SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212774. January 23, 2017.]

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO T.

MAGLAYA, SR. , respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

For this Court's resolution is a petition for review on certiorari led by petitioner
Wesleyan University-Philippines (WUP) assailing the Resolution 1 dated January 20,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which denied its petition for certiorari.
HTcADC

The facts are as follows:

WUP is a non-stock, non-pro t, non-sectarian educational corporation duly
organized and existing under the Philippine laws on April 28, 1948. 2
Respondent Atty. Guillermo T. Maglaya, Sr. (Maglaya) was appointed as a
corporate member on January 1, 2004, and was elected as a member of the Board of
Trustees (Board) on January 9, 2004 — both for a period of ve (5) years. On May 25,
2005, he was elected as President of the University for a ve-year term. He was re-
elected as a trustee on May 25, 2007. 3
In a Memorandum dated November 28, 2008, the incumbent Bishops of the
United Methodist Church (Bishops) apprised all the corporate members of the
expiration of their terms on December 31, 2008, unless renewed by the former. 4 The
said members, including Maglaya, sought the renewal of their membership in the WUP's
Board, and signified their willingness to serve the corporation. 5
On January 10, 2009, Dr. Dominador Cabasal, Chairman of the Board, informed
the Bishops of the cessation of corporate terms of some of the members and/or
trustees since the by-laws provided that the vacancy shall only be lled by the Bishops
upon the recommendation of the Board. 6
On March 25, 2009, Maglaya learned that the Bishops created an Ad Hoc
Committee to plan the e cient and orderly turnover of the administration of the WUP in
view of the alleged "gentleman's agreement" reached in December 2008, and that the
Bishops have appointed the incoming corporate members and trustees. 7 He clari ed
that there was no agreement and any discussion of the turnover because the corporate
members still have valid and existing corporate terms. 8
On April 24, 2009, the Bishops, through a formal notice to all the o cers, deans,
staff, and employees of WUP, introduced the new corporate members, trustees, and
o cers. In the said notice, it was indicated that the new Board met, organized, and
elected the new set of o cers on April 20, 2009. 9 Manuel Palomo (Palomo), the new
Chairman of the Board, informed Maglaya of the termination of his services and
authority as the President of the University on April 27, 2009. 1 0
Thereafter, Maglaya and other former members of the Board (Plaintiffs) led a
Complaint for Injunction and Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Cabanatuan City, Branch 28. 1 1 In a Resolution 1 2 dated August 19, 2009, the RTC
dismissed the case declaring the same as a nuisance or harassment suit prohibited
under Section 1 (b), 1 3 Rule 1 of the Interim Rules for Intra-Corporate Controversies. 1 4
The RTC observed that it is clear from the by-laws of WUP that insofar as membership
in the corporation is concerned, which can only be given by the College of Bishops of
the United Methodist Church, it is a precondition to a seat in the WUP Board. 1 5
Consequently, the expiration of the terms of the plaintiffs, including Maglaya, as
corporate members carried with it their termination as members of the Board. 1 6
Moreover, their continued stay in their o ce beyond their terms was only in hold-over
capacities, which ceased when the Bishops appointed new members of the corporation
and the Board. 1 7
The CA, in a Decision 1 8 dated March 15, 2011, a rmed the decision of the RTC,
and dismissed the petition for certiorari led by the plaintiffs for being the improper
remedy. The CA held that their status as corporate members of WUP which expired on
December 31, 2008 was undisputed. The CA agreed with the RTC that the plaintiffs had
no legal standing to question the Bishops' alleged irregular appointment of the new
members in their Complaint on May 18, 2009 as the termination of their membership in
the corporation necessarily resulted in the conclusion of their positions as members of
the Board pursuant to the WUP by-laws. 1 9
Thereafter, Maglaya led on March 22, 2011 the present illegal dismissal case
against WUP, Palomo, Bishop Lito C. Tangonan (Tangonan), and Bishop Leo A. Soriano
(Soriano). 2 0 Maglaya claimed that he was unceremoniously dismissed in a wanton,
reckless, oppressive and malevolent manner on the eve of April 27, 2009. 2 1 Tangonan
and Soriano acted in evident bad faith when they disregarded his ve-year term of
o ce and delegated their protégé Palomo as the new university president. 2 2 Maglaya
alleged that he faithfully discharged his necessary and desirable functions as President,
and received P75,000.00 as basic salary, P10,000.00 as cost of living allowance, and
P10,000.00 as representation allowance. He was also entitled to other bene ts such
as: the use of university vehicles; the use of a post paid mobile cellular phone in his
o cial transactions; the residence in the University Executive House located at Inday
Street, Magsaysay Sur, Cabanatuan City, with free water, electricity, and services of a
household helper; and receipt of 13th month pay, vacation leave pay, retirement pay,
and shares in related learning experience. 2 3 On May 31, 2006, his basic salary was
increased to P95,000.00 due to his additional duty in overseeing the operations of the
WUP Cardiovascular and Medical Center. aScITE

Maglaya presented the following pieces of evidence: copies of his appointment

as President, his Identi cation Card, the WUP Administration and Personnel Policy
Manual which speci ed the retirement of the university president, and the check
disbursement in his favor evidencing his salary, to substantiate his claim that he was a
mere employee. 2 4
WUP, on the other hand, asseverated that the dismissal or removal of Maglaya,
being a corporate o cer and not a regular employee, is a corporate act or intra-
corporate controversy under the jurisdiction of the RTC. 2 5 WUP also maintained that
since Maglaya's appointment was not renewed, he ceased to be a member of the
corporation and of the Board; thus, his term for presidency has also been terminated.
26

Meanwhile, this Court, in a Resolution dated June 13, 2011, denied the petition for
review on certiorari led by Maglaya and the other former members of the Board for
failure to show any reversible error in the decision of the CA. The same became nal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 and executory on August 24, 2011. 2 7
In a Decision 2 8 dated September 20, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor
of WUP. The LA held that the action between employers and employees where the
employer-employee relationship is merely incidental is within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the regular courts. 2 9 Since he was appointed as President of the
University by the Board, Maglaya was a corporate o cer and not a mere employee. The
instant case involves intra-corporate dispute which was de nitely beyond the
jurisdiction of the labor tribunal. 3 0 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. 3 1
In a Decision 3 2 dated April 25, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in NLRC-LAC No. 01-000470-12, reversed and set aside the Decision of the LA
ruling that the illegal dismissal case falls within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals.
Since the reasons for his termination cited by WUP were not among the just causes
provided under Article 282 3 3 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code, Maglaya was
illegally dismissed. The NLRC observed that the Board did not elect Maglaya, but
merely appointed him. Maglaya was appointed for a xed period of ve (5) years from
May 7, 2005 to May 6, 2010, while the period of his appointment as member of the
corporation was ve (5) years from January 2004. 3 4 The decretal portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, declaring:
(a) jurisdiction over this case by virtue of the employer-employee
relation of the parties
(b) the illegality of the dismissal of [respondent] by [petitioner]
[Petitioner] therefore [is] hereby ordered to pay [respondent]:
1. separation pay [P]375,000.00
2. full backwages 1,252,462.50
3. retirement pay 500,000.00
4. moral damages 100,000.00
5. exemplary damages 50,000.00
6. 10% of the above as attorney's fees 227,746.25
––––––––––––
TOTAL AWARDS [P]2,505,208.75
===========
based on the attached computation of this Commission's Computation Unit.
SO ORDERED. 3 5
Ruling in favor of Maglaya, the NLRC explicated that although the position of the
President of the University is a corporate o ce, the manner of Maglaya's appointment,
and his duties, salaries, and allowances point to his being an employee and
subordinate. 3 6 The control test is the most important indicator of the presence of
employer-employee relationship. Such was present in the instant case as Maglaya had
the duty to report to the Board, and it was the Board which terminated or dismissed
him even before his term ends. 3 7
Thereafter, the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration led by WUP in a
Resolution 3 8 dated February 11, 2013.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 In a Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari led by WUP. The CA
noted that the decision and resolution of the NLRC became nal and executory on
March 16, 2013. 3 9 WUP's attempt to resurrect its lost remedy through ling the
petition would not prosper since nal and executory judgment becomes unalterable
and may no longer be modified in any respect. 4 0 Thus: HEITAD

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 4 1
Upon denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, WUP elevated the case before this
Court raising the issue:
The Court of Appeals committed an error of law when it summarily
dismissed the special civil action for certiorari raising lack of jurisdiction of the
NLRC led by [WUP] where it was very clear that the NLRC had no jurisdiction
over the case involving a corporate o cer and where the nature of the
controversy is an intra-corporate dispute.
We find the instant petition impressed with merit.
WUP alleges that while the NLRC decision became nal and executory on March
16, 2013, it did not mean that the said decision had become immutable and unalterable
as the CA ruled. WUP maintains that the remedy of the aggrieved party against a nal
and executory decision of the NLRC is the ling of the petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court. As such, it was able to meet the conditions set forth in ling
the said remedy before the CA.
Settled is the rule that while the decision of the NLRC becomes nal and
executory after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties under
Article 223 4 2 (now Article 229) of the Labor Code, the adverse party is not precluded
from assailing it via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA and then to this
Court via a Petition for Review under Rule 45. 4 3 aDSIHc

This Court has explained and clari ed the power of the CA to review NLRC
decisions, viz.:
The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65
or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. Martin
Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission . This Court held that the
proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be led in the Court of
Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. Moreover,
it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980), the Court of Appeals — pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction
over Petitions for Certiorari — is speci cally given the power to pass upon the
evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues. 4 4
Consequently, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely le a motion for
reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy , and
then seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, for a period
of sixty (60) days from notice of the decision. 4 5
Records reveal that WUP received the decision of the NLRC on May 12, 2012, and
led its motion for reconsideration on May 24, 2012. 4 6 WUP received the Resolution
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 dated February 11, 2013 denying its motion on March 12, 2013. 4 7 Thereafter, it led its
petition for certiorari before the CA on March 26, 2013. 4 8
We nd that the application of the doctrine of immutability of judgment in the
case at bar is misplaced. To reiterate, although the 10-day period for nality of the
decision of the NLRC may already have lapsed as contemplated in the Labor Code, this
Court may still take cognizance of the petition for certiorari on jurisdictional and due
process considerations if led within the reglementary period under Rule 65. 4 9 From
the abovementioned, WUP was able to discharge the necessary conditions in availing
its remedy against the final and executory decision of the NLRC.
There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies
on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute.
5 0 Furthermore, the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency
within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties. 5 1
Now on the issue of whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the illegal
dismissal case filed by Maglaya.
The said issue revolves around the question on whether Maglaya is a corporate
o cer or a mere employee. For purposes of identifying an intra-corporate controversy,
We have defined corporate officers, thus:
"Corporate o cers" in the context of Presidential Decree No. 902-A are
those o cers of the corporation who are given that character by the
Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws . There are three speci c
o cers whom a corporation must have under Section 25 of the Corporation
Code. These are the president, secretary and the treasurer. The number of
o cers is not limited to these three. A corporation may have such other o cers
as may be provided for by its by-laws like, but not limited to, the vice-president,
cashier, auditor or general manager. The number of corporate o cers is thus
limited by law and by the corporation's by-laws. 5 2
The president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer are commonly regarded as
the principal or executive o cers of a corporation, and they are usually designated as
the o cers of the corporation. However, other o cers are sometimes created by
the charter or by-laws of a corporation , or the board of directors may be
empowered under the by-laws of a corporation to create additional o ces as may be
necessary. This Court expounded that an "office" is created by the charter of the
corporation and the o cer is elected by the directors or stockholders, while an
"employee" usually occupies no o ce and generally is employed not by action of the
directors or stockholders but by the managing o cer of the corporation who also
determines the compensation to be paid to such employee. 5 3
From the foregoing, that the creation of the position is under the corporation's
charter or by-laws, and that the election of the o cer is by the directors or
stockholders must concur in order for an individual to be considered a corporate
officer, as against an ordinary employee or officer. It is only when the officer claiming to
have been illegally dismissed is classi ed as such corporate o cer that the issue is
deemed an intra-corporate dispute which falls within the jurisdiction of the trial courts.
54

In its position paper before the LA, WUP presented its amended By-Laws 5 5
dated November 28, 1988 submitted to the SEC to prove that Maglaya, as the
University President, was a corporate o cer whose rights do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the labor tribunal. It also presented the Resolution dated August 19,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 2009 of the RTC, and the Decision dated March 15, 2011 of the CA to show that the
earlier case was led by Maglaya and others, as members of the Board, questioning the
Bishops' appointment of the new members without their recommendation. ETHIDa

The relevant portions of the amended By-Laws provide:

ARTICLE VI. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
xxx xxx xxx
Section 2. Membership. — (a) The Board of Trustees shall be
composed of Ten (10) members of the corporation from among themselves
provided, that six (6) shall come from the Ministry and Laity of the United
Methodist [C]hurch in the Philippines, three (3) shall be non-Methodist, friends
and sympathizers of the Wesleyan University-Philippines and of the United
Methodist Church, and one (1) representative of the Wesleyan Alumni
Association, as provided in section 1 (c), Article IV hereof, and (b) provided
further that the incumbent area bishop and the President of the Wesleyan
University-Philippines shall be honorary members of the Board.
xxx xxx xxx 56
ARTICLE VIII. OFFICERS
Section 1. Officers. — The officers of the Board of Trustees shall be:
(a) Chairman
(b) Vice-Chairman
(c) Secretary
(d) Treasurer
xxx xxx xxx
Section 6. The President of Wesleyan University-Philippines. — The
President of the University, who must be an active member of the United
Methodist Church in the Philippines at the time of his election shall be in-charge
of and be responsible for the administration of the University and other
institutions of learning that [m]ay hereafter be established by the corporation,
and
(a) May, with the Board of Trustees;
(1) Organize and/or reorganize the administrative set
up of the Wesleyan University-Philippines to effect e ciency and
upgrade institutional administration and supervision;
(2) Employ, suspend, dismiss, transfer or replace
personnel and prescribe and enforce rules and regulations for their
proper conduct in the discharge of their duties;
(3) Shall make reports during the different annual
conference of the United Methodist Church and to such agencies
as may be deemed necessary on the operations of the university
and related matters;
(4) Shall prescribe and enforce rules and regulations
for the promotion and maintenance of discipline in the proper
conduct and discharge of the functions and duties of subordinate
administrative o cers, professors, teachers, employees and
students and other personnel.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 (b) Shall make reports and recommendations to the Board of
Trustees or to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees on matters pertaining to
the institution as he may find necessary;
(c) Shall countersign all checks drawn by the Treasurer from the
depository of the University, and
(d) Shall exercise, perform and discharge all such other powers,
functions and duties as are interest in the office of the President.
xxx xxx xxx 5 7
It is apparent from the By-laws of WUP that the president was one of the o cers
of the corporation, and was an honorary member of the Board. He was appointed by
the Board and not by a managing o cer of the corporation. We held that one who is
included in the by-laws of a corporation in its roster of corporate o cers is an o cer
of said corporation and not a mere employee. 5 8
The alleged "appointment" of Maglaya instead of "election" as provided by the by-
laws neither convert the president of university as a mere employee, nor amend its
nature as a corporate o cer. With the o ce speci cally mentioned in the by-laws, the
NLRC erred in taking cognizance of the case, and in concluding that Maglaya was a
mere employee and subordinate o cial because of the manner of his appointment, his
duties and responsibilities, salaries and allowances, and considering the Identi cation
Card, the Administration and Personnel Policy Manual which speci ed the retirement of
the university president, and the check disbursement as pieces of evidence supporting
such finding. cSEDTC

A corporate o cer's dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate

controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation, and the nature is
not altered by the reason or wisdom with which the Board of Directors may have in
taking such action. 5 9 The issue of the alleged termination involving a corporate o cer,
not a mere employee, is not a simple labor problem but a matter that comes within the
area of corporate affairs and management and is a corporate controversy in
contemplation of the Corporation Code. 6 0
The long-established rule is that the jurisdiction over a subject matter is
conferred by law. 6 1 Perforce, Section 5 (c) of PD 902-A, as amended by Subsection
5.2, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8799, which provides that the regional trial courts
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies in the election or appointment of
directors, trustees, o cers or managers of corporations, partnerships or associations,
applies in the case at bar. 6 2
To emphasize, the determination of the rights of a corporate o cer dismissed
from his employment, as well as the corresponding liability of a corporation, if any, is an
intra-corporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts. 6 3
As held in Leonor v. Court of Appeals, 6 4 a void judgment for want of jurisdiction
is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no
legal effect. Hence, it can never become nal and any writ of execution based on it
is void . 6 5
Since this Court is now reversing the challenged decision of the CA and a rming
the decision of the LA in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction, Maglaya is not
entitled to collect the amount of P2,505,208.75 awarded from the time the NLRC
decision became nal and executory up to the time the CA dismissed WUP's petition
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 for certiorari.
In sum, this Court nds that the NLRC erred in assuming jurisdiction over, and
thereafter in failing to dismiss, Maglaya's complaint for illegal dismissal against WUP,
since the subject matter of the instant case is an intra-corporate controversy which the
NLRC has no jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari led by petitioner Wesleyan
University-Philippines is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated January 20,
2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129196 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Guillermo T. Maglaya, Sr. is hereby ORDERED to
REIMBURSE the petitioner the amount of P2,505,208.75 awarded by the National
Labor Relations Commission. SDAaTC

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Mendoza, Leonen and Jardeleza, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2416, dated January 4, 2017.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes,
Jr. and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; rollo, pp. 30-32.
2. Id. at 53.
3. Id. at 56.
4. CA rollo, p. 227.

5. Id. at 228.
6. Rollo, p. 57.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 57-58.

9. Id. at 58.
10. Id. at 104.
11. Id. at 52-67.
12. Penned by Presiding Judge Tomas B. Talavera, id. at 68-74.
13. (b) Prohibition against nuisance and harassment suits. — Nuisance and harassment suits
are prohibited. In determining whether a suit is a nuisance or harassment suit, the court
shall consider, among others, the following:
 (1) The extent of the shareholding or interest of the initiating stockholder or member,
 (2) Subject matter of the suit;

 (3) Legal and factual basis of the complaint;

 (4) Availability of appraisal rights for the act or acts complained of; and
 (5) Prejudice or damage to the corporation, partnership, or association in relation to the
relief sought.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
  In case of nuisance or harassment suits, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion,
forthwith dismiss the case.
14. Rollo, p. 74.
15. Id. at 73.
16. Id.

17. Id. at 72-73.

18. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and
Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring; id. at 77-86.

19. Rollo, pp. 83-84.

20. Id. at 105.
21. Id. at 93-94.
22. Id. at 94.

23. Id. at 93.

24. Id. at 119.
25. Id. at 107.
26. Id. at 96.
27. Id. at 87.

28. Penned by Labor Arbiter Leandro M. Jose; id. at 90-100.

29. Rollo, p. 99.
30. Id. at 100.
31. Id.
32. Penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora, with Presiding Commissioner Raul T.
Aquino, concurring; id. at 102-125.
33. Article 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment
for any of the following causes:
 (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
 (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

 (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative;
 (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives;
and
 (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
34. Rollo, p. 116.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 35. Id. at 124-125.
36. Id. at 118.
37. Id. at 118-119.
38. Penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora, with Presiding Commissioner Joseph
Gerard E. Mabilog, concurring, and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, dissenting;
id. at 128-136.
39. NLRC Entry of Judgment, CA rollo, p. 433.
40. Rollo, pp. 31-32.
41. Id. at 32.

42. Article 229. [223] Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be
entertained only on any of the following grounds:
 (a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
 (b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft
and corruption;
 (c) If made purely on questions of law; and
 (d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.

xxx xxx xxx

 The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days
from receipt thereof by the parties.

xxx xxx xxx

43. Panuncillo v. CAP Philippines, Inc., 544 Phil. 256 (2007).

44. PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI) v. Tañeca, G.R. No. 160828, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA
56, 65-66. (Citation omitted).
45. St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
(Emphasis supplied).
46. CA rollo, p. 383.
47. Id. at 4.

48. Id. at 3.
49. St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 45.
50. Id.
51. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 52. Garcia v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., 603 Phil. 438 (2009). (Citation omitted).
53. Tabang v. NLRC, 334 Phil. 424 (1997). (Emphasis supplied).
54. Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, Inc., 726 Phil. 316 (2014).
55. Rollo, pp. 43-51.
56. Id. at 45. (Underscoring supplied).

57. Id. at 47-48.

58. Garcia v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., supra note 52.
59. Tabang v. NLRC, supra note 53.
60. Okol v. Slimmers World International, 623 Phil. 13 (2009).
61. Union Motors Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 310 (1999).

62. Okol v. Slimmers World International, supra note 60.

63. Id.
64. 326 Phil. 74 (1996).
65. Leonor v. Court of Appeals, supra. (Emphasis supplied).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com