•
Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
Manila
SPECIAL SIXTH DIVISION
XRC MALL DEVELOPER, INC./ CA-G.R. SP. No. 164361
XENTRO MALL, THE BIZLINK,
INCREZ GLOBAL (TEAM RIZAL) Members:
& XANDREI LUIGI CRUZ,
Petitioners, Bruselas, Jr., Chairman
Azcarraga-Jacob, and
Mamauag, Jr.*, JJ.
- versus -
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION)
CHRISTOPHER RYAN R. Promulgated:
HOSSEINI, 28 Jan 2021
Respondents. __________________
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Bruselas Jr., J:
Petitioners XRC Mall Developer, Inc./Xentro Mall (Xentro
Mall), The Bizlink, Increz Global (Team Rizal) and Xandrei Luigi
Cruz (Cruz) filed a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to invalidate, for
having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion, the –
(a) Decision,2 the dispositive of which, reads –
“WHEREFORE, complainant's appeal is PARTLY
GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated March 29, 2019 of
Labor Arbiter Danna M. Castillon is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and a new one is rendered finding complainant
* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 07-21-RSF dated 11 January 2021.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-12.
2 Written by Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus, entitled Christopher Ryan R. Hosseini v.
Xentro Mall, The Bizlink, Increz Global (Team Rizal), and Xandrei Luigi Cruz;” Rollo, pp. 18-29.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 2
Christopher Ryan R. Hosseini to have been illegally dismissed.
As such, respondent Xentro Mall, also known as XRC Mall
Developer Inc., is ordered to pay him the following:
1.) salaries from July 2018 to May 2019 in the amount of Five
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P550,000.00); and
2.) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total
monetary award.
SO ORDERED.”
and –
(b) Resolution3 which denied the petitioners' motion for
reconsideration.
Antecedents
The case arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal, moral
and exemplary damages and attorney's fees filed by private
respondent Christopher Ryan Hosseini against petitioners Xentro
Mall, The Bizlink, Increz Global (Team Rizal), and Cruz .
In the first week of March 2018, the private respondent and
Vivian De Padua (De Padua) agreed to form a basketball team
that would participate in the newly-formed Maharlika Pilipinas
Basketball League (MPBL) Tournament. They conducted try-outs
to look for potential basketball players and organized Team Rizal
in three (3) months. The private respondent had to give up his job
as a civil engineer in Build Asia Corp. in order to focus on the
formation of the team.
Petitioner Xentro Mall volunteered to be their major sponsor
and team owner. The private respondent, together with De
3 Rollo, pp. 31-34.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 3
Padua, accepted the offer of Xentro Mall on the condition that the
latter would retain under its employ all the players and staff that
they had recruited.
On 31 May 2018, the private respondent signed a contract to
play for Xentro Mall. Under the Player Contract,4 the private
respondent committed to train and play in the MPBL under the
management and supervision of Team Rizal for a monthly salary
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The said contract can only
be terminated upon mutual agreement of the parties.
The private respondent was designated as the Team Captain
and was assigned the player position of a Guard. When the
training games started, the private respondent, together with the
other players, were required to attend the practices and meetings,
five to six times a week. The private respondent followed all the
rules set by the Team and performed all the tasks related to
training. He performed his job as Team Captain and played Guard
position in accordance with the required standards set by the
Team, followed the directives of the Team manager and attended
all the Team’s practice games and meetings.
After he received his first monthly salary, the private
respondent got a call from De Padua that Cruz wanted them out
of the team. The private respondent sent a text message to Cruz
and begged him not to remove him from the team but to no
avail. On 08 July 2016, he received a text message from Cruz
which reads “Ryan sorry nakapagdesisyon na ang management
ibibigay na lang namin ang formal letter sa inyo ni Vivian pati yong
dalawang ballboy at coordinator. Pinapaayos lang namin sa legal
namin. Salamat.” Later on, he learned that they were removed
from the team because they allegedly made some illegal
4 Rollo, pp. 62-63.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 4
deduction from the salary of the players. In an affidavit dated 11
October 2018,5 he denied any involvement in the said anomaly.
When the private respondent and Padua were terminated,
the petitioners did not inform them of the reason for their
termination and did not give them a chance to be heard. No
notice to explain was served upon them.
In its position paper, Xentro Mall averred that it engaged
the private respondent as one of the players to compose the Team
Rizal. Sometime in May 2018, it entered into a Player Contract with
the private respondent for a fixed period covering 01 June 2018 up
to May 2019. The private respondent was assigned as the Team
Captain.
Xentro Mall, however, received letters6 dated 28 June 2018
from its players, which stated that the allowances that they had
received were below the amounts stated in their contracts. After
conducting an investigation on the matter, it was discovered that
the private respondent, who was entrusted with the money
intended for the allowances of other players, actually pocketed a
portion thereof.
In a meeting with the private respondent, Xentro Mall
agreed not to file any criminal or civil charges against him and
instead opted to terminate the Player Contract. Xentro Mall was
thus surprised when the private respondent subsequently filed a
complaint.
Xentro Mall argued that the complaint of the private
respondent should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the
5 Rollo, pp.76-79.
6 Rollo, pp. 101-102.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 5
case considering that there was no employer - employee
relationship between the parties. It further argued that pursuant
to Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,7 the private
respondent should have been considered an independent
contractor.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
On 29 March 2019, the labor arbiter rendered a decision 8
that dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. According to the
labor arbiter, the Player Contract governs the relationship of the
parties and any breach thereof is civil in nature, hence, the labor
tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint. The labor arbiter further ruled that the presence of the
four (4) elements in the determination of an employer - employee
relationship had not been clearly established. The labor arbiter
took note of the following circumstances in arriving at such a
conclusion: 1) the private respondent was engaged as a team
player under the the Player Contract and not as an employee of
Xentro Mall; 2) the private respondent did not present a single
proof of payment of his wages; 3) the private respondent failed to
substantiate his claim that his work performance was being
monitored by the petitioners; 4) the attendance in the training
sessions was not indicative of control; 5) the private respondent
could play according to his style, manner and strategy; 6) the
petitioners were only interested in the result of the game; and 7)
the private respondent was not bound by Xentro Mall's rules and
regulations.
The private respondent appealed the foregoing decision of
the labor arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
7 G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004.
8 Rollo, pp. 103-108.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 6
NLRC's Ruling
On 26 June 2019, the NLRC promulgated the assailed
decision which reversed and set aside the decision of the labor
arbiter. The NLRC held that the private respondent was an
employee of the petitioner company and had been illegally
dismissed. The NLRC ratiocinated as follows:
“Thus, in order to ascertain the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied
the four-fold test, namely: (1) the manner of selection and
engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or
absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or
absence of the power of control.xxx
We find that the foregoing elements are present in this
case.
Firstly, as to the manner of selection and engagement,
while it may be true that, at the onset, complainant merely
sought for respondents’ sponsorship in the basketball team
they were forming, respondent Xentro Mall had admitted that
it had eventually engaged complainant as a basketball player to
play for its Team Rizal in the MPBL. In fact this is evidenced by
the Player Contract wherein complainant was given a fixed-
term contract from June 1, 2018 to May 2019.
Secondly, as to the payment of wages, respondent
Xentro Mall admitted paying complainant his allowances
pursuant to said contract, albeit arguing that the same is
different from a salary. Nonetheless regardless of its
nomenclature, such compensation is construed as wages as
defined under Article 97 (f) of the Labor Code for as long as the
same pertains to remuneration or earning for services rendered,
xxx.
Thirdly and more importantly, as to the third requisite
which relates to the power of dismissal, and the fourth
requisite which relates to the power of control, both powers are
vested in respondent Xentro Mall.xxx.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 7
In this case, contrary to the Labor Arbiter’s finding that
attendance in the training is not indicative of control,
complainant’s Player Contract stipulated that his attendance
for the training and playing of basketball under the
management and supervision of Team Rizal is mandatory. In
fact, such attendance is required even if a player incurred
illness or injury. Further, any breach of said contract, which
necessarily includes failure to show up during practices and
games, gives respondent Xentro Mall the right to terminate the
agreement. Clearly, this satisfies the element of control.
Moreover, it is not accurate for respondents to just say
that they are only interested in the result which is to win the
basketball game. To this, We take judicial notice of the fact that
while complainant, as a basketball player, uses his own skill,
talent and creativity in playing games, in so doing, however, he
still had to play his role as the designated guard of the team
and to carry out the plays and strategies adopted by the
coaching staff and management. In fact, complainant was not
in liberty to implement his own strategy while playing the
game, for the same had already been laid out to the players
during their training and even during the actual game.
Otherwise, he would be subjected to disciplinary sanction, or
worse, would give respondent Xentro Mall the right to
terminate his contract.
To this, respondents contended that complainant is an
independent contractor citing the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation.
We are not persuaded.
In said case, Sonza, in order to perform his work as a co-
host of a TV program, only needed his skills and talent. Thus,
in ruling that he is an independent contractor and not an
employee of ABS-CBN, the High Court observed, to wit:
“xxx To perform his work, SONZA only needed his
skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on
television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s
control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours of work per
day. The Agreement required SONZA to attend only rehearsals
and tapings of the shows, as well as pre- and post-production
staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of
SONZA’s script. However, the Agreement prohibited SONZA
from criticizing in his shows ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear
implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 8
discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its
interests.”
Indubitably, the Sonza case is entirely different here. As
We have discussed, respondent Xentro Mall had control over
the means and methods used by complainant in the
performance of his job through the team coaches and
management, and as shown by the several stipulations
embodied in his contract.
Besides, the more applicable case here is Negros Slashers
Inc. v. Teng wherein the complainant therein, Teng, who was
also a basketball player, was found by the Supreme Court to
have been illegally dismissed, to wit:
'As an employee of the Negros Slashers, Teng was expected to
report for work regularly. Missing a team game is indeed a
punishable offense. Untying of shoelaces when the game is not
yet finished is also irresponsible and unprofessional. However,
we agree with the Labor Arbiter that such isolated foolishness
of an employee does not justify the extreme penalty of
dismissal from service. Petitioners could have opted to impose
a fine or suspension on Teng for his unacceptable conduct.
Other forms of disciplinary action could also have been taken
after the incident to impart on the team that such misconduct
will not be tolerated.'
While the issue of whether Teng was an employee or an
independent contractor of the basketball team which engaged
him was not raised in said case, there is no question that a
finding that he was illegally dismissed effectively showed that
he was indeed an employee.
Having found that complainant is an employee of
respondent Xentro Mall, it is now incumbent upon the latter to
prove that complainant’s dismissal was valid. xxx.
Here, respondent Xentro Mall claimed that it was
constrained to cancel complainant’s contract upon learning that
the latter pocketed portions of the amounts entrusted to him
which were intended to other recruited players, as shown by
two typewritten letters from its players.
The foregoing evidence, however, is not enough.
Apart from these unsworn letters, no other evidence was
adduced by respondents to show that complainant committed
any serious misconduct or dishonesty in the performance of his
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 9
work. In fact, complainant categorically denied said claim in
his affidavit. Stating that he could not have made such
deductions because it is Xentro Mall’s accounting staff who
directly played [sic] each and every player of their salaries. In
the same way, We also find it illogical for respondent company
to entrust the payment of salaries of its players to another
player instead of coursing the same through its accounting
staff. Thus, while We are not bound by technical rule of
procedure and evidence in the adjudication of cases, this
should not be construed as a license to disregard fundamental
rules on evidence in proving one’s allegations.
Aside from the lack of just cause to terminate
complainant's employment, We find that respondent Xentro
Mall also failed to afford him procedural due process as
enunciated in King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, and
reiterated in Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera, with respect to
the two-notice rule and the conduct of hearing. Here,
complainant was summarily dismissed through a mere text
message.xxx.”
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence, the instant petition for certiorari, raising the following
grounds of alleged grave abuse –
“I. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED THAT
AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS
BETWEEN HOSSEINI AND XENTRO MALL;
II. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT
HOSSEINI WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY XENTRO
MALL.”
The petitioners argue that the issue of the existence of an
employer - employee relationship was not the lis mota of the Teng
case9 as it merely delved on the issue of whether or not missing a
game and untying of the shoelaces were enough grounds for
Teng's dismissal.
9 Negros Slashers, Inc. v. Teng, G.R. No. 187122, 22 February 2012.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 10
The petitioners invoke Sonza v. ABS-CBN10 to justify their
stance that the private respondent was an independent contractor
and not a regular employee. The petitioners insist that just like
Sonza, the private respondent was contracted by Xentro Mall to
play basketball because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity
status.
The petitioners also contend that the talent fees and benefits
paid to the private respondent were the result of negotiations that
led to the formulation and execution of the Player Contract.
Furthermore, the private respondent's talent fees amounting to
P50,000.00 monthly was relatively high which indicated an
independent contractual relationship.
The petitioners also point out that under the Player Contract,
both parties have the right to terminate contract. It did not confer
upon Xentro Mall the power to fire or retrench the private
respondent.
Anent the power of control, the petitioners contend that
XRC Mall had no control over the private respondent's conduct
and behavior. The private respondent need not report for work
eight hours a day; Xentro Mall has no control on the means and
manner by which the private respondent will play basketball, i.e.,
when he would make a lay-up or do a dunk to score a goal, when
he would run or walk; while the coaches and the management
controlled the game strategy, the manner by which such strategy
was to be executed was left to the skills of the private respondent.
The petitioners further point out that Xentro Mall does not
control the private respondent's conduct because only the MPBL
can impose disciplinary measures on him, pursuant to provision
10 Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 11
number 6 of the Player Contract:
“6. Duties of the Player
6.1. Behavior
The player is bound to abide by the rules and regulations of
MPBL, the basketball association.”
The petitioners likewise argue that mere compliance with
mandatory attendance is not conclusive proof of Xentro Mall's
power of control over the private respondent.
Lastly, the petitioners invoke Bernarte v. PBA,11 which
declared PBA basketball referees to be independent contractors.
The petitioners assert that like the PBA referees, the the private
respondent is in control of how he would play once he steps into
the playing court, i.e., when he would make a lay-up or do a dunk
and when he would run or walk.
The Opinion of the Court
A Rule 65 certiorari is a special civil action that is designed to
address only questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse in the
exercise thereof that amounts to excess or lack of jurisdiction
thereby ousting the court or tribunal of jurisdiction. As a general
rule, findings of facts are not inquired into in a certiorari petition
especially when there is a concurrence between the factual
determinations of the labor arbiter and the NLRC. By way of
exception, however, a divergence of opinions between two quasi-
judicial tribunals, such as obtaining herein, provides a limited
inquiry into the contrasting factual determinations below for the
purpose of determining whether or not an excess of jurisdiction
has occurred or a grave abuse of discretion has been committed.
11 G.R. No. 192084, 14 September 2011.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 12
Because of the difference in the findings of facts below we
therefore have to look further into the case.
Is the private respondent an employee
or an independent contractor?
There is no dispute that the private respondent was
engaged by the petitioners to play basketball. The petitioners,
however, alleged that the private respondent was an independent
contractor, while the private respondent alleged that he was a
regular employee. To resolve the issue, we ascertain whether or
not an employer - employee relationship existed between the
petitioners and the private respondent.
In determining the existence of an employer - employee
relationship, the Court has generally relied on the four-fold test
that looks into indicative determinants, to wit: (1) the selection
and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control
the employee with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished. Amongst the four, the factor that
is considered to be most determinative in ascertaining the
existence of an employer - employee relationship is the "right of
control test." It is deemed to be such an important factor that the
other requisites that comprise the test may even be disregarded."
This holds true where the issue to be resolved is whether a person
who performs work for another is the latter’s employee or is an
independent contractor. For, where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the
end to be achieved, but also the means by which such end is
reached, employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist.12
12 Royale Homes Marketing Corp. v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 195190, 28 July 2014.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 13
The petitioners insist that the private respondent is an
independent contractor, citing Sonza v. ABS-CBN, and relying on
the following circumstances: 1) private respondent was
contracted by Xentro Mall to play basketball because of his
unique skills, talent and celebrity status; 2) private respondent
negotiated his talent fees amounting to P50,000.00 monthly, which
is considered relatively high; 3) Xentro Mall has no power to fire
or retrench the private respondent; and 4) Xentro Mall has no
power of control over the private respondent.
These arguments of the petitioners, however, fail to
persuade as they do not find unequivocal support from the cited
jurisprudence and from the facts. Thus -
Selection, engagement
of an employee
In Sonza v. ABS-CBN, it must be noted that the hiring of
Sonza, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not
possessed by ordinary employees, was found to be a mere
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent
contractual relationship. Hence, the mere fact that the private
respondent herein had been hired by reason of his unique skills,
talent and celebrity status would not automatically fit his case
into that of Sonza and make him an independent contractor. Other
factors must still be considered, the most important of which is
the power of control, as we adverted to earlier.
Payment of Wages
In the same vein, the fact that the private respondent was
able to negotiate his salary, which the petitioners claimed to be
relatively high, is not enough for him to be considered an
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 14
independent contractor. Indeed, wages may indicate whether one
is an independent contractor or not. Wages may also indicate that
an employee is able to bargain with the employer for better pay.
Wages, however, should not be the conclusive factor in
determining whether one is an employee or an independent
contractor.13 As held in Sonza, “[t]he power to bargain talent fees
way above the salary scales of ordinary employees is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent
contractual relationship.” It is also worth noting that the monthly
salary of the private respondent in the amount of P50,000.00 does
not even appear to be a gargantuan sum; hence, could not be
concretely considered indicative of an independent contractual
relationship.
Power of Control
While selection by reason of unique skills and the power to
bargain for huge talent fees are circumstances indicative of an
independent contractual relationship, the most determinative
factor, as priorly discussed, would be the power of control.
True, the private respondent need not work eight hours a
day, but under the Player Contract, he is, however, required to
attend the training sessions, practice games and actual games in
the MPBL. In fact, even if he could not play due to an illness or
injury, his attendance is still mandatory, per the Player Contract.
His failure to attend any of the training sessions, practice games
and actual games gives Xentro Mall the right to terminate and
oust him from the Team under the Player Contract. These
circumstances are undoubtedly indicative of the petitioners'
power of control over him as a paid player and member of the
Team.
13 Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 3 December 2014.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 15
The petitioners' lack of effective control or inability to
dictate how the private respondent is to shoot or score a goal,
when he should run or walk, is not as significant as the ability of
the petitioners to retain him or oust him from the Team per the
terms of the Player Contract, thus effectively terminating his
continued paid status. Under the right of control test, the
petitioners have the clear power of control. While a certain
amount of leeway or creativity is given to the private respondent
in executing the Team's strategies, he must still play within the
Team's impositions. As admitted by the petitioners, it is the
Team's coach who has control over the strategies to be employed
and the calls to be made during the games. Thus, the private
respondent is left with no choice but to execute the strategies
given by the coach and he is not at liberty to adopt another game
plan. In fact, the private respondent cannot play in the court
whenever he wanted, as the discretion when to let him play is still
with the coach. Undoubtedly, the strategies or game plans of the
coach control and bind or restrict the private respondent.
That the private respondent is required by Xentro Mall to
observe the rules and regulations of the MPBL is likewise a form
of control on the part of the petitioners and does not deprive the
latter of the right to discipline him.
Bernarte v. PBA which the private respondent invoked and
wherein it was held that PBA (Philippine Basketball Association)
referees are independent contractors as they are the “only,
absolute and final authority on the playing court,” is not on all
fours to the case of the respondent. It must be noted that, the
herein private respondent, unlike the PBA referees, has no full
discretion and authority in the playing court. His conduct and
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 16
behavior on and off the floor, in a manner of speaking, is
circumscribed.
The Court also notes that the NLRC did not mainly rely on
Negros Slashers v. Teng in holding that the private respondent was
an employee of Xentro Mall. The NLRC merely pointed out that
the petitioners could not invoke Sonza v. ABS-CBN as its factual
milieu was entirely different from the subject case and that the the
more applicable case was Negros Slashers Inc. v Teng. We find no
grave abuse when the NLRC cited Negros Slashers, Inc. A perusal
of the said case reveals that while indeed Teng's employment
status was never raised as an issue, the case was, however,
resolved on the premise that Teng was an employee of the Negros
Slashers and that an employer-employee relationship existed
between him and his team.
Considering all of the foregoing, we find no reason to set
aside the findings of the NLRC as it had ample bases when it held
that an employer-employee relationship existed between Xentro
Mall and the private respondent.
We likewise find no reason not to sustain the NLRC when it
held that the private respondent has been illegally dismissed. The
only evidence presented by the petitioners to substantiate their
claim that the private respondent pocketed a portion of the sum
of money entrusted to him, were the unsworn letters of their team
players. Not having been sworn to, the said documents have no
probative value. As held in Micro Sales Open Sales Operation
Network v. NLRC,14 while the Court is liberal in the conduct of
proceedings in labor cases, proof of authenticity as a condition for
the admission of documents is nonetheless required.
14 G.R. No. 155279, 11 October 2005.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 17
No Grave Abuse of Discretion
On the whole, the NLRC may not be faulted for reversing
the determinations of the labor arbiter. We find no grave abuse in
its exercise of its discretion if by the latter is meant such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.15 The NLRC's findings are not
contrary to law, submitted evidence or prevailing jurisprudence;
much less has the NLRC exercised its power arbitrarily or
despotically, by reason perhaps of passion, prejudice, or personal
hostility.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Original Signed
MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB
Associate Justice
Original Signed
FLORENCIO M. MAMAUAG, JR.
Associate Justice
15 Sally Miguel, et al. vs. JCT Group Inc., et al., G.R. No. 157752, 16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 529.
CA-G.R. SP No.164361
Decision
page 18
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 opinion of the Court was written.
Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairman, Special Sixth Division
