REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

TENTH DIVISION
EPSILON MARITIME CA-G.R. SP. NO. 126476
SERVICES, INC./LIBERATO A.
CAPAYAS, Members:
Petitioners,
DE LEON, M. M., Chairperson,
CRUZ, S. C., and
- versus - PERALTA, JR., E. B., JJ.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Promulgated:

COMMISSION and MARY
JOYCE ANN R. SALES, 31 MAR 2014
Respondents.

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

DECISION

CRUZ, S.C., J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the

Rules of Court which seeks to annul and set aside the Resolutions of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division,
dated May 14, 20121 and July 9, 20122 in NLRC NCR Case No. 04-
06494-11/NLRC LAC Case No. 03-000935-12.

The antecedent facts:

Private respondent Mary Joyce Ann R. Sales applied as

Crewing Manager of petitioner Epsilon Maritime Services, Inc.
(Epsilon) sometime in October 2010. After passing the written
examinations and oral interview, she was hired for said position on
November 2, 2010 and was placed on probationary status as shown
1 Penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner
Raul T. Aquino, Rollo, pp. 200-211
2 Penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner
Raul T. Aquino, Rollo, pp. 227-228
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 2 of 15

in Epsilon's Personnel Action Memo 3 dated October 20, 2010 and

issued by Perpetua L. Brucal, Epsilon's HRM/Claims Officer,
acknowledged by private respondent and noted by petitioner Capt.
Liberato A. Capayas, Epsilon's Vice President for Administration and
Operations. The other terms of her employment were covered in the
Salary Agreement4 dated October 20, 2010, viz:

“SALARY AGREEMENT

Date: October 20, 2010

To: Ms. Mary Joyce Ann R. Sales

This will confirm your probationary employment for six (6)

months as Crewing Manager at Epsilon Maritime Services, Inc.
subject to the following terms and condition:

1. Your Employment as above mentioned will start on

November 2, 2010 up to May 2, 2011

2. Your superior will advise your duties and

responsibilities as per ISO9001-2000.

3. Your Compensation will be as follow (sic):

Total : USD 1,800.00

4. You are expected to log on the time record with

Flexible Time Basis minimum of 8 hours.

5. It is agreed that you will abide and observe all

company rules, regulations and policies and follow
the instructions given to you by your immediate
superior otherwise, it shall be a ground for necessary
action against you.

This is to certify your complete understanding and acceptance of

the above terms and condition of your regular employment by
signing on the space herein provided.”

Petitioners claim that, as an ISO certified company, all newly-

hired employees were required to be briefed on the nature of the
company's business, its clients and its policies. Private respondent
was duly briefed about what the position of a Crewing Manager
entails viz: her specific duties and responsibilities; her starting salary;
her role in the company's overall working setup. During her
3 Rollo, p. 41
4 Rollo, p. 54
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 3 of 15

employment, she was likewise made aware of the work output

expected of her which Epsilon required from time to time.

As observed by management, private respondent's

performance failed to meet company standards. On several
occasions, she failed to perform her assigned tasks properly and
efficiently and she even contravened her immediate superior's direct
instructions; and in every instance that she would commit such an
error, Epsilon's Operations Manager would repeatedly explain to her
the proper way to do her job, and, despite such, her performance
proved to be unsatisfactory. On February 17, 2011, petitioner Capt.
Capayas issued a memorandum addressed to private respondent,
the contents of which are as follows:

“The purpose of this memorandum is to afford you a formal,

structured opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance in
all the critical elements of your position as Crewing Manager.
Based on the last Performance Evaluation you are failing to meet
the standard for a certain critical results of your position:

In particular, the following findings were:

1. Need to improve on recruitment process particularly

Senior Officers

2. Not properly monitoring your Ex-Crew that leads to

either transferring to other fleet or applying to other
Agency

3. Not properly monitoring the status of line-up crew,

that leads to either delay their embarkation or last
minute change of line-up

4. Not properly monitoring the correspondence for your

fleet.

Because your current performance is unacceptable, you will

now be provided with adequate time/period to improve your
performance. If your performance does not improve until prior to
your regularization (02 May 2011) then the Management may have
no other recourse but to remove you from service before that date.

For your strict compliance.”5

5 Personnel Action Memo, Rollo, p. 43

CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 4 of 15

Petitioner claims that private respondent refused to sign and

acknowledge receipt of said memorandum. She likewise did not
submit the explanation required of her. Furthermore, her job
performance did not improve.

On April 18, 2011, petitioner-company, through Marie Gardiola,

its Human Resource Manager, issued an Inter Office Memorandum,
noted by petitioner Capt. Capayas and dated April 18, 2011,
terminating private respondent's probationary employment, viz:

“We wish to inform you that your services with our company as
Probationary Employee will be terminated effective April 20, 2011.

We thank you for the period you have served the company and
wish you success in your future endeavors.

In this connection, you are directed to return the Black Berry Cell
phone issued by the Company and all documents which are still in
your possession you may surrender it to your immediate superior
or to your reliever.

Thereafter, you must complete the clearance procedure.

Please be guided accordingly.”6

Thereafter, Gardiola issued a separation clearance, noted by

Capt. Capayas, wherein herein private respondent was cleared of her
company obligations and property accountabilities.

On April 26, 2011, private respondent filed a case for illegal

dismissal where she prayed for reinstatement, full back wages and
payment of other monetary claims, payment of 13 th month pay, moral
and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The parties attempted
to settle their disputes amicably, but to no avail. Thus, the Labor
Arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective pleadings.

In his Decision7 dated December 29, 2011, Labor Arbiter

Majayran H. Ajan simplified the issues of the case as follows: 1.)
whether private respondent was illegally dismissed from her
employment; and 2.) whether private respondent was entitled to
monetary claims including moral and exemplary damages as well as

6 Interoffice Memorandum, Rollo, p. 44

7 Rollo, pp. 84-91
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 5 of 15

attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter Ajan found private respondent to have

been illegally dismissed from employment and had the following
ratiocination:

“After a careful and judicious study of the pleadings by both

parties and documentary evidence presented in support of their
respective allegations, this office finds support to complainant's
contention that respondents violated her rights to security of
tenure, without valid basis nor due process.

Well-settled is the rule that the services of an employee

who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be
terminated for a just cause or when one fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known
by the employer to the employee at the time of one's engagement.
An employer who is allowed to work after a probationary period
shall be considered a regular employee.

In the instant case, an examination of the complainant's

appointment letter and salary agreement with the respondents
(ANNEX “A”and “B” complainants' Position Paper) shows the
absence of any reasonable standards to which she should comply.
Neither was there any indication that she was informed of
whatever reasonable standards.

This office is inclined to give credence to complainant's

reasoning that memorandum dated February 17, 2011 introduced
by respondents is questionable or doubtful and it was made to
correct the error that respondents have committed in terminating
her. As correctly argued by the complainant that among the
memos received by her, only this February 17, 2011 memo bears
no space or portion where she must sign and acknowledge receipt
thereof. Neither there was proof that it was received or was
refused to be received by her contrary to respondent's allegation
in paragraph 7 of Statement of Facts of respondent's Position
Paper.

Further, there was no showing of any performance

evaluation of complainant has ever been conducted in this case.

Under the Labor Code, Implementing Rules of Book VI,

Rule I, Section 6 provides that in all cases of probationary
employment the employer shall make known to the employee the
standards under which one will qualify as a regular employee at
the time of one's engagement. Where no standards are made
known to the employee at that time, the latter shall be deemed a
regular employee.

All told, complainant was deemed a regular employee from

the first day she was hired as respondent's failed to make known
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 6 of 15

to her the reasonable standards under which she will qualify as a

regular employee at the time of her engagement. Thus,
complainant is being a regular employee, having been dismissed
without just cause and absent of due process, is illegal.
Consequently, she is entitled to reinstatement and payment of full
back wages.

However, anent all monetary claims for underpayment of

salary, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day
premium and 13th month pay, no award is given for these
monetary claims, as complainant has failed to specify and
substantiate the dates, times and amount of underpayment that
she is claiming.”8

The case was, then, disposed of as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered finding complainant to have been illegally dismissed
from her employment. As such, respondent's are hereby jointly
and severally liable to reinstate and pay her full back wages from
date of her dismissal up to reinstatement, plus attorney's fees
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the award, for having compelled
to litigate in this case.

All other monetary claims are hereby denied for without

sufficient basis to award these claims.

The NLRC Computation and Examination Unit is hereby

directed to compute the monetary award, forming part of this
decision.

SO ORDERED.”9

The Computation10 of herein private respondent's monetary

award pursuant to the decision of Labor Arbiter Ajan is quoted
hereunder:

Date hired: 11/2/2010

Date terminated: 4/20/2011
Date of complaint: 4/26/2011
Rate: $1,800.00/mo.

8 Rollo, pp. 88-90

9 Rollo, pp. 90-91
10 Rollo, p. 92
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 7 of 15

1. Backwages From To Rate (US$) Mos. Total

Salaries 4/20/2011 12/19/2011 1,800.00 8.1 14,580.00
13th Month Pay 4/20/2011 12/19/2011 1,800.00 8.1 1,215.00
SILP 4/20/2011 12/19/2011 69.23 8.1 233.65
Total Award $ 16,028.65
2. Attorney's Fees 10% of total award 1,602.87
Grand Total $17,631.52

Herein petitioners appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter

before the NLRC and with their Memorandum on Appeal attached
Epsilon's Quality Manual which contained the company's policies,
procedures and instructions pursuant to ISO 9001:2008. The NLRC
dismissed said appeal for lack of merit in a Resolution dated May 14,
2012, the ruling of which reads:

“Respondents' appeal is not impressed with merit. A careful

evaluation of the records of the case convincingly persuades us
that the complainant, a probationary employee of the respondents
was unlawfully dismissed from employment.

A probationary employee enjoys security of tenure during

the term of probationary employment such that he may only be
terminated for cause provided for by law, or if he failed to meet the
reasonable standards set by the employer at the time of the
employee's engagement. Probationary employees, while not
entitled to permanent status, are still entitled to the constitutional
protection of security of tenure. [Espina v. Court of Appeals, 519
SCRA 327 (2007)]. 'In all cases of probationary employment, the
employer should make known to the employee the standards
under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the inception
of his engagement. Where no standards are made known to the
employee at that time, he should be deemed a regular employee'
(Section 6 [d], Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code; Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
148372, June 27, 2005; also cited in JG Chan, The Labor Code of
the Phils. Annotated, Vol. II, 2009 ed.).

In the instant case, respondents advance the view that the

complainant failed to satisfy or meet the reasonable standards
required by the employer, without competent evidence or proof to
show how and why complainant did not meet the standards set by
the employer. We sustain the Labor Arbiter's determination that
complainant was not informed at the time of her engagement, of
the reasonable standards of the probationary employment. The
reference in the appointment letter (p. 18, Rollo) that
complainant's superior will advise the complainant of her duties
and responsibilities as per ISO 9001-2000, is of no moment.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 8 of 15

There is absence of substantial evidence to prove that

complainant was actually oriented as to certain parameters or
standards by which she would be evaluated in order to qualify for
regular employment.

Respondents thus failed to discharge their burden of proof

that complainant failed to satisfy or meet the standards to be
achieved by the probationer-complainant. In Secon Philippines
Ltd. V. NLRC (G.R. No. 97399, December 3, 1999, 319 SCRA
685), the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the
probationary employee was declared illegal because the employer
failed to prove that he was properly apprised of the standards of
the job at the time of his engagement, and that he failed to meet
such standards. On this score, it is well to state that complainant
was not accorded due process when respondents did not apprise
her of the standards against which her performance would be
continuously assessed, following the principle enunciated in Phil.
Daily Inquirer, Inc. v. Magtibay, Jr., G.R. No. 164532, July 24,
2007.

Verily, a reading of the termination letter (p. 20, Rollo)

reveals that there is no specified ground for the complainant's
termination from employment. Said notice did not state whether
complainant failed to pass the probationary employment or
whether she was terminated due to any just or authorized cause.
It merely informed the complainant of: (1) her dismissal from
service, (2) the respondent's expression of gratitude for her
service, and (3) the directive for her to return the company-issued
'Black Berry Cell Phone' and all documents to her immediate
superior or to her reliever. Nowhere in that letter was the
complainant informed that her performance as a probationary
Crewing Manager was less than satisfactory. In part, the
termination letter merely stated, and we quote:

'We wish to inform you that your services with

our company as Probationary Employee will be
terminated effective on April 20, 2011.'

Thus, we find the complainant's assertion that she was

surprised to know that she was being terminated for unknown
reasons, as more credible than the claim of Respondents, owing
to the lack of ground or cause stated in the aforementioned
termination letter issued to her.

With respect to the alleged memorandum dated February

17, 2011, the same deserves no consideration consonant with the
Labor Arbiter's conclusion that the said memo is questionable or
doubtful. There is no proof that the complainant actually received
the said notice, or that she refused to receive the same. And while
respondents insist that before she was terminated, she was
warned and made to explain, the records are lacking any proof to
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 9 of 15

that. Even if we assume that the complainant received the said

memo dated February 17, 2011, nowhere in said letter did it state
that complainant was directed to explain, contrary to the
respondent's assertion that complainant was duly forewarned.

Neither can We accept or admit the document captioned

Staff Performance Evaluation (Annex 2, Respondent's Appeal; p.
170, Rollo). It was belatedly introduced at this late stage, without
explaining the reason for its late exhibition. Also, to consider such
document will surely violate due process requirements as the
complainant was not given the opportunity to rebut or respond to
said document which purports to be her failing appraisal rate.
Moreover, there is no showing that the same was accepted, or
even received or acknowledged by the complainant.

Verily, the respondents' general assertions that complainant

violated company policies, and had an unsatisfactory or dismal
performance cannot be given consideration. Respondents failed
to discharge their burden of proving the existence of just causes to
terminate her services.

Even if assume that complainant defied or violated any

company policy, the records are bereft of any showing that she
was made to explain. In the case of Orient Express Placement
Phils. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113713, June 11, 1997, the Supreme
Court underscored that mere unsatisfactory performance is not
one of the just causes for dismissal under the Labor Code; and
that absent any showing that the reasonable standards upon
which the performance will be evaluated had been previously
made known by the employer to the probationary employee at the
time of his engagement, this ground cannot be invoked.

Therefore, we concur with the Labor Arbiter's finding that

complainant is deemed a regular employee of the respondents
pursuant to Section 6 (d), Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code. Having been illegally dismissed
from employment, complainant is entitled to the twin reliefs of
reinstatement and full backwages and other benefits and
privileges from the time that she was dismissed up to her actual
reinstatement, conformably with Article 279 of the Labor Code
(Lopez v. Javier, G.R. No. 102874, Jan. 22, 1996).”11

Petitioners moved to have their appeal reconsidered but the

same was denied by the NLRC, Second Division, in their Resolution
dated July 9, 2012. Hence, this petition anchored on the following
grounds:

11 Rollo, pp. 206-210

CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 10 of 15

“I.

THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED ON THE GROUND
OF ABSENCE OF REASONABLE STANDARDS DESPITE
CLEAR PROOF TO THE CONTRARY;

II.

THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES TO
PRIVATE RESPONDENT.”12

Petitioners argue that the NLRC committed grave abuse of

discretion when it issued the assailed resolution that considered
private respondent as a regular employee despite clearly being under
probationary employment pursuant to the Personnel Action Memo
dated October 6, 2010. They claim that during the probationary
period, private respondent was given several chances to improve on
her performance; however, the latter failed to do so and was
ultimately found to be unfit or incompetent to be engaged as a
permanent crewing manager of the company.

Petitioners point out that pursuant to Article 281 of the Labor

Code, as amended, a probationary employee can be legally
terminated either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when the employee fails
to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable
standards made known to him by the employer at the start of the
employment. The reasonable standards of employment were clearly
indicated in the Salary Agreement entered into by the parties on
October 20, 2010 which contains a provision addressed to the private
respondent that:

“2. Your superior will advise your duties and responsibilities

as per ISO 9001-2000”13

Moreover, both parties, the petitioners on the one hand and the
private respondents on the other, signed the agreement, proving that
the private respondent was fully apprised of the reasonable standards
of employment at the inception of her probationary employment
contrary to the findings a quo. Having complied with such legal
12 Rollo, p. 10
13 Rollo, p. 42
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 11 of 15

requirement, private respondent's termination should be considered

valid, petitioners insist.

Petitioners also emphasized that they have observed the

standards of due process in effecting said termination pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence that it shall be sufficient that written notice is
served upon the employee within a reasonable date from the effective
date of termination. In its first written notice, private respondent was
informed of her failure to meet the company standards, was given an
opportunity to present reasons why her probationary employment
should not be terminated, and was given a chance to improve her
performance. Meanwhile, the second notice informed private
respondent of the company's decision to terminate her probationary
employment which was issued after private respondent failed to
submit any explanation for her below-standard performance. The
aforementioned, petitioners aver, leave no doubt as to their
compliance with the notice requirements prescribed under the law
and prevailing jurisprudence.

Petitioners complied with both substantive and procedural due

process requirements in effecting said termination, thus, they claim
that the private respondent's termination was in order. The ruling of
the NLRC affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision amounted to grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction.

Grave abuse of discretion was likewise attributed in the award

of attorney's fees to the private respondent. Petitioners maintain that
attorney's fees is only awarded in cases where the illegal dismissal is
attended by fraud, bad faith, or effected in a wanton or malevolent
manner by the employers. In this case, they insist that there was a
lack of bad faith on their part in the termination of private respondent
who failed to meet the reasonable standards of the company. They
also state that they fully complied with the procedural requirements in
implementing private respondent's dismissal. Resort to litigation by
the private respondent was unnecessary, petitioners added. The
award of attorney's fees is tantamount to penalizing petitioners' right
to resist private respondent's unfounded claims.

We do not agree with all of the contentions of herein petitioner.

CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 12 of 15

In the instant case, the ruling in Abbot Laboratories, Phil. v.

Alcaraz14 as regards probationary employees, is particularly
enlightening, viz:

“A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys

security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment,
aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional
ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor Code, i.e., the
probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the
time of the engagement. 15 Thus, the services of an employee who
has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for
any of the following: (a) a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c)
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. 16

Corollary thereto, Section 6 (d), Rule I, Book VI of the

Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides that if the
employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the
reasonable standards upon which the regularization would be
based on at the time of the engagement, then the said employee
shall be deemed a regular employee, viz.:

'(d) In all cases of probationary employment, the

employer shall make known to the employee the
standards under which he will qualify as a regular
employee at the time of his engagement. Where no
standards are made known to the employee at that
time, he shall be deemed a regular employee. '

In other words, the employer is made to comply with two (2)

requirements when dealing with a probationary employee: first,
the employer must communicate the regularization standards to
the probationary employee; and second, the employer must make
such communication at the time of the probationary employee's
engagement. If the employer fails to comply with either, the
employee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary
employee.

Keeping with these rules, an employer is deemed to have

made known the standards that would qualify a probationary
employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted
reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he is expected
to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation. This goes
without saying that the employee is sufficiently made aware of his
probationary status as well as the length of time of the probation.”
14 G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013
15 Id. citing Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation v. Ranchez, G.R. No. 177937,
January 19, 2011
16 Id.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 13 of 15

A careful scrutiny of the records of the case reveals that the

petitioners failed to fully apprise private respondent of regularization
standards used to evaluate her performance. While petitioners
pointed out that the Salary Agreement signed by the opposing parties
specifically mentioned that the private respondent's duties and
responsibilities are based on ISO 9001-2000, the petitioners failed to
present evidence that they have particularly informed private
respondent of the same. Furthermore, even if petitioners' new
evidence presented during appeal, Epsilon's Quality Manual, were to
be given credence by this Court pursuant to the relaxation of
technical rules for administrative cases, the same cannot support the
petitioners' claims as the Quality Manual was based on ISO
9001:2008 and not ISO 9001-2000 cited in the Salary Agreement.
Thus, based on the above discussion, the NLRC was correct in
declaring the private respondent as a regular employee of Epsilon.

As a regular employee, private respondent is entitled to security

of tenure and may only be terminated for a just or authorized cause
pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, viz:

“ARTICLE 279. Security of tenure. — In cases of

regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services
of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this
Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and
to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of
his actual reinstatement.”

Private respondent's termination from employment was allegedly

based on her violation of company rules and her performance which
was deemed by petitioners as below their company's standards. The
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC did not rely on said assertions as these
were unsubstantiated. We agree with the findings of the lower
tribunal. It is well settled that in termination cases, the burden of
proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal was for a
just or authorized cause, and failure to discharge the same would
mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal 17. Thus,
private respondent is considered to have been illegally dismissed and
is entitled to reinstatement; full back wages, inclusive of allowances;
and to her other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time

17 Concrete Solutions, Inc. v. Cabusas, G.R. No. 177812, June 19, 2013 citing Faeldonia v. Tong Yak
Groceries, G.R. No. 182499, October 2, 2009
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 14 of 15

her compensation was withheld from her up to the time of her actual
reinstatement.18

Furthermore, judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond

the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor
officials' findings rest. As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of
the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect
but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as
long as they are supported by substantial evidence. We find that
there is no basis for deviating from said doctrine without any clear
showing that the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the
NLRC, are bereft of substantiation.19

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

DENIED. The Resolutions of the NLRC, Second Division, dated
May 14, 2012 and July 9, 2012, in NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06494-
11/NLRC LAC Case No. 03-000935-12, which affirmed the Decision
of the Labor Arbiter dated December 29, 2011, are hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
STEPHEN C. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

18 Pasos v. Philippine National Corporation, G.R. No. 192394, July 3, 2013.

19 Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp., G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013 citing Acebedo Optical v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 554 Phil. 524, 541 (2007)
CA-G.R. SP No. 126476
DECISION
Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Tenth Division