals below uniformly answered this question in the affirmative.
From this factual finding flows legal effects touching on the terms and
conditions of the petitioners’ regular employment. This was what the labor arbiter meant when he
stated in his decision that “henceforth
they are entitled to the benefits and privileges attached to regular status of
their employment.” Significantly,
ABS-CBN itself posited before this Court that “the Court of Appeals did not gravely err nor gravely abuse its
discretion when it affirmed the resolution of the NLRC dated March 24, 2006
reinstating and adopting in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated
January 17, 2002 x x x.”[30]
This representation alone fully resolves all the objections – procedural or
otherwise – ABS-CBN raised on the regularization issue.
The
Dismissal of Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo
and Lagunzad
The termination of employment of the
four drivers occurred under highly questionable circumstances and with plain and
unadulterated bad faith.
The records show that the
regularization case was in fact the root of the resulting bad faith as this
case gave rise and led to the dismissal case.
First, the regularization case was filed leading to the labor
arbiter’s decision[31]
declaring the petitioners, including Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, to
be regular employees. ABS-CBN appealed
the decision and maintained its position that the petitioners were independent
contractors.
In the course of this appeal, ABS-CBN
took matters into its own hands and terminated the petitioners’ services,
clearly disregarding its own appeal then pending with the NLRC. Notably, this appeal posited that the
petitioners were not employees (whose services therefore could be terminated
through dismissal under the Labor Code); they were independent contractors
whose services could be terminated at will, subject only to the terms of their
contracts. To justify the termination of service, the company cited redundancy
as its authorized cause but offered no justificatory supporting evidence. It merely claimed that it was contracting out
the petitioners’ activities in the exercise of its management prerogative.
ABS-CBN’s intent, of course, based on
the records, was to transfer the petitioners and their activities to a service contractor
without paying any attention to the requirements of our labor laws; hence,
ABS-CBN dismissed the petitioners when they refused to sign up with the service
contractor.[32] In this manner, ABS-CBN fell into a downward
spiral of irreconcilable legal positions, all undertaken in the hope of saving
itself from the decision declaring its “talents” to be regular employees.
By doing all these, ABS-CBN forgot
labor law and its realities.
It forgot that by claiming redundancy
as authorized cause for dismissal, it impliedly admitted that the petitioners were
regular employees whose services, by law, can only be terminated for the just
and authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.
Likewise ABS-CBN forgot that it had
an existing CBA with a union, which agreement must be respected in any move
affecting the security of tenure of affected employees; otherwise, it ran the
risk of committing unfair labor practice – both a criminal and an
administrative offense.[33] It similarly forgot that an exercise of
management prerogative can be valid only if it is undertaken in good faith and
with no intent to defeat or circumvent the rights of its employees under the
laws or under valid agreements.[34]
Lastly, it forgot that there was a
standing labor arbiter’s decision that, while not yet final because of its own pending
appeal, cannot simply be disregarded. By
implementing the dismissal action at the time the labor arbiter’s ruling was
under review, the company unilaterally negated the effects of the labor
arbiter’s ruling while at the same time appealling the same ruling to the
NLRC. This unilateral move is a direct
affront to the NLRC’s authority and an abuse of the appeal process.
All these go to show that ABS-CBN
acted with patent bad faith. A close
parallel we can draw to characterize this bad faith is the prohibition against
forum-shopping under the Rules of Court.
In forum-shopping, the Rules characterize as bad faith the act of filing
similar and repetitive actions for the same cause with the intent of somehow finding
a favorable ruling in one of the actions filed.[35] ABS-CBN’s actions in the two cases, as
described above, are of the same character, since its obvious intent was to
defeat and render useless, in a roundabout way and other than through the
appeal it had taken, the labor arbiter’s decision in the regularization
case. Forum-shopping is penalized by the
dismissal of the actions involved. The
penalty against ABS-CBN for its bad faith in the present case should be no
less.
The errors and omissions do not belong
to ABS-CBN alone. The labor arbiter himself
who handled both cases did not see the totality of the company’s actions for
what they were. He appeared to have
blindly allowed what he granted the petitioners with his left hand, to be taken
away with his right hand, unmindful that the company already exhibited a badge
of bad faith in seeking to terminate the services of the petitioners whose
regular status had just been recognized.
He should have recognized the bad faith from the timing alone of
ABS-CBN’s conscious and purposeful moves to secure the ultimate aim of avoiding
the regularization of its so-called “talents.”
The NLRC, for its part, initially
recognized the presence of bad faith when it originally ruled that:
While
notice has been made to the employees whose positions were declared redundant,
the element of good faith in abolishing the positions of the complainants
appear to be wanting. In fact, it
remains undisputed that herein complainants were terminated when they refused
to sign an employment contract with Able Services which would make them appear
as employees of the agency and not of ABS-CBN.
Such act by itself clearly demonstrates bad faith on the part of the
respondent in carrying out the company’s redundancy program x x x.[36]
On motion for reconsideration by both
parties, the NLRC reiterated its “pronouncement that complainants were
illegally terminated as extensively discussed in our Joint Decision dated
The
Court cannot leave unchecked the labor tribunals’ patent grave abuse of
discretion that resulted, without doubt, in a grave injustice to the
petitioners who were claiming regular employment status and were
unceremoniously deprived of their employment soon after their regular status
was recognized. Unfortunately, the CA failed to detect the labor tribunals’
gross errors in the disposition of the dismissal issue. Thus, the CA itself joined the same errors
the labor tribunals committed.
The injustice committed on the
petitioners/drivers requires rectification.
Their dismissal was not only unjust and in bad faith as the above
discussions abundantly show. The bad
faith in ABS-CBN’s move toward its illegitimate goal was not even hidden; it dismissed
the petitioners – already recognized as regular employees – for refusing to
sign up with its service contractor.
Thus, from every perspective, the petitioners were illegally dismissed.
By law,[39] illegally
dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and
to other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time their compensation
was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. The four dismissed drivers deserve no less.
Moreover, they are also entitled to
moral damages since their dismissal was attended by bad faith.[40] For
having been compelled to litigate and to incur expenses to protect their rights
and interest, the petitioners are likewise entitled to attorney’s fees.[41]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition. The decision dated March 25, 2008 and the
resolution dated July 8, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 01838 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. Confirming that
petitioners FARLEY FULACHE, MANOLO JABONERO, DAVID CASTILLO, JEFFREY LAGUNZAD,
MAGDALENA MALIG-ON BIGNO, FRANCISCO CABAS, JR., HARVEY PONCE and ALAN C.
ALMENDRAS are regular employees of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, and
declaring them entitled to all the rights, benefits and privileges, including
CBA benefits, from the time they became regular employees in accordance with
existing company practice and the Labor Code;
2.
Declaring illegal the dismissal of
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, and ordering ABS-CBN to immediately
reinstate them to their former positions without loss of seniority rights with
full backwages and all other monetary benefits, from the time they were
dismissed up to the date of their actual reinstatement;
3. Awarding
moral damages of P100,000.00 each to Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and
Lagunzad; and,
4. Awarding attorney’s fees of 10% of the total
monetary award decreed in this Decision.
Costs
against the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO
A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE P. PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-78; Filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2]
[3]
[4] Farley Fulache, et al. v. NLRC, et al.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] LABOR CODE, Article 283.
[9] Rollo, pp. 284-299; Petition, Annex “J.”
[10]
[11] Supra note 5.
[12] Supra note 7.
[13] Rollo, pp. 311-312; Petition, Annex “L.”
[14]
[15] Supra note 2.
[16] The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, Rule VII, Section 15.
[17] Supra note 7.
[18] Supra note 3.
[19] Supra note 10.
[20] Supra note 9.
[21] Dated
[22] Rollo, pp. 193-284; Petition, Annex “I.”
[23] G.R.
No. 164156,
[24] G.R.
No. 124224,
[25] Rollo, pp. 392-446.
[26] SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
[27] G.R.
No. 161818,
[28] Supra note 19.
[29] Rollo, p. 247.
[30] Comment, p. 2, Ground No. III; rollo, p. 393.
[31] Supra note 5.
[32] Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision, p. 6, last paragraph.
[33] LABOR CODE, Article 247.
[34] San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union-PTGWO
v. Ople, G.R. No. 53515,
[35] First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115849, January 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 259.
[36] Rollo, p. 292; MRC Joint Decision, p. 9, paragraph 1.
[37]
[38]
[39] LABOR CODE, Article 279.
[40] Kay Products, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
162472,
[41] Litonjua Group of Campanies v. Vigan,
G.R. No. 143723,