sme bank vs. de guzman

8/9/2019 SME Bank vs. de Guzman

1/18

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 184517 October 8, 2013

SME BANK NC., ABE!AR"O P. SAMSON, O!GA SAMSON #$% AURE!O &!!A'!OR,

(R., Petitioners,vs.PEREGRN T. "E GU)MAN,E"UAR"O M. AGUSTN, (R., E!CERO GASPAR, , RCAR"O

GASPAR (R., EU'EMA ROSETE, '"E! ESPRTU, SMEONESPRTU, (R., #$% !BERATO

MANGOBA, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 18**41

SME BANK NC., ABE!AR"O P. SAMSON, O!GA SAMSON #$% AURE!O &!!A'!OR,

(R., Petitioners,vs.E!CERO GASPAR, RCAR"O GASPAR, (R., EU'EMA ROSETE, '"E! ESPRTU,

SMEONESPRTU, (R., #$% !BERATO MANGOBA, Respondents.

D E C ! " N

SERENO, CJ.:

!ecurit# of tenure is a constitutionall# $uaranteed ri$ht.% E&plo#ees &a# not be ter&inated fro&their re$ular e&plo#&ent except for 'ust or authori(ed causes under the )abor Code* and otherpertinent la+s. A &ere chan$e in the euit# co&position of a corporation is neither a 'ust nor anauthori(ed cause that +ould le$all# per&it the dis&issal of the corporations e&plo#ees en &asse.

Before this Court are consolidated Rule / Petitions for Revie+ on Certiorari0 assailin$ theDecision and Resolution/ of the Court of Appeals1CA2 in CA-3.R. !P No. 45/%6 and itsDecision7 and Resolution5 in CA-3.R. !P No. 454*.

8he facts of the case are as follo+s9

Respondent e&plo#ees Elicerio 3aspar 1Elicerio2, Ricardo 3aspar, :r.1Ricardo2, Eufe&ia Rosete

1Eufe&ia2, ;idel Espiritu 1;idel2, !i&eon Espiritu, :r. 1!i&eon, :r.2, and )iberato Man$oba 1)iberato2+ere e&plo#ees of !&all and Mediu& Enterprise Ban


2/18

Accordin$l#, ne$otiations ensued, and a for&al offer +as &ade to !a&son. 8hrou$h his attorne#-in-fact, 8o&as !. 3o&e( >, !a&son then sent for&al letters 1)etter A$ree&ents2 to A$ustin and De3u(&an, de&andin$ the follo+in$ as preconditions for the sale of !ME Ban


3/18


4/18

doc


5/18

He disa$ree. Hhile resi$nation letters containin$ +ords of $ratitude &a# indicate that the e&plo#ees+ere not coerced into resi$nation,6 this fact alone is not conclusive proof that the# intelli$entl#, freel#and voluntaril# resi$ned. 8o rule that resi$nation letters couched in ter&s of $ratitude are, b#the&selves, conclusive proof that the e&plo#ees intended to relinuish their posts +ould open theflood$ates to possible abuse. n order to +ithstand the test of validit#, resi$nations &ust be &adevoluntaril# and +ith the intention of relinuishin$ the office, coupled +ith an act of

relinuish&ent.%

8herefore, in order to deter&ine +hether the e&plo#ees trul# intended to resi$nfro& their respective posts, +e cannot &erel# rel# on the tenor of the resi$nation letters, but &ustta


6/18

A$ain, +e disa$ree.

8he la+ per&its an e&plo#er to dis&iss its e&plo#ees in the event of closure of the businessestablish&ent./*o+ever, the e&plo#er is reuired to serve +ritten notices on the +or


7/18

n the case at bar, the )etter A$ree&ents sho+ that their &ain ob'ect is the acuisition b# the!a&son 3roup of =7.07/F of the shares of stoc< of !ME Ban


8/18

Hhere such transfer of o+nership is in $ood faith, the transferee is under no le$al dut# to absorb thetransferors e&plo#ees as there is no la+ co&pellin$ such absorption. 8he &ost that the transferee&a# do, for reasons of public polic# and social 'ustice, is to $ive preference to the ualifiedseparated e&plo#ees in the fillin$ of vacancies in the facilities of the purchaser.

!ince the petitioners +ere effectivel# separated fro& +or< due to a bona fide chan$e of o+nership

and the# +ere accordin$l# paid their separation pa#, +hich the# freel# and voluntaril# accepted, theprivate respondent corporation +as under no obli$ation to e&plo# the& it &a#, ho+ever, $ive the&preference in the hirin$. x x x. 1Citations o&itted2

He ta


9/18

8he CA and the N)RC discussed the case of !i&eon, :r. to$ether +ith that of the rest of respondent-e&plo#ees. o+ever, a revie+ of the records sho+s that the conditions leadin$ to his dis&issal fro&e&plo#&ent are different. He thus discuss his circu&stance separatel#.

8he !a&son 3roup contends that !i&eon, :r., li


10/18

8he settled rule is that an e&plo#er +ho ter&inates the e&plo#&ent of its e&plo#ees +ithout la+fulcause or due process of la+ is liable for ille$al dis&issal.=4

None of the parties dispute that !ME Ban< +as the e&plo#er of respondent e&plo#ees. 8he factthat there +as a chan$e in the co&position of its shareholders did not affect the e&plo#er-e&plo#eerelationship bet+een the e&plo#ees and the corporation, because an euit# transfer affects neither

the existence nor the liabilities of a corporation. 8hus, !ME Ban< continued to be the e&plo#er ofrespondent e&plo#ees not+ithstandin$ the euit# chan$e in the corporation. 8his outco&e is in line+ith the rule that a corporation has a personalit# separate and distinct fro& that of its individualshareholders or &e&bers, such that a chan$e in the co&position of its shareholders or &e&bers+ould not affect its corporate liabilities.

8herefore, +e conclude that, as the e&plo#er of the ille$all# dis&issed e&plo#ees before and afterthe euit# transfer, petitioner !ME Ban< is liable for the satisfaction of their clai&s.

8urnin$ no+ to the liabilit# of A$ustin, De 3u(&an and the !a&son 3roup for ille$al dis&issal, at theoutset +e point out that there is no privit# of e&plo#&ent contracts bet+een A$ustin, De 3u(&anand the !a&son 3roup, on the one hand, and respondent e&plo#ees on the other. Rather, the

e&plo#&ent contracts +ere bet+een !ME Ban< and the e&plo#ees. o+ever, this fact does not&ean that A$ustin, De 3u(&an and the !a&son 3roup &a# not be held liable for ille$al dis&issal ascorporate directors or officers. n Bo$o-Medellin !u$arcane Planters Association, nc. v. N)RC,46 +elaid do+n the rule as re$ards the liabilit# of corporate directors and officers in ille$al dis&issal cases,as follo+s9

Jnless the# have exceeded their authorit#, corporate officers are, as a $eneral rule, not personall#liable for their official acts, because a corporation, b# le$al fiction, has a personalit# separate anddistinct fro& its officers, stoc


11/18

constructivel# dis&issed. Not bein$ corporate directors or officers, spouses !a&son +ere not inle$al control of the ban< and conseuentl# had no po+er to dis&iss its e&plo#ees.

Respondent e&plo#ees ar$ue that the !a&son 3roup had alread# ta


12/18

As to &oral da&a$es, exe&plar# da&a$es and attorne#s fees, +e uphold the appellate courts$rant thereof based on our findin$ that the forced resi$nations and retire&ent +ere fraudulentl# doneand attended b# bad faith.

HERE;"RE, pre&ises considered, the instant Petitions for Revie+ are PAR8A))? 3RAN8ED.

8he assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA 3.R. !P No. 45/%6 dated %0March *66= and % !epte&ber *66=,respectivel#, are hereb# RE>ER!ED and !E8 A!DE insofar asit held Abelardo P. !a&son, "l$a !a&son and Aurelio >illaflor, :r. solidaril# liable for ille$aldis&issal.

8he assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-3.R. !P No. 454* dated %/:anuar# *66= and %4 ;ebruar# *664,respectivel#, are liER!ED and !E8A!DE insofaras it held Abelardo P. !a&son, "l$a !a&son and Aurelio >illaflor, :r. solidaril# liable for ille$aldis&issal.

He RE>ER!E our rulin$ in Manli&os v. N)RC insofar as it upheld that, in a stoc< sale, the bu#er in$ood faith has no obli$ation to retain the e&plo#ees of the sellin$ corporation, and that the dis&issal

of the affected e&plo#ees is la+ful even absent a 'ust or authori(ed cause.

!" "RDERED.

MARA !OUR"ES P. A. SERENO

Chief :ustice

HE C"NCJR9

ANTONO T. CARPO

Associate :ustice

PRESBTERO (. &E!ASCO, (R.

Associate :usticeTERESTA (. !EONAR"O+"E CASTRO

Associate :ustice

ARTURO ". BRON

Associate :ustice"OS"A"O M. PERA!TA

Associate :ustice

!UCAS P. BERSAMN

Associate :ustice

1No part2MARANO C. "E! CAST!!O

Associate :ustice

ROBERTO A. ABA"

Associate :ustice

1"n leave2

MARTN S. &!!ARAMA, (R.

Associate :ustice

(OSE PORTUGA! PERE)

Associate :ustice

No Part(OSE CATRA! MEN"O)A

Associate :ustice

BEN&EN"O !. REES ESTE!A M. PER!AS+BERNABE


13/18

Associate :ustice Associate :ustice

MAR&C MARO &CTOR '. !EONEN

Associate :ustice

C E R 8 ; C A 8 " N

Pursuant to !ection %0, Article > of the Constitution, certif# that the conclusions in the aboveDecision had been reached in consultation before the case +as assi$ned to the +riter of the opinionof the Court.

MARA !OUR"ES P. A. SERENO

Chief :ustice

'oot$ote-

8oo< no part Concurred in the Court of Appeals Decision 1CA-3.R. !P No. 45/%62.

"n leave.

% C"N!88J8"N, Art. O, !ec. 0.

* )AB"R C"DE, Art. *54.

0 Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. %5-/0 Petition dated ** !epte&ber *66= rollo, 13.R. No.

%=77%2, pp. 0-7 Petition dated %6 March *664.

Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. /=-5% CA Decision dated %0 March *66=, penned b# Associate :ustice Ro&eo ;. Bar(a and concurred in b# Associate :ustices Mariano C. delCastillo 1no+ a &e&ber of this Court2 and Arcan$elita M. Ro&illa-)ontoillara&a, :r. 1no+ a &e&ber of this Court2 and Mariflor P. Pun(alan Castillo.

= Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, pp.%%-%*.

4 Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. %*6, %** )etter A$ree&ents.

%6 d. at %*%, %*0.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt10


14/18

%% Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. %0 Petition dated %6 March *664.

%* d. at %*7 Position Paper for Co&plainants dated *6 !epte&ber *66*.

%0 Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. %0 Resi$nation )etter of Elicerio 3aspar.

% d. at %0/ Resi$nation )etter of Ricardo M. 3aspar, :r..

%/ d. at %07 Resi$nation )etter of ;idel E. Espiritu.

%7 d. at %04 Resi$nation )etter of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r. dated *5 Au$ust *66%.

%5 d. at %05 Resi$nation )etter of )iberato B. Man$oba.

%= d. at %0= Resi$nation )etter of Eufe&ia E. Rosete.

%4 d. at %5% Retire&ent )etter of Eufe&ia E. Rosete rollo 13.R. No. 3.R. No. %=77%2, p.%% )etter of !i&eon C. Espiritu to :ose A. Re#es trans&ittin$, a&on$ others, theRetire&ent )etter of Eufe&ia E.Rosete.

*6 d. at %/-%7 !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of Elicerio 3aspar dated *6 !epte&ber *66*.

*% d. at %5-%= !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of Ricardo 3aspar, :r. dated *6 !epte&ber *66*.

** d. at %0-% !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of ;idel E. Espiritu dated *6 !epte&ber *66*.

*0 d. at %4 Jndated !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r.

* d. at %/6-%/% !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of )iberato B. Man$oba dated *6 !epte&ber *66*.

*/ Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. /0-/ )etters dated %% !epte&ber *66%.

*7 Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. %4 Jndated !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r.

*5 d.

*= Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. *66-**% )abor Arbiters Decision dated *5 "ctober *66,penned b# )abor Arbiter enr# D. sorena.

*4 d. at %*4-%6 A&ended Co&plaints dated *0 "ctober *66*.

06 d. at **%.

0% d. at 00-0* N)RC Decision dated = Ma# *667, penned b# Co&&issioner An$elita A.3acutan and concurred in b# Presidin$ Co&&issioner Raul 8. Auino. Co&&issioner>ictoriano R. Cala#ca# +as on leave.

0* Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, pp. %%*-%%0.

00 Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. 56-5% CA Decision dated %0 March *66=.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt33


15/18

0 Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. 77.

0/ Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. 50-5.

07 Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. 7=-74.

05 Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, p. 7*0.

0= Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, pp. 04-6 Petition dated %6 March *664.

04 Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. //-//6 Resi$nation letters of Elicerio 3aspar, Ricardo M.3aspar, :r.,;idel E. Espiritu, and )iberato B. Man$oba, all dated *5 Au$ust *66% Retire&entletter of Eufe&ia E.Rosete dated K!epte&ber *66%.K

6 3lobe 8eleco& v. Crisolo$o, //7 Phil. 70, 7/* 1*6652 !t. Michael Acade v. N)RC, 0/Phil. 4%, /64 1%44=2.

% Ma$toto v. N)RC, ** Phil. *%6, ***-**0 1%4=/2, citin$ Patten v. Miller, %46 3a. %*0, =!.E. *nd 5/5,556 !adler v. :ester, D.C. 8ex., 7 ;. !upp. 505, 56 and Blac


16/18

/0 d.

/ d. North Davao Minin$ Corporation v. N)RC, 0*/ Phil. *6*, *64 1%4472.

// ndino v. N)RC, */= Phil. 54*, 544 1%4=42.

/7 Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. Petition dated %6 March *664.

/5 d. at 06.

/= DA)E A. "E!8ER)E, 8E )AH "; MER3ER!, ACQJ!8"N! ANDRE"R3ANA8"N!, 0/ 1%44%2.

/4 d.

76 d. at 04.

7% d. at 0/.

7* d. at 04.

70 Central A(ucarera del Danao v. Court of Appeals, **% Phil. 75 1%4=/2.

7 d.

7/ d.

77 Rollo 13.R. No. %=/%52, pp. %*6, %** )etter A$ree&ents.

75

0%* Phil. %5= 1%44/2.

7= Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. *4 Petition dated %6 March *664.

74 Manli&os v. N)RC, supra note 75.

56 d. at %=0.

5% d. at %=.

5* d. at %=/.

50 d. at %4*.

5 !upra note 70, at %46-%4%.

5/ *5= Phil. = 1%44%2.

57 %74 Phil. * 1%4552.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt76


17/18

55 !ari-sari 3roup of Co&panies, nc. v. Pi$las Sa&ao, 3.R. No. %77*, %% Au$ust *66=,/7% !CRA /74.

5= Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. %% Petition dated %6 March *664.

54 d. at %04 Resi$nation )etter of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r. dated *5 Au$ust *66%.

=6 d.

=% Rollo 13.R. No. %=77%2, p. %04 Resi$nation )etter of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r. effective %/"ctober *66%.

=* d. at %4 Jndated !inu&paan$ !ala#sa# of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r.

=0 d.

= d.

=/ d. at %04 Resi$nation )etter of !i&eon B. Espiritu, :r. effective %/ "ctober *66%.

=7 3.R. No. %55%%, %0 April *6%6, 7%= !CRA *6=.

=5 d.

== >erdadero v. Barne# Autolines 3roup of Co&panies 8ransport, nc., 3.R. No. %4/*=, *4 Au$ust *6%*, 754 !CRA //, ///.

=4 )a&bert Pa+nbro


18/18

44 d. at %75.

%66 d.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html#rnt100

sme bank vs. de guzman

Documents