jurisprudence silp 2

8/18/2019 Jurisprudence SILP 2

1/8

G.R. No. 156367 May 16, 2005

AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner,vs.ANTONIO BAUTISTA, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resol!tion" of the Co!rtof #ppeals affir$ing the Decision% of the National &a'or Relations Co$$ission (N&RC). *he N&RCr!ling $odified the Decision of the &a'or #r'iter (finding respondent entitled to the award of%th $onth pa+ and service incentive leave pa+) '+ deleting the award of %th $onth pa+ torespondent.

THE !ACTS

Since " -a+ /, respondent #ntonio Ba!tista has 'een e$plo+ed '+ petitioner #!to B!s*ransport S+ste$s, Inc. (#!to'!s), as driver0cond!ctor with travel ro!tes -anila0*!g!egarao viaBag!io, Bag!io0 *!g!egarao via -anila and -anila0*a'!1 via Bag!io. Respondent was paid onco$$ission 'asis, seven percent (23) of the total gross inco$e per travel, on a twice a $onth'asis.

On 4% 5an!ar+ "444, while respondent was driving #!to'!s No. along Sta. 6e, N!eva 7i8ca+a,the '!s he was driving accidentall+ '!$ped the rear portion of #!to'!s No. ", as the latter vehicles!ddenl+ stopped at a sharp c!rve witho!t giving an+ warning.

Respondent averred that the accident happened 'eca!se he was co$pelled '+ the $anage$ent to

go 'ac1 to Ro9as, Isa'ela, altho!gh he had not slept for al$ost twent+0fo!r (") ho!rs, as he had :!st arrived in -anila fro$ Ro9as, Isa'ela. Respondent f!rther alleged that he was not allowed towor1 !ntil he f!ll+ paid the a$o!nt of P2/,//./4, representing thirt+ percent (%43) of the cost ofrepair of the da$aged '!ses and that despite respondent;s pleas for reconsideration, the sa$e wasignored '+ $anage$ent. #fter a $onth, $anage$ent sent hi$ a letter of ter$ination.

*h!s, on 4" 6e'r!ar+ "444, respondent instit!ted a Co$plaint for Illegal Dis$issal with -one+Clai$s for nonpa+$ent of % th $onth pa+ and service incentive leave pa+ against #!to'!s.

Petitioner, on the other hand, $aintained that respondent;s e$plo+$ent was replete with offensesinvolving rec1less i$pr!dence, gross negligence, and dishonest+. *o s!pport its clai$, petitionerpresented copies of letters, $e$os, irreg!larit+ reports, and warrants of arrest pertaining to several

incidents wherein respondent was involved.

6!rther$ore, petitioner avers that in the e9ercise of its $anage$ent prerogative, respondent;se$plo+$ent was ter$inated onl+ after the latter was provided with an opport!nit+ to e9plain his sideregarding the accident on 4% 5an!ar+ "444.

On " Septe$'er "444, 'ased on the pleadings and s!pporting evidence presented '+ the parties,&a'or #r'iter -onroe C. *a'ingan pro$!lgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads


2/8

=>ERE6ORE, all pre$ises considered, it is here'+ fo!nd that the co$plaint for IllegalDis$issal has no leg to stand on. It is here'+ ordered DIS-ISSED, as it is here'+DIS-ISSED.

>owever, still 'ased on the a'ove0disc!ssed pre$ises, the respondent $!st pa+ to theco$plainant the following<

a. his %th $onth pa+ fro$ the date of his hiring to the date of his dis$issal, presentl+co$p!ted at P2?,2.?2@

'. his service incentive leave pa+ for all the +ears he had 'een in service with therespondent, presentl+ co$p!ted at P%,2??.4/.

#ll other clai$s of 'oth co$plainant and respondent are here'+ dis$issed for lac1 of $erit./

Not satisfied with the decision of the &a'or #r'iter, petitioner appealed the decision to the N&RCwhich rendered its decision on "? Septe$'er "44, the decretal portion of which reads<

A*he R!les and Reg!lations I$ple$enting Presidential Decree No. ?/, partic!larl+ Sec. %provides<

Section %. E$plo+ers covered. *he Decree shall appl+ to all e$plo+ers e9cept to<

999 999 999

e) e$plo+ers of those who are paid on p!rel+ co$$ission, 'o!ndar+, or tas1 'asis,perfor$ing a specific wor1, irrespective of the ti$e cons!$ed in the perfor$ancethereof. 999.

Records show that co$plainant, in his position paper, ad$itted that he was paid on a

co$$ission 'asis.

In view of the foregoing, we dee$ it :!st and e!ita'le to $odif+ the assailed Decision '+deleting the award of %th $onth pa+ to the co$plainant.

F

=>ERE6ORE, the Decision dated " Septe$'er "444 is -ODI6IED '+ deleting the awardof %th $onth pa+. *he other findings are #66IR-ED.G

In other words, the award of service incentive leave pa+ was $aintained. Petitioner th!s so!ght areconsideration of this aspect, which was s!'se!entl+ denied in a Resol!tion '+ the N&RC dated

% Octo'er "44.

Displeased with onl+ the partial grant of its appeal to the N&RC, petitioner so!ght the review of saiddecision with the Co!rt of #ppeals which was s!'se!entl+ denied '+ the appellate co!rt in aDecision dated 4G -a+ "44", the dispositive portion of which reads<

=>ERE6ORE, pre$ises considered, the Petition is DIS-ISSED for lac1 of $erit@ and theassailed Decisionof respondent Co$$ission in N&RC NCR C# No. 4"G/?0"444 is here'+

#66IR-ED in toto. No costs.2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt7


3/8

>ence, the instant petition.

ISSUES

. =hether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave@

". =hether or not the three (%)0+ear prescriptive period provided !nder #rticle " of the &a'orCode, as a$ended, is applica'le to respondent;s clai$ of service incentive leave pa+.

RU"ING O! THE COURT

*he disposition of the first iss!e revolves aro!nd the proper interpretation of #rticle / of the &a'orCode vis-à-visSection (D), R!le 7, Boo1 III of the I$ple$enting R!les and Reg!lations of the &a'or Code which provides<

Art. 95 . RIH>* *O SER7ICE INCEN*I7E &E#7E

(a) Ever+ e$plo+ee who has rendered at least one +ear of service shall 'e entitled toa +earl+ service incentive leave of five da+s with pa+.

Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

SECTION 1. Coverage. *his r!le shall appl+ to all e$plo+ees e9cept<

F

(d) 6ield personnel and other e$plo+ees whose perfor$ance is !ns!pervised '+ thee$plo+er incl!ding those who are engaged on tas1 or contract 'asis, p!rel+co$$ission 'asis, or those who are paid in a fi9ed a$o!nt for perfor$ing wor1irrespective of the ti$e cons!$ed in the perfor$ance thereof@ . . .

# caref!l per!sal of said provisions of law will res!lt in the concl!sion that the grant of serviceincentive leave has 'een deli$ited '+ the I$ple$enting R!les and Reg!lations of the &a'or Code toappl+ onl+ to those e$plo+ees not e9plicitl+ e9cl!ded '+ Section of R!le 7. #ccording to theI$ple$enting R!les, Service Incentive &eave shall not appl+ to e$plo+ees classified as fieldpersonnel. *he phrase other e$plo+ees whose perfor$ance is !ns!pervised '+ the e$plo+er$!st not 'e !nderstood as a separate classification of e$plo+ees to which service incentive leaveshall not 'e granted. Rather, it serves as an a$plification of the interpretation of the definition of fieldpersonnel !nder the &a'or Code as those whose act!al ho!rs of wor1 in the field cannot 'edeter$ined with reasona'le certaint+.?

*he sa$e is tr!e with respect to the phrase those who are engaged on task or contract basis,

purely commission basis." Said phrase sho!ld 'e related with field personnel, appl+ing the r!leon ejusdem generis that general and !nli$ited ter$s are restrained and li$ited '+ the partic!larter$s that the+ follow. >ence, e$plo+ees engaged on tas1 or contract 'asis or paid on p!rel+co$$ission 'asis are not a!to$aticall+ e9e$pted fro$ the grant of service incentive leave, !nless,the+ fall !nder the classification of field personnel.

*herefore, petitioner;s contention that respondent is not entitled to the grant of service incentiveleave :!st 'eca!se he was paid on p!rel+ co$$ission 'asis is $isplaced. =hat $!st 'e ascertained

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt9


4/8

in order to resolve the iss!e of propriet+ of the grant of service incentive leave to respondent iswhether or not he is a field personnel.

#ccording to #rticle ?" of the &a'or Code, field personnel shall refer to non0agric!lt!ral e$plo+eeswho reg!larl+ perfor$ their d!ties awa+ fro$ the principal place of '!siness or 'ranch office of thee$plo+er and whose act!al ho!rs of wor1 in the field cannot 'e deter$ined with reasona'le

certaint+. *his definition is f!rther ela'orated in the ureau o! orking Conditions #C$, %dvisory&pinion to Philippine 'echnical-Clerical Commercial (mployees %ssociation4 which states that<

#s a general r!le, Afield personnel are those whose perfor$ance of their :o'service is nots!pervised '+ the e$plo+er or his representative, the wor1place 'eing awa+ fro$ theprincipal office and whose ho!rs and da+s of wor1 cannot 'e deter$ined with reasona'lecertaint+@ hence, the+ are paid specific a$o!nt for rendering specific service or perfor$ingspecific wor1. )! re*uired to be at speci!ic places at speci!ic times, employees includingdrivers cannot be said to be !ield personnel despite the !act that they are per!orming workaway !rom the principal o!!ice o! the employee. AE$phasis o!rs

*o this disc!ssion '+ the B=C, the petitioner differs and post!lates that !nder said advisor+ opinion,

no e$plo+ee wo!ld ever 'e considered a field personnel 'eca!se ever+ e$plo+er, in one wa+ oranother, e9ercises control over his e$plo+ees. Petitioner f!rther arg!es that the onl+ criterion thatsho!ld 'e considered is the nat!re of wor1 of the e$plo+ee in that, if the e$plo+ee;s :o' re!iresthat he wor1s awa+ fro$ the principal office li1e that of a $essenger or a '!s driver, then he isinevita'l+ a field personnel.

=e are not pers!aded. #t this point, it is necessar+ to stress that the definition of a field personnelis not $erel+ concerned with the location where the e$plo+ee reg!larl+ perfor$s his d!ties '!t alsowith the fact that the e$plo+ee;s perfor$ance is !ns!pervised '+ the e$plo+er. #s disc!ssed a'ove,field personnel are those who reg!larl+ perfor$ their d!ties awa+ fro$ the principal place of'!siness of the e$plo+er and whose actual hours o! work in the !ield cannot be determined withreasonable certainty . *h!s, in order to concl!de whether an e$plo+ee is a field e$plo+ee, it is alsonecessar+ to ascertain if act!al ho!rs of wor1 in the field can 'e deter$ined with reasona'le

certaint+ '+ the e$plo+er. In so doing, an in!ir+ $!st 'e $ade as to whether or not the e$plo+ee;sti$e and perfor$ance are constantl+ s!pervised '+ the e$plo+er.

#s o'served '+ the &a'or #r'iter and conc!rred in '+ the Co!rt of #ppeals<

It is of :!dicial notice that along the ro!tes that are plied '+ these '!s co$panies, there areits inspectors assigned at strategic places who 'oard the '!s and inspect the passengers,the p!nched tic1ets, and the cond!ctor;s reports. *here is also the $andator+ once0a0wee1car 'arn or shop da+, where the '!s is reg!larl+ chec1ed as to its $echanical, electrical, andh+dra!lic aspects, whether or not there are pro'le$s thereon as reported '+ the driverandor cond!ctor. *he+ too, $!st 'e at specific place as Asic specified ti$e, as the+generall+ o'serve pro$pt depart!re and arrival fro$ their point of origin to their point of

destination. In each and ever+ depot, there is alwa+s the Dispatcher whose f!nction isprecisel+ to see to it that the '!s and its crew leave the pre$ises at specific ti$es and arriveat the esti$ated proper ti$e. *hese, are present in the case at 'ar. *he driver, theco$plainant herein, was therefore !nder constant s!pervision while in the perfor$ance ofthis wor1. >e cannot 'e considered a field personnel.

=e agree in the a'ove dis!isition. *herefore, as correctl+ concl!ded '+ the appellate co!rt,respondent is not a field personnel '!t a reg!lar e$plo+ee who perfor$s tas1s !s!all+ necessar+

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt11


5/8

and desira'le to the !s!al trade of petitioner;s '!siness. #ccordingl+, respondent is entitled to thegrant of service incentive leave.

*he !estion now that $!st 'e addressed is !p to what a$o!nt of service incentive leave pa+respondent is entitled to.

*he response to this !er+ inevita'l+ leads !s to the correlative iss!e of whether or not the three (%)0+ear prescriptive period !nder #rticle " of the &a'or Code is applica'le to respondent;s clai$ ofservice incentive leave pa+.

#rticle " of the &a'or Code states that all $one+ clai$s arising fro$ e$plo+er0e$plo+eerelationship shall 'e filed within three (%) +ears fro$ the ti$e the ca!se of action accr!ed@ otherwise,the+ shall 'e forever 'arred.

In the application of this section of the &a'or Code, the pivotal !estion to 'e answered is whendoes the ca!se of action for $one+ clai$s accr!e in order to deter$ine the rec1oning date of thethree0+ear prescriptive period.

It is settled :!rispr!dence that a ca!se of action has three ele$ents, to wit, () a right in favor of theplaintiff '+ whatever $eans and !nder whatever law it arises or is created@ (") an o'ligation on thepart of the na$ed defendant to respect or not to violate s!ch right@ and (%) an act or o$ission on thepart of s!ch defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constit!ting a 'reach of the o'ligation ofthe defendant to the plaintiff."

*o properl+ constr!e #rticle " of the &a'or Code, it is essential to ascertain the ti$e when the thirdele$ent of a ca!se of action transpired. Stated differentl+, in the co$p!tation of the three0+earprescriptive period, a deter$ination $!st 'e $ade as to the period when the act constit!ting aviolation of the wor1ers; right to the 'enefits 'eing clai$ed was co$$itted. 6or if the ca!se of actionaccr!ed $ore than three (%) +ears 'efore the filing of the $one+ clai$, said ca!se of action hasalread+ prescri'ed in accordance with #rticle ".%

Conse!entl+, in cases of nonpa+$ent of allowances and other $onetar+ 'enefits, if it is esta'lishedthat the 'enefits 'eing clai$ed have 'een withheld fro$ the e$plo+ee for a period longer than three(%) +ears, the a$o!nt pertaining to the period 'e+ond the three0+ear prescriptive period is therefore'arred '+ prescription. *he a$o!nt that can onl+ 'e de$anded '+ the aggrieved e$plo+ee shall 'eli$ited to the a$o!nt of the 'enefits withheld within three (%) +ears 'efore the filing of theco$plaint.

It is essential at this point, however, to recogni8e that the service incentive leave is a c!rio!s ani$alin relation to other 'enefits granted '+ the law to ever+ e$plo+ee. In the case of service incentiveleave, the e$plo+ee $a+ choose to either !se his leave credits or co$$!te it to its $onetar+e!ivalent if not e9ha!sted at the end of the +ear ./ 6!rther$ore, if the e$plo+ee entitled to serviceincentive leave does not !se or co$$!te the sa$e, he is entitled !pon his resignation or separation

fro$ wor1 to the co$$!tation of his accr!ed service incentive leave. #s en!nciated '+ the Co!rtin +ernande v. /C


6/8

wor1ing, incl!ding a!thori8ed a'sences and paid reg!lar holida+s !nless the wor1ing da+s inthe esta'lish$ent as a $atter of practice or polic+, or that provided in the e$plo+$entcontracts, is less than " $onths, in which case said period shall 'e considered as one+ear. It is also "commutable to its money e*uivalent i! not used or e0hausted at the end o!the year." )n other words, an employee who has served !or one year is entitled to it. 1e mayuse it as leave days or he may collect its monetary value. *o li$it the award to three +ears,

as the solicitor general reco$$ends, is to !nd!l+ restrict s!ch right.2

AItalics s!pplied

Correspondingl+, it can 'e conscientio!sl+ ded!ced that the ca!se of action of an entitled e$plo+eeto clai$ his service incentive leave pa+ accr!es fro$ the $o$ent the e$plo+er ref!ses tore$!nerate its $onetar+ e!ivalent if the e$plo+ee did not $a1e !se of said leave credits '!tinstead chose to avail of its co$$!tation. #ccordingl+, if the e$plo+ee wishes to acc!$!late hisleave credits and opts for its co$$!tation !pon his resignation or separation fro$ e$plo+$ent, hisca!se of action to clai$ the whole a$o!nt of his acc!$!lated service incentive leave shall arisewhen the e$plo+er fails to pa+ s!ch a$o!nt at the ti$e of his resignation or separation fro$e$plo+$ent.

#ppl+ing #rticle " of the &a'or Code in light of this pec!liarit+ of the service incentive leave, we

can concl!de that the three (%)0+ear prescriptive period co$$ences, not at the end of the +ear whenthe e$plo+ee 'eco$es entitled to the co$$!tation of his service incentive leave, '!t fro$ the ti$ewhen the e$plo+er ref!ses to pa+ its $onetar+ e!ivalent after de$and of co$$!tation or !ponter$ination of the e$plo+ee;s services, as the case $a+ 'e.

*he a'ove constr!al of #rt. ", vis-à-vis the r!les on service incentive leave, is in 1eeping with ther!di$entar+ principle that in the i$ple$entation and interpretation of the provisions of the &a'orCode and its i$ple$enting reg!lations, the wor1ing$an;s welfare sho!ld 'e the pri$ordial andpara$o!nt consideration.? *he polic+ is to e9tend the applica'ilit+ of the decree to a greater n!$'er of e$plo+ees who can avail of the 'enefits !nder the law, which is in consonance with the avowedpolic+ of the State to give $a9i$!$ aid and protection to la'or .

In the case at 'ar, respondent had not $ade !se of his service incentive leave nor de$anded for its

co$$!tation !ntil his e$plo+$ent was ter$inated '+ petitioner. Neither did petitioner co$pensatehis acc!$!lated service incentive leave pa+ at the ti$e of his dis$issal. It was onl+ !pon his filing ofa co$plaint for illegal dis$issal, one $onth fro$ the ti$e of his dis$issal, that respondentde$anded fro$ his for$er e$plo+er co$$!tation of his acc!$!lated leave credits. >is ca!se ofaction to clai$ the pa+$ent of his acc!$!lated service incentive leave th!s accr!ed fro$ the ti$ewhen his e$plo+er dis$issed hi$ and failed to pa+ his acc!$!lated leave credits.

*herefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his clai$ for service incentive leave pa+ onl+co$$enced fro$ the ti$e the e$plo+er failed to co$pensate his acc!$!lated service incentiveleave pa+ at the ti$e of his dis$issal. Since respondent had filed his $one+ clai$ after onl+ one$onth fro$ the ti$e of his dis$issal, necessaril+, his $one+ clai$ was filed within the prescriptiveperiod provided for '+ #rticle " of the &a'or Code.

#HERE!ORE, pre$ises considered, the instant petition is here'+ DENIED. *he assailed Decisionof the Co!rt of #ppeals in C#0H.R. SP. No. G?%/ is here'+ #66IR-ED. No Costs.

SO OR$ERE$.

Puno, #Chairman$, %ustria-2artine, Callejo, 3r., and 'inga, 44., conc!r.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#fnt19


7/8

!oo%&o%'(

C#0H.R. SP No. G?%/, dated 4G -a+ "44", penned '+ #ssociate 5!stice #ndres B. Re+es,

5r. with #ssociate 5!stices Conrado -. 7as!e8, 5r. and -ario &. H!ariJa, III, conc!rring.

" Dated " Dece$'er "44".

% N&RC NCR C# No. 4"G/?0"444 (N&RC Case No. R#B C#R 4"044??044), dated "?Septe$'er "44.

N&RC Case No. R#B0C#R04"044??044.

/ Rollo, pp. G02.

G Rollo, pp. /"0/%.

2 C# Decision, p. 4@ Rollo, p. ".

? See -ercidar 6ishing Corporation v. N&RC, H.R. No. "/2, 4? Octo'er ?, "2SCR#4.

Ce'! Instit!te of *echnolog+ v. Ople, H.R. No. &0/??24, ? Dece$'er ?2, /G SCR#G", G2", citing7era v. C!evas, H.R. No. &0%%G%, % -a+ 2, 4 SCR# %2.

4 4G #pril ?@ Rollo. p. "4.

Rollo, pp. /0G.

" Baliwag *ransit, Inc. v. Ople, H.R. No. /2G", G -arch ?, 2 SCR# "/4, citing #gric.Credit K Cooperative 6inancing #d$inistration v. #lpha Ins. K S!ret+ Co., Inc., H.R. No. &0"/GG, " 5!l+ G?, " SCR# /@ S!$$it H!arant+ and Ins!rance Co., Inc. v. DeH!8$an, H.R. No. &0/42, %4 5!ne ?2, / SCR# %?@ *or$on v. C!tanda, H.R. No. &0?2?/, "% Dece$'er G%, SCR# G?.

% See De H!8$an, et al. v. C# and Nasipit &!$'er Co., H.R. No.%""/2, " Octo'er ?,"2 SCR# 2%.

See E. Han8on, Inc. v. N&RC, H.R. No. "%2G, "" Dece$'er , %" SCR# %.

/ 6ernande8 v. N&RC, H.R. No. 4/?", "? 5an!ar+ ?, % Phil G/.

G )bid .

2 )bid., pp. 0/.

? #'ella v. N&RC, H.R. No. &02?%, "4 5!l+ ?2, /" SCR# 4, citing 7ol1schel &a'orUnion v. B!rea! of &a'or Relations, H.R. No. &0/?", 5!ne ?/, %2 SCR# %.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_112574_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_112574_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_132257_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_132257_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_123769_1999.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_123769_1999.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/gr_105892_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_112574_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_132257_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_123769_1999.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/gr_105892_1998.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt18


8/8

Sar$iento v. E$plo+ees; Co$pensation Co$$ission, H.R. No. &0G?G?, " Septe$'er?G, SCR# ", citing Cristo'al v. E$plo+ees; Co$pensation Co$$ission, H.R. No. &0"?4, "G 6e'r!ar+ ?, 4% SCR# %"@ #costa v. E$plo+ees; Co$pensationCo$$ission, H.R. No. &0//G, " Nove$'er ?, 4 SCR# "4.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_156367_2005.html#rnt19

jurisprudence silp 2

Documents