FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 213696. December 9, 2015.]

QUANTUM FOODS, INC. , petitioner, vs. MARCELINO ESLOYO and

GLEN MAGSILA , respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated January
18, 2011 and the Resolution 3 dated July 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City
(CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 04622, which reversed and set aside the Decision 4 dated
February 20, 2009 and the Resolution 5 dated July 10, 2009 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC VAC No. 08-000526-2008, thereby reinstating
the Decision 6 dated December 27, 2007 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), nding respondents
Marcelino Esloyo (Esloyo) and Glen Magsila (Magsila) to have been illegally dismissed.
The Facts
Petitioner Quantum Foods, Inc. (QFI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the
distribution and selling of food products nationwide, with principal o ce located in
Brgy. Merville, Parañaque City. It hired Esloyo as Major Accounts Representative on
December 14, 1998, whose consistent good performance led to successive
promotions, until his promotion to the position of Regional Sales Manager for Visayas
and Mindanao in 2004. 7 On the other hand, it hired Magsila as Key Accounts
Representative for the Panay Area on March 1, 2005 on a probationary status and gave
him a "permanent" status on August 31, 2005. 8 In the course of their employment,
Esloyo and Magsila were each required to post a cash bond in the amount of
P10,000.00 and P7,000.00, respectively. 9
In 2006, QFI decided to reorganize its sales force nationwide following a drastic
drop in net income in 2005, and Magsila was among those retrenched. 10 In a letter 11
dated February 13, 2006, Magsila was informed of his termination effective March 31,
2006, given the option not to report for work beginning February 27, 2006, and advised
to turn over his responsibilities and clear his accountabilities to facilitate the release of
his nal pay. The corresponding Establishment Termination Report 12 of the retrenched
employees was likewise submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment.
However, Magsila's nal pay and other bene ts were not released due to alleged
discovery of unauthorized/undocumented deductions, which he purportedly failed to
explain. 13 ICHDca

Meanwhile, in response to several anonymous complaints against Esloyo for

alleged misbehavior and violations of various company rules and regulations, such as
sexual harassment, misappropriation of company funds/property, falsi cation/padding
of reports and serious misconduct, QFI's auditor, Vilma A. Almendrala, conducted an
audit/investigation in Iloilo City on March 13 to 18, 2006, 14 and submitted an Audit
Report 15 dated March 23, 2006 detailing her ndings. A Show Cause Memorandum 16
dated March 24, 2006 (March 24, 2006 Show Cause Memorandum) was thereafter
issued by QFI Human Resources (HR) Manager Rogelio Ma. J. dela Cruz (dela Cruz),
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 directing Esloyo to explain.
Esloyo submitted his written explanation denying the charges, 17 which QFI found
to be unsatisfactory. 18 Consequently, in a letter 19 dated March 31, 2006, Esloyo was
informed of his termination from work effective April 3, 2006 on the ground of loss of
trust and con dence due to his numerous violations of the company rules and
regulations.
Aggrieved, Esloyo and Magsila (respondents) led separate complaints for
illegal dismissal with money claims against QFI, its President/General Manager, Robert
N. Suarez, and its HR Manager, De la Cruz, before the NLRC, docketed as SRAB VI, Case
Nos. 04-50116-2006 and 07-50239-2006, respectively, which were subsequently
consolidated. 20 They also impleaded Dole Philippines, Inc. (Dole) as party to the case,
claiming that said company required them to perform additional tasks that were
necessary and desirable for its operations, and that Dole, as well as its Executive
personnel had created and organized QFI, and thus, should be held jointly and solidarily
liable with QFI for respondents' claims. 21
Esloyo asserted that his dismissal was illegal, claiming that: (a) the charges were
all fabricated; (b) no formal investigation was conducted; and (c) he was not given the
opportunity to confront his accusers; adding too that prior to the March 24, 2006 Show
Cause Memorandum, he received an e-mail memorandum directing him to report to the
head office for re-assignment but was, instead, placed on floating status. 22 Magsila, on
the other hand, averred that there was no valid retrenchment as the losses claimed by
QFI were unsubstantiated and that he was merely replaced. 23
For its part, QFI maintained that respondents' dismissals were valid, hence, it is
not liable for their money claims. 24 On the other hand, Dole denied any employer-
employee relationship with respondents. 25
The LA Ruling
In a Decision 26 dated December 27, 2007, the LA found respondents to have
been illegally dismissed, and ordered QFI to pay them their respective backwages, 13th
month pay, unpaid salaries, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one (1)
month pay for every year of service, and refund of their cash bonds, or a total monetary
judgment of P1,817,856.71, 27 plus 10% attorney's fees.
The LA held that Esloyo's dismissal was tainted with malice and bad faith, nding
that: (a) he was not given the opportunity to refute the charges leveled against him, as
instead of conducting an administrative investigation, QFI ordered his re-assignment
and thereafter placed him on " oating status"; and (b) the audit report submitted was
based on unveri ed statements. The LA likewise found no substantial evidence to
support the charges against Esloyo, and thus, ruled that the claim of loss of trust and
confidence was without basis. 28
In the same vein, the LA declared Magsila's dismissal to be illegal, holding that
there could be no valid retrenchment since a replacement was hired even before the
effectivity of the latter's dismissal, noting too, that the dismissal was effected only
after he had acted as witness for Esloyo in the sexual harassment charge. 29
On the other hand, Dole was deleted as party to the case, upon a nding that it
has no employer-employee relationship with respondents; while the impleaded QFI
officials were absolved from personal liability. 30
Dissatis ed, QFI led its Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal 31 before
the NLRC on February 8, 2008, accompanied by: ( a ) a Motion to Reduce Bond 32
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 averring that it was encountering di culty raising the amount of the bond and nding
an insurance company that can cover said amount during the short period of time
allotted for an appeal; and (b) a cash bond in the amount of P400,000.00 (partial bond).
33 TCAScE

Respondents led a motion to dismiss the appeal for QFI's failure: (a) to attach a
Veri cation and Certi cation of Non-Forum Shopping as required by the New Rules and
Procedure of the NLRC; and (b) to post a bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary
judgment as mandated by law. 34
QFI thereafter moved to admit its Veri cation/Certi cation for Non-Forum
Shopping and related documents, explaining that the failure to attach said documents
was due to the inadvertence of its counsel who was just recovering from the open
cholecystectomy performed on him, and that the appeal was based on meritorious
grounds. Subsequently, but before the NLRC could act on the Motion to Reduce Bond, it
posted a surety bond from an accredited insurance company fully covering the
monetary judgment, which respondents vehemently opposed. 35
The NLRC Ruling
In a Decision 36 dated February 20, 2009, the NLRC denied respondents' motion
to dismiss and gave due course to QFI's appeal, holding that: (a) the lack of veri cation
was a formal defect that could be cured by requiring an oath; 37 (b) the belated ling of
the certi cate of non-forum shopping may be allowed under exceptional circumstances
as technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice; 38 and
(c) there was substantial compliance with the bond requirement, and merit in QFI's
appeal that would justify a liberal application of the requirement on the timely ling of
the appeal bond. 39
Contrary to the LA's ruling, the NLRC held that respondents were not illegally
dismissed. 40 It gave credence to the audit report which showed the various infractions
committed by Esloyo in violation of the company rules and regulations, and in breach of
the con dence reposed on him, warranting his dismissal. 41 It also found substantial
evidence to support the losses suffered by QFI, and thus, declared Magsila's dismissal
to prevent losses as a valid exercise of the management's prerogative. 42 ASEcHI

Consequently, the NLRC deleted the awards of backwages, 13th month pay, and
attorney's fees in favor of respondents for lack of basis, but sustained: (a) the award of
separation pay in favor of Magsila who was dismissed for an authorized cause; and (b)
the refund of respondents' cash bonds in the absence of proof that the same had been
returned by QFI. 43
Respondents led a motion for reconsideration, 44 which was denied in a
Resolution 45 dated July 10, 2009, prompting them to elevate the matter on certiorari
before the CA. 46
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 47 dated January 18, 2011, the CA reversed and set aside the
NLRC's ruling and reinstated the LA's Decision. It ruled that QFI's failure to post the
required bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary judgment impeded the
perfection of its appeal, and rendered the LA's Decision nal and executory. 48 Thus, the
NLRC was bereft of jurisdiction and abused its discretion in entertaining the appeal. 49
It also held that the posting of the partial bond together with the Motion to Reduce
Bond did not stop the running of the period to perfect the appeal, considering that: (a)
the grounds relied upon by QFI are not meritorious; and (b) the partial bond posted was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 not reasonable in relation to the monetary judgment. 50
The CA further observed that the appeal led on February 8, 2008 was plagued
with several in rmities that effectively prevented its perfection, noting that: (a) there
was no showing that de la Cruz, who led/signed the petition, was authorized to
represent QFI and sign the verification; and (b) it was unaccompanied by a certi cate of
non-forum shopping. Accordingly, it found no compelling reason to justify the relaxation
of the rules. 51
Undeterred, QFI led a motion for reconsideration 52 which was denied in a
Resolution 53 dated July 4, 2014; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The central issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in
ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in giving due course to
QFI's appeal.
The Court's Ruling
There is merit in the petition.
In labor cases, the law governing appeals from the LA's ruling to the NLRC is
Article 229 54 of the Labor Code which provides:
ART. 229. Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are
nal and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties
within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.
Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
(a) If there is a prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of
the Labor Arbiter;
(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
(c) If made purely on questions of law; and
(d) If serious errors in the ndings of facts are raised which would cause
grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by
the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited
by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in
the judgment appealed from .
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In this relation, Section 4, Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC (the Rules) enumerates the requisites for the perfection of appeal, viz.:
55

Section 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. — a) The appeal shall be: 1) led
within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) veri ed by
the appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court, as amended; 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall
state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief
prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed
decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies;
and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii)
posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a
certi cate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 parties. ITAaHc

b) A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other

requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for
perfecting an appeal .
xxx xxx xxx (Emphases supplied)
Notably, while QFI timely led its Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal,
it was only accompanied by a partial bond with a Motion to Reduce Bond, and not a
bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary judgment, the effects of which will be
discussed later. The appeal likewise suffered from the following de ciencies, inter alia:
(a) the veri cation was signed by QFI HR Manager dela Cruz, without the requisite
board resolution authorizing him to sign for and in behalf of QFI; and ( b ) it was
unaccompanied by a Certi cate of Non-Forum Shopping. Nonetheless, QFI
subsequently submitted its Veri cation/Certi cation of Non-Forum Shopping and
related documents, explaining that the failure to attach said documents was due to the
inadvertence of its counsel who was then recuperating from the open cholecystectomy
performed on him, and that the appeal was based on meritorious grounds. 56
In China Banking Corp. v. Mondragon Int'l. Phils., Inc. , 57 the Court had the
occasion to rule that the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf
of a petitioner corporation justi es the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of
allowing its petition to be given due course. 58 Besides, the veri cation of a pleading is
a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the
matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the court or tribunal may
simply order the correction of unveri ed pleadings or act on them and waive strict
compliance with the rules, 59 as the NLRC did.
On the other hand, the certi cation requirement is rooted in the principle that a
party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as
this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure. However, under justi able
circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such
certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. 60
In the present case, it is apparent that the plausible merit of the case was the
"special circumstance" or "compelling reason" 61 that prompted the NLRC to relax the
certi cation requirement and give due course to QFI's appeal as it, in fact, arrived at a
contrary ruling from that of the LA. It is well to emphasize that technical rules are not
binding in cases submitted before the NLRC. In fact, labor o cials are enjoined to use
every and reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and
objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due
process. 62 Consequently, the NLRC cannot be faulted for relaxing its own rules in the
interest of substantial justice.
Coming now to the bond requirement, while it has been settled that the posting
of a cash or surety bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving monetary awards from the decision of the LA, 63 in several cases, 64 the Court
has relaxed this stringent requirement whenever justi ed. Thus, the Rules — speci cally
Section 6, Rule VI — thereof, allow the reduction of the appeal bond upon a showing of:
(a) the existence of a meritorious ground for reduction, and (b) the posting of
a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award , to wit:
SEC. 6. Bond. — In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional
Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award,
exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
xxx xxx xxx
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a
reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award .
The mere ling of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the
requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to
perfect an appeal. 65 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In this regard, it bears stressing that the reduction of the bond provided
thereunder is not a matter of right on the part of the movant and its grant still lies within
the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of meritorious grounds and the
reasonableness of the bond tendered under the circumstances. 66 The requirement on
the existence of a "meritorious ground" delves on the worth of the parties' arguments,
taking into account their respective rights and the circumstances that attend the case.
67

In Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corp. , 68 the Court summarized the guidelines under
which the NLRC must exercise its discretion in considering an appellant's motion for
reduction of bond in this wise:
"[T]he bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been
and may be relaxed in meritorious cases. These cases include instances in
which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding
facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3)
a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the
desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants,
at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a
partial bond during the reglementary period." 69CHTAIc

Here, QFI posted a partial bond in the amount of P400,000.00, or more than
twenty percent (20%) of the monetary judgment, within the reglementary period to
appeal, together with the Motion to Reduce Bond anchored on its averred di culty in
raising the amount of the bond and searching for an insurance company that can cover
said amount within the short period of time to perfect its appeal. Before the NLRC
could even act on the Motion to Reduce Bond, QFI posted a surety bond from an
accredited insurance company covering fully the judgment award.
However, the CA held that the grounds relied upon by QFI are not meritorious,
and that the partial bond posted was not reasonable in relation to the monetary
judgment.
Case law has held that for purposes of justifying the reduction of the appeal
bond, the merit referred to may pertain to (a) an appellant's lack of nancial
capability to pay the full amount of the bond, or (b) the merits of the main
appeal such as when there is a valid claim that there was no illegal dismissal to justify
the award, the absence of an employer-employee relationship, prescription of claims,
and other similarly valid issues that are raised in the appeal. 70
In this case, the NLRC held that a liberal application of the requirement on the
timely ling of the appeal bond is justi ed, nding that (a) the posting of a P400,000.00
cash bond within the reglementary period to appeal and the subsequent posting of a
surety bond constitute substantial compliance of the bond requirement; and (b) there is
merit in QFI's appeal.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 As to what constitutes "a reasonable amount of bond" that must accompany the
motion to reduce bond in order to suspend the period to perfect an appeal, the Court, in
McBurnie v. Ganzon, 71 pronounced: cHDAIS

To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of

Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond
are effectively carried out, without however defeating the bene ts of the bond
requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond that
are to be led with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of
a cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is
subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the
reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an appellant's
motion is pending resolution by the Commission . In conformity with the
NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for the purpose of computing the necessary
appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorney's fees. Only after the posting
of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an
appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended. 72 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Hence, the posting of a P400,000.00 cash bond equivalent to more than 20% of the
monetary judgment, together with the Motion to Reduce Bond within the reglementary
period was su cient to suspend the period to perfect the appeal. The posting of the
said partial bond coupled with the subsequent posting of a surety bond in an amount
equivalent to the monetary judgment also signi ed QFI's good faith and willingness to
recognize the final outcome of its appeal. 73
In determining the reasonable amount of appeal bonds, however, the Court
primarily considers the merits of the motions and the appeals. 74 Thus, in Rosewood
Processing, Inc. v. NLRC , 75 the Court considered the posting of a P50,000.00 bond
together with the motion to reduce bond as substantial compliance with the legal
requirements of an appeal from a P789,154.39 monetary award "[c]onsidering the clear
merits which appear, res ipsa loquitor, in the appeal from the labor arbiter's Decision
and the petitioner's substantial compliance with rules governing appeals." 76
It should be emphasized that the NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the
motion to reduce bond, 77 and its ruling will not be disturbed unless tainted with grave
abuse of discretion. Verily, an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be
tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, 78 which clearly
is not extant with respect to the NLRC's cognizance of QFI's appeal. Far from having
gravely abused its discretion, the NLRC correctly preferred substantial justice over the
rigid and stringent application of procedural rules. This, by all means, is not a case of
grave abuse of discretion calling for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, 79 warranting
the reversal of the CA's ruling granting the certiorari petition and the remand of the case
to the CA for appropriate action.
WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Decision dated January 18, 2011
and the Resolution dated July 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R.
CEB-SP No. 04622 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The case is REMANDED to
the CA for appropriate action.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 1. Rollo, pp. 9-31.
2. Id. at 38-47. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Associate Justices
Edgardo L. delos Santos and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
3. Id. at 50-51. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. delos Santos with Associate Justices
Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
4. Id. at 142-160. Penned by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy with Presiding Commissioner Violeta
Ortiz-Bantug and Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon concurring.
5. Id. at 174-175.
6. Id. at 111-128. Penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Danilo C. Acosta.

7. Id. at 52-53.
8. Id. at 97-98.
9. Id. at 113 and 119.
10. Id. at 98.
11. Id. at 107.

12. Id. at 105-106.

13. Id. at 123.
14. Id. at 53 and 65.
15. Id. at 60-64.

16. Id. at 65-67.

17. See letter dated March 25, 2006; id. at 68-70.
18. Id. at 53.
19. Id. at 71-74.
20. Id. at 111.

21. Id. at 119.

22. Id. at 114.
23. Id. at 119.
24. Id. at 54-58 and 99-101.
25. Id. at 120.

26. Id. at 111-128.

27. Monetary award to
Esloyo P1,451,464.22 (id. at 127)
Magsila 366,392.49 (id. at 128)
––––––––––––
Total monetary award P1,817,856.71
===========
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 28. Id. at 125-126.
29. Id. at 126.
30. Id. at 127.

31. Id. at 129-138.

32. Id. at 139-140.
33. Id. at 144.
34. Id. at 143.

35. Id. at 143-144.

36. Id. at 142-160.
37. Id. at 145.
38. Id. at 145-146.
39. Id. at 146.

40. Id. at 153.

41. Id.
42. Id. at 158.
43. Id. at 158-159.
44. Dated May 21, 2009; id. at 161-172.

45. Id. at 174-175.

46. See Petition for Certiorari dated October 16, 2009; id. at 176-203.
47. Id. at 38-47.
48. Id. at 43-44.

49. Id. at 44.

50. Id.
51. Id. at 43-46.
52. Dated February 15, 2011; id. at 246-262.
53. Id. at 50-51.

54. Formerly Article 223. Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015, on Renumbering of the
Labor Code of the Philippines, as Amended.

55. The applicable NLRC Rules of Procedure as QFI's Notice of Appeal was filed on February
8, 2008.
56. Rollo, p. 143.

57. 511 Phil. 760 (2005).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 58. Id. at 766, citing Pascual and Santos, Inc. v. Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood
Assoc., Inc., 485 Phil. 113, 122 (2004).
59. Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, 681 Phil. 536, 547 (2012).
60. See People v. De Grano, 606 Phil. 547, 563 (2009).
61. See Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, 477 Phil. 540, 554 (2004).
62. Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 187722, June 10, 2013,
698 SCRA 103, 117-118. See also Article 227 of the Labor Code, formerly Article 223.
Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015; Section 10, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of
Procedure.
63. Philippine Touristers, Inc. v. MAS Transit Workers Union-Anglo-KMU, G.R. No. 201237,
September 3, 2014, 734 SCRA 298, 309-310.

64. See Beduya v. Ace Promotion and Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 195513, June 22, 2015,
citing Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, January 29, 2014,
715 SCRA 1; Mendoza v. HMS Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 187232, April 17, 2013,
696 SCRA 794; Pasig Cylinder Manufacturing, Corporation v. Rollo, 644 Phil. 588
(2010); Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, 555 Phil. 275 (2007); Nueva Ecija I
Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 44 (2000); Rosewood Processing, Inc. v.
NLRC, 352 Phil. 1013 (1998); Fernandez v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 65 (1998); and Manila
Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC, 332 Phil. 354 (1996).
65. Philippine Touristers, Inc. v. MAS Transit Workers Union-Anglo-KMU, supra note 63, at 310.
66. Id.
67. McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034, 178117, and 186984-85, October 17, 2013, 707
SCRA 646, 679.
68. 555 Phil. 275 (2007).

69. Id. at 292.

70. McBurnie v. Ganzon, supra note 67 at 679-680.
71. Id.
72. Id. at 678-679.
73. See id. at 677.

74. Id. at 684.

75. 352 Phil. 1013 (1998).
76. Id. at 1031.
77. Garcia v. KJ Commercial, 683 Phil. 376, 389 (2012).
78. Philippine Touristers, Inc. v. MAS Transit Workers Union-Anglo-KMU, supra note 63, at 313.

79. See Aujero v. Phil. Communications Satellite Corp., 679 Phil. 463, 477-478 (2012).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com