Philippine Clearing House vs Magtaan, G.R. No. 247775, Nov.
10, 2021
FACTS:
Petitioner hired respondent as a secretary and assigned her to the following offices: Personnel and
Administrative Department, Comptrollers Group, and the Office of the President.
On January 16, 2014, petitioner assigned respondent to the office of Gil A. Lim, Vice President for
Operations Group (VP Lim), as Executive Assistant.
Due to the continuing rise in the manpower cost of petitioner, its Board of Directors (Board)
approved on January 30, 2014 the recommendation of the Human Resources and Remunerations
Committee to implement the Manpower Rationalization Study (MRS), a program designed to
evaluate petitioner's actual manpower requirements in relation to recent job movements.
Through the purported MRS, petitioner determined that the positions under the Operations Group,
which included the respondent's position, were redundant. However, the Board deferred action
on the MRS pending further review of the company's internal processes and table of
organization.
On January 1, 2015, VP Lim voluntarily resigned from the service. Consequently, petitioner issued
a Notice dated February 2, 2015 terminating respondent from employment due to
redundancy effective March 31, 2015.
On February 11, 2015, petitioner filed an Establishment Termination Report with the Department of
Labor and Employment and paid respondent the following amounts: P528,071.00 as redundancy
pay; P16,837.27 as net terminal leave pay; and P368.331.56 as net severance benefit pay. In
exchange, respondent signed a quitclaim in favor of petitioner.
On May 22, 2015, respondent filed a complaint with the LA alleging that petitioner illegally
dismissed her from employment in the guise of redundancy.
The LA ruled in favor of petitioner. It found that petitioner had complied with all the requisites for a
valid redundancy program. It upheld the Deed of Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim17 (Quitclaim)
signed by the respondent; thus, releasing petitioner from any liability.
The NLRC likewise granted the appeal of respondent and reversed the ruling of the LA on the
following grounds: (1) the resignation of VP Lim could not have made the position of respondent
redundant; (2) the unsigned and undated MRS of petitioner is without probative value; (3) the
Affidavit of the HRD Manager, a mere replica of the pleadings of petitioner, is self-serving and a
mere afterthought; and (4) the Quitclaim which respondent signed does not prevent her from filing
a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The CA agreed with the NLRC that petitioner failed to comply with all the requisites for a valid
redundancy program rendering respondent's dismissal illegal.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner was in bad faith in declaring the position of respondent as redundant.
RULING: (YES)
Petitioner failed to prove that the
position of respondent as
secretary/executive assistant was
redundant.
In the case of Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines v. Macapagal, the Court held that:
Redundancy is an authorized cause for termination of employment under Article
298 (formerly, Article 283) of the Labor Code. It exists when "the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual
requirements of the enterprise." It can be due to "a number of factors, such as
the over-hiring of workers, a decrease in the volume of business, or the
dropping of a particular line or service previously manufactured or undertaken
by the enterprise. The determination of whether the employees" services are no
longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore, properly terminable for redundancy,
is an exercise of business judgment. In making such decision, however,
management must not violate the law nor declare redundancy without sufficient
basis. To ensure that the dismissal is not implemented arbitrarily, jurisprudence
requires the employer to prove, among others, its good faith in abolishing the
redundant positions as well as the existence of fair and reasonable criteria in the
selection of employees who will be dismissed from employment due to redundancy.
Such fair and reasonable criteria may include, but are not limited to: (a) less
preferred status, i.e., temporary employee; (b) efficiency: and (c) seniority.
In terminating employees due to redundancy, it is not enough for the employer to merely declare that a
position had become redundant. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal
of the affected employees.
In the case, the sole evidence which petitioner submitted to prove redundancy was the undated and
unsigned copy of the MRS. In holding that the MRS was of doubtful authenticity and lacked probative value,
the NLRC aptly explained:
While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not
controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must
at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.
Stated otherwise. We cannot rely on this document for lack of probative value.
The MRS being undated and unsigned by the HRD Manager, there is indeed nothing to support the
allegation of petitioner that its HRD Manager conducted a prior study of the redundancy program to
justify the termination of respondent for redundancy.
At any rate, even if the Court gives probative value to the unsigned and undated MRS, the NLRC keenly
observed that it was still subject to the approval of the Board. Petitioner itself stated that the Board deferred
acting on the MRS in order to conduct further review of the company's internal processes and table of
organization. However, petitioner initially failed to present the Board's approval of the MRS. Petitioner failed
to do so until it filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated April 15, 2016
holding it liable for illegal dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated November 6, 2018 and the Resolution dated
June 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 147435 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in
that the award of moral and exemplary damages to respondent Alicia O. Magtaan in the amount of P30,000.00 each
is DELETED.
The total judgment award shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision
until its full satisfaction.
Respondent Alicia O. Magtaan is ORDERED to return the separation pay package she received from petitioner
Philippine Clearing House Corporation as part of the redundancy program by deducting their amounts from her
present monetary awards.
The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the amounts due to respondent Alicia O.
Magtaan and for the immediate execution of this Decision.
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 247775. November 10, 2021 ]
PHILIPPINE CLEARING HOUSE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ALICIA O. MAGTAAN, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision2 dated November 6, 2018 and the
Resolution3 dated June 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147435 which affirmed the
Resolutions dated April 15, 20164 and June 30, 20165 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in
NLRC LAC No. 01-000475-16/NLRC NCR Case No. 05-05986-15. The NLRC reversed and set aside the
Decision6 dated December 28, 2015 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) and held that Philippine Clearing House Corporation
(petitioner) illegally dismissed respondent Alicia O. Magtaan (respondent) from employment.
The Antecedents
In November 1998, petitioner hired respondent as a secretary and assigned her to the following offices: Personnel
and Administrative Department, Comptrollers Group, and the Office of the President.7
On January 16, 2014, petitioner assigned respondent to the office of Gil A. Lim, Vice President for Operations Group
(VP Lim), as Executive Assistant.8
Due to the continuing rise in the manpower cost of petitioner, its Board of Directors (Board) approved on January
30, 2014 the recommendation of the Human Resources and Remunerations Committee to implement the Manpower
Rationalization Study (MRS), a program designed to evaluate petitioner's actual manpower requirements in relation
to recent job movements.9
Through the purported MRS, petitioner determined that the positions under the Operations Group, which included
the respondent's position, were redundant. However, the Board deferred action on the MRS pending further review
of the company's internal processes and table of organization.10
On January 1, 2015, VP Lim voluntarily resigned from the service.11 Consequently, petitioner issued a Notice dated
February 2, 2015 terminating respondent from employment due to redundancy effective March 31, 2015.12
On February 11, 2015, petitioner filed an Establishment Termination Report13 with the Department of Labor and
Employment and paid respondent the following amounts: P528,071.00 as redundancy pay; P16,837.27 as net
terminal leave pay; and P368.331.56 as net severance benefit pay. In exchange, respondent signed a quitclaim in
favor of petitioner.14
On May 22, 2015, respondent filed a complaint with the LA alleging that petitioner illegally dismissed her from
employment in the guise of redundancy.15
Ruling of the LA
In the Decision16 dated December 28, 2015, the LA ruled in favor of petitioner. It found that petitioner had complied
with all the requisites for a valid redundancy program. It upheld the Deed of Release, Waiver, and
Quitclaim17 (Quitclaim) signed by the respondent; thus, releasing petitioner from any liability.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 with the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
In the Resolution19 dated January 29, 2016, the NLRC considered the Motion for Reconsideration of respondent as
a memorandum of appeal. However, the NLRC dismissed her appeal for nonperfection as her pleading lacked the
required verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
On February 1, 2016, respondent filed a Manifestation with Motion to Admit20 attaching therewith the required
Verification and Certificate of Non-forum Shopping.21 On February 22, 2016, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Supplemental Appeal22 for the NLRC to reconsider its Resolution dated January 29, 2016 and
eventually reverse the LA's Decision dated December 28, 2015.
In the Resolution23 dated April 15, 2016, the NLRC admitted the Verification and Certificate of Non-forum Shopping
of respondent and reinstated her appeal. The NLRC determined that the failure of respondent to file the required
Verification and Certificate of Non-forum Shopping was due to mere inadvertence warranting the relaxation of the
technical rules of procedure.
The NLRC likewise granted the appeal of respondent and reversed the ruling of the LA on the following grounds: (1)
the resignation of VP Lim could not have made the position of respondent redundant; (2) the unsigned and undated
MRS24 of petitioner is without probative value; (3) the Affidavit25 of the HRD Manager, a mere replica of the
pleadings of petitioner, is self-serving and a mere afterthought; and (4) the Quitclaim which respondent signed does
not prevent her from filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of the NLRC ruling reads:
x x x The Decision dated December 28, 2015 of the Labor Arbiter is
also REVERSED and SET-ASIDE by declaring the dismissal of Alicia O. Magtaan
from employment as illegal. Philippine Clearing House Corporation is hereby
ORDERED to immediately reinstate appellant to her former position or any
substantially equivalent position, pay appellant's full backwages counted from the
date of dismissal until the finality of judgment and without loss of seniority rights and
privileges, as well as MORAL DAMAGES in the amount of Php30,000.00 and
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the amount of Php30,0000, plus attorney's fees
equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. All the amounts received by
appellant by reason of her termination from work shall be deducted from the total
monetary awards as herein granted. In the event that there shall be an excess after
deducting the amount that she had previously received from the amount that she is
entitled in this case, complainant shall refund such excess to respondent.
SO ORDERED.26
Petitioner moved for a partial reconsideration of the NLRC ruling and submitted for the first time the signed MRS
dated November 10, 2014 and the Board Resolution approving the MRS dated December 4, 2014 as proof of
redundancy.27
In the Resolution28 dated June 30, 2016, the NLRC did not admit petitioner's belatedly submitted signed MRS and
Board Resolution; and denied its Partial Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition29 for Certiorari with the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision30 dated November 6, 2018, the CA agreed with the NLRC that petitioner failed to comply with all the
requisites for a valid redundancy program rendering respondent's dismissal illegal.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it in the Resolution31 dated June 3, 2019.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner imputes error on the part of the CA in holding that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
reinstating the appeal of respondent. It argues that respondent cannot invoke her lack of legal knowledge in failing
to attach a Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping to her appeal as she was represented by her counsel
at the time of its filing. As such, the NLRC should not have relaxed the technical rules of procedure in favor of
respondent as rules are only relaxed to benefit the deserving.32
Petitioner likewise argues that contrary to the findings of the NLRC and the CA, the company fully complied with all
the requisites in terminating respondent's employment on the ground of redundancy. It contends that the removal of
the respondent's position was carried out in good faith, there being no need for secretarial work due to the collapse
of the Operations Group.33
Anent the Quitclaim signed by respondent, petitioner maintains that the deed should be upheld in the absence of
any evidence that it forced or intimidated respondent to do it.34
Issues
1. Whether the CA erred in upholding the reinstatement of the respondent's
appeal.
2. Whether petitioner was in bad faith in declaring the position of respondent as
redundant.
3. Whether the Quitclaim signed by respondent barred her from filing a
complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
Ruling of the Court
It is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules). In this regard, in Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa
Pilipinas v. PLDT, Inc.,35 the Court explained its approach on a decision of the CA in a labor case, to wit:
In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in
contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65.
Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the
assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA
decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was
presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it
correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the
NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the
merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the
CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision
challenged before it.36
The CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not
gravely abuse its discretion in reinstating
respondent's appeal.
It is well settled that noncompliance or defect in the verification does not necessarily render a pleading fatally
defective. A tribunal may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served.37
As to the certification against forum shopping, noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rules
on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."38
In reinstating the appeal of respondent and admitting her belatedly submitted Verification and Certificate of Non-
Forum Shopping, the NLRC primarily determined that her appeal was impressed with merit. The NLRC likewise
found that respondent had substantially complied with the rules because she submitted the required Verification and
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping nine days before having been notified of the dismissal of her appeal. In so ruling,
the NLRC cited the similar case of Millenium Erectors Corporation v. Magallanes,39 ratiocinating as follows:
x x x In Millenium, the Labor Arbiter denied the employee's claim of illegal
dismissal. The employee wanted to appeal but had mistakenly filed a Motion for
Reconsideration before the NLRC. Taking note of the merits of the employee's
arguments, however, the NLRC treated the Motion for Reconsideration as an appeal
and proceeded to rule the case in his favor despite the lack of verification, want of
proof of service, and said motion being filed out of time. The employer appealed the
case until he reached the Supreme Court which upheld the ruling of the NLRC. In
this case, complainant filed said motion within the 10-day reglementary period, paid
the appeal fees and forwarded a copy thereof to respondents. We. therefore, take a
liberal approach of the rules and reinstate appellant's appeal.40
Indeed, technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the parties.41 Besides, the Court has
consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.42 It is intended
to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Similarly, the rules on forum
shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not be
interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective,43 especially when
the party's case is impressed with merit.
Indubitably, the CA did not err in agreeing with the NLRC that respondent must be afforded the amplest opportunity
for the proper and just determination of her appeal.
Petitioner failed to prove that the position of
respondent as secretary/executive assistant
was redundant.
In the case of Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines v. Macapagal,44 the Court held that:
Redundancy is an authorized cause for termination of employment under Article
298 (formerly, Article 283) of the Labor Code. It exists when "the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements
of the enterprise." It can be due to "a number of factors, such as the over-hiring of
workers, a decrease in the volume of business, or the dropping of a particular line or
service previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. The determination
of whether the employees" services are no longer necessary or sustainable, and
therefore, properly terminable for redundancy, is an exercise of business judgment.
In making such decision, however, management must not violate the law nor declare
redundancy without sufficient basis. To ensure that the dismissal is not implemented
arbitrarily, jurisprudence requires the employer to prove, among others, its good faith
in abolishing the redundant positions as well as the existence of fair and reasonable
criteria in the selection of employees who will be dismissed from employment due to
redundancy. Such fair and reasonable criteria may include, but are not limited to: (a)
less preferred status, i.e., temporary employee; (b) efficiency: and (c)
seniority.45 (Emphasis and italics omitted.)
In terminating employees due to redundancy, it is not enough for the employer to merely declare that a position had
become redundant. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected
employees.46
In the case, the sole evidence which petitioner submitted to prove redundancy was the undated and unsigned copy
of the MRS. In holding that the MRS was of doubtful authenticity and lacked probative value, the NLRC aptly
explained:
While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not
controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must
at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.
Stated otherwise. We cannot rely on this document for lack of probative value.47
The MRS being undated and unsigned by the HRD Manager, there is indeed nothing to support the allegation of
petitioner that its HRD Manager conducted a prior study of the redundancy program to justify the termination of
respondent for redundancy.
At any rate, even if the Court gives probative value to the unsigned and undated MRS, the NLRC keenly observed
that it was still subject to the approval of the Board. Petitioner itself stated that the Board deferred acting on the
MRS in order to conduct further review of the company's internal processes and table of organization. However,
petitioner initially failed to present the Board's approval of the MRS. Petitioner failed to do so until it filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated April 15, 2016 holding it liable for illegal dismissal.
The CA aptly held that the NLRC committed
no grave abuse of discretion in brushing aside
the belatedly submitted evidence of petitioner.
While labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, are not precluded from receiving evidence submitted on appeal, any delay
in the submission of evidence should be sufficiently explained and should adequately prove the allegations sought
to be proven to dispel doubt on its credibility.48
Here, petitioner did not provide any adequate explanation for its failure to present at the earliest opportunity the
signed MRS dated November 10, 2014 and Board Resolution dated December 4, 2014. It was only after the NLRC's
unfavorable Resolution dated April 15, 2016 that it presented the documents. Indeed, the unjustified and belated
submission of the pieces of evidence is a derision of the legal processes casting doubt on the credibility of the
evidence, especially when they are not even newly discovered evidence.
It is evident that respondent's termination was an offshoot of the resignation of VP Lim of the Operations Group. But
his resignation cannot in any way equate to declaring respondent's position as redundant in the absence of
competent proof that his resignation led to the collapse of the Operations Group; thus, rendering respondent's
services as having exceeded the reasonable work demands of petitioner. The CA correctly held:
Nowhere in the unsigned and undated MRS, or in the belatedly submitted
signed MRS dated November 10, 2014, that respondent's position, a secretary, was
declared redundant. It was mentioned only in the belatedly submitted Board
Resolution dated December 4, 2014 where it declared the abolition of the
Operations Group Head position, including respondent's position, but without
providing any reason why respondent's position was abolished along with that of the
Operations Group Head position considering that she functions not in a line position
but as administrative support only.49 (Italics supplied.)
Incidentally, petitioner Memorandum dated January 5, 2015 debunked the petitioner's allegation that the Operations
Group was abolished. Under the Memorandum, it appears that petitioner appointed one Frenildo D. Anoyon to act
as the Officer-in-Charge of the Operations Group.50 Petitioner having failed to contradict the authenticity and
admissibility of the memorandum, the NLRC and the CA correctly gave it weight and credence.
Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing
labor complaints and from demanding
benefits to which they are legally entitled.
Waivers and quitclaims executed by employees are generally frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. This
is based on the recognition that employers and employees do not stand on equal footing51 because, in desperate
situations, employees are willing to bargain away their rights. Here, respondent signed the Quitclaim on her belief
that petitioner would withhold her much needed separation pay package amidst the harsh reality of unemployment.
Hers, then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. As such, she is deemed not to have waived any of her
rights52 and is not barred to pursue what is legally due to her by reason of her illegal dismissal.
All told, the Court sees no cogent reason to overturn the NLRC ruling, as affirmed by the CA, that petitioner illegally
dismissed respondent from employment. As aptly held by the NLRC, respondent should be immediately reinstated
to her former position or any substantially equivalent position with full back wages without loss of seniority rights and
privileges.
For having been compelled to litigate, respondent is likewise entitled to reasonable attorney's fees at the rate of
10% of the total monetary award pursuant to Article 220853 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Court hereby
imposes legal interest on the monetary awards at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this
Decision until its full payment.
However, the Court sees the need to delete the award of moral and exemplary damages to respondent.
Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes
an act oppressive to labor or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs, or public policy.
Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.54
Here, while petitioner failed to establish the presence of redundancy to justify the termination of respondent from
employment, the Court is aware of its attempt to comply with all the requisites of redundancy. Notably, petitioner
even paid respondent more than the separation pay package provided for employees dismissed for authorized
causes. In addition to the redundancy pay of P528,071.00, petitioner also paid her severance benefit in the net
amount of P368,331.56 although she was not entitled thereto under the company Retirement Plan. Likewise,
petitioner gave her net terminal leave pay in the amount of P16,837.27. To the Court, the dismissal of respondent,
although considered invalid, was not done in a malevolent or oppressive manner; thus the deletion of the award of
moral and exemplary damages in her favor in the amount of P30,000.00 each.
Lastly, following the principle against unjust enrichment which is held applicable in labor cases, respondent should
return the separation pay package she received from petitioner as part of the redundancy program by deducting
their amounts from her present monetary awards.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 6, 2018 and the Resolution dated June 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 147435 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the
award of moral and exemplary damages to respondent Alicia O. Magtaan in the
amount of P30,000.00 each is DELETED.
The total judgment award shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.
Respondent Alicia O. Magtaan is ORDERED to return the separation pay
package she received from petitioner Philippine Clearing House Corporation as part
of the redundancy program by deducting their amounts from her present monetary
awards.
The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the
amounts due to respondent Alicia O. Magtaan and for the immediate execution of
this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, (Chairperson), Hernando, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, Vol. I. pp. 9-61.
2 Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 646-657; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices
Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (a retired Member of the Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
3 Id. at 707-708.
4 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 331-342; penned by Commissioner Alan A. Ventura with Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus,
concurring.
5 Id. at 432-436; penned by Commissioner Alan A. Ventura with Presiding Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog
III and Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus, concurring.
6 Id. at 215-231; penned by Labor Arbiter Lila S. Savari.
7 Rollo, Vol. II, p. 647.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Rollo. Vol. I, p. 221.
12 Rollo. Vol. II, p. 648.
13 Rollo, Vol. I, p. 77-78.
14 Rollo, Vol. II, p. 648.
15 Id.
16 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 215-231.
17 Id. at 87-88.
18 Id. at 232-235.
19 Id. at 245-249.
20 Id. at 237-241.
21 Id. at 242-243.
22 Id. at 295-318.
23 Id. at 331-342.
24 Id. at 72-75.
25 Id. at 91-96.
26 Id. at 340-341.
27 See Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated April 27, 2016, id. at 343-366.
28 Id. at 432-436.
29 Id. at 437-494.
30 Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 646-657
31 Id. at 707-708.
32 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 33-39
33 Id. at 39-52.
34 Id. at 52-57.
35 809 Phil. 106 (2017).
36 Id. at 121, citing Career Philippines Shipmanagemcnt, Inc. v. Serna, 700 Phil. 1, 9 (2012), further
citing Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, 613 Phil. 696, 707 (2009)
37 Id., citing Fernando v. Villegas, 741 Phil. 689, 697-698 (2014)
38 Id.
39 649 Phil. 199 (2010).
40 Rollo, Vol. 1. p. 333.
41 Mendoza v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., G.R. No. 248479 (Notice), November 20, 2019, citing 721 Phil.
867, 875 (2013)
42 Id., citing LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, 515 Phil. 768, 776 (2006).
43 Id., citing Palao, v. Florentino III International Inc., 803 Phil. 393, 402 (2017), citing Shipside Inc. v.
CA, 404 Phil. 981, 994 (2001)
44 G.R. No. 232669, July 29, 2019.
45 Id. Citations omitted.
46 Yulo v. Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 235873, January 21, 2019.
47 Rollo, Vol. I, p. 336.
48 Associated Labor Unions-TUCP v. Del Monte Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 247943 (Notice), August 19,
2020.
49 Rollo, Vol. II, p. 654.
50 Id. at 776.
51 Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development Services, Inc., G.R. No. 200811,
June 19, 2019, citing Sicangco v. National Labor Relations Commission, 305 Phil. 102, 105 (1994).
52 Id., citing Land and Housing Development Corporation v. Esquillo, 508 Phil. 478, 487 (2005).
53 Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
54 Bayview Management Consultants, Inc. v. Pre, G.R. No. 220170, August 19, 2020. 1a⍵⍴h!1
