31\epublic of tbe !
lbilippines
$>upreme QI:ourt
;ff!lanila
\VfLFRifuo v.' L ~
Divisio,ii Clet·k
Third Division
:~:~t
THIRD DIVISION
JUL 1 9 2019
MANUEL B. PABLICO and G.R. No. 227200
MASTER'S PAB RESTO BAR,
Petitioners, Present:
PERALTA,J,
Chairperson,
- versus - LEONEN,
REYES, A., JR.,
HERNANDO, and
INTING,JJ
NUMERIANO B. CERRO, JR.,
MICHAEL CALIGUIRAN, EFREN
PANGANIBAN, GENIUS PAUIG,
REYNALIE LIM, GLORIA
NAPITAN, RICHARD CARONAN Promulgated:
and MANNY BAGUNO,
Respondents. June 10, 2019
ca-
x------------------------------------------------------------~~----x
DECISION
REYES, A., JR., J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by Manuel B. Pablico
(petitioner) and Master's Pab Resto Bar under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure seeking to annul and set aside the Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. SP No. 131134 dated October 27, 2015, and its
Amended Decision3 dated September 19, 2016, partly granting the motion
for reeonsideration thereof.
Rollo, pp. 12-22.
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and
Ma. Luisa C. Quijano Padilla, concurring; id. at 32-41.
3
Id. at 43-47.
/lju
Decision 2 G.R. No. 227200 '
The Antecedent Facts
Respondent Numeriano Cerro, Jr. (Cerro) works as a bartender in
Master's Pab Resto Bar (MPRB). At the farmer's suggestion, the petitioner
purchased and took over the management of MPRB from its original owner,
the Feliciano family, on November 18, 2008. 4
On the same day, the petitioner took over, he promoted Cerro as
Officer-in-Charge with a daily wage of P200.00, and gave the latter the
authority to hire additional employees. 5 Pursuant to which, herein
respondents were employed to work at MPRB, viz.:
NAME DATE OF POSITION DAILY
EMPLOYMENT WAGE
Michael Caliguiran November 18, 2008 Disk Jockey Php
Jfaliguiran) 200.00
:-,,lren Panganiban November 18, 2008 Cook Php
(Pan''nl·iban) 200.00
Gloria Napitan March 26, 2008 Accountant Php
(Napitan) 200.00
Reynalie Lim January 23, 2011 Barmaid Php
(Lim) 200.00
Manny Baguno March 2, 2011 Utility Php
(Baguno) 133.33
Genius Pauig November 18, 2008 Waiter Php
(Pauig) 157.66
Richard Caronan March 2, 201 1 Assistant Cook Php
(Caronan) 166.66
Sometime in September 2011, due to several infractions that caused
MPRB losses, the petitioner transferred Cerro to another establishment. 6 On
October 18, 2011, respondents Caliguiran, Panganiban, Pauig, Lim, Napitan,
Caronan, and Baguno received text messages, which they interpreted to
mean· that they have been terminated from work on account of their close
association to Cerro. 7
Acting on this, on October 24, 2011, the respondents then filed a
C0.•1plaint8 for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and benefits,
damac_:" and attorney's fees before the National Labor Relations
Comn- · ~sion (NLRC).
Id. at 33.
Id. at 33-34.
Id. at 34.
Id. at 34, 50-51, and 149.
Id. at 77-78.
fV;I~
Decision 3 G.R. No. 227200
On March 30, 2012, Labor Arbiter (LA) Jaime M. Reyno rendered his
Decision,9 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
so ORDERED. 10
In his Decision, the LA dismissed the respondents' claim of illegal
dismissal. Insofar as Cerro, the LA held that his suspension is a valid
exercise by the employer of disciplinary authority pursuant to the former's
infractions. Anent the other respondents on the other hand, the LA held that
they failed to discharge the burden of proving that they have been
terminated. Finally, on account of the respondents' money cl.iims, the LA
found the payrolls presented by the petitioner as sufficient proof of
payment. 11
The respondents appealed to the NLRC. On November 21, 2012, the
NLRC promulgated its Decision. 12 Therein, the NLRC ruled:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is Partially
Granted. The Decision of the [LA] dated March 30, 2012 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Decision of the [LA] is
sustained insofar as ( 1) the legality of complainant Cerro' s suspension, (2)
the dismissal of complainants' claim of illegal dismissal and (3) dismissal
of complainants' claim for moral and exemplary damages are concerned.
However, regarding complainants' monetary claims, the Commission
finds that they are entitled to the following, namely: (1) wage differentials
for 3 years counted backwards from October 2011; and (2) 13th month
pay for a period of 3 years counted backwards from October 2011.
Moreover, as a consequence of the finding that complainants were not
dismissed from employment, complainants are directed to return to work
and respondents are directed to reinstate complainants to their former
positions, without backwages. Considering, however, the apparent
strained relations between the parties brought about by the filing of this
complaint, respondents are directed to grant separation pay, in lieu of
reinstatement, to each of complainants, reckoned from date of his/her
employment up to the finality of this Decision. '
'
The Computation Division of this Office is directed to make the
necessary computation of the separation pay and herein monetary benefits
herein granted complainants, which shall form an integral part of this
·Decision.
SO ORDERED. 13
9
Id. at 148-155.
10
Id. at 155.
II
Id. at 151-154.
12
Id. at 49-59.
13
Id. at 58-59
~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 227200
Unsatisfied with the decision of the NLRC, the respondents filed a
partial motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in its
Resolution 14 dated May 20, 2013 .
. The petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA rendered the herein assailed
Decisjon 15 on October 27, 2015, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, there being no grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the NLRC, the
petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 16 (Emphases in the original)
On motion for reconsideration, the CA issued an Amended Decision 17
011 September 19, 2016, adjudging as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Our Decision dated
October 27, 2015 is MODIFIED in that the NLRC's Decision dated
November 21, 2012 in NLRC NCR CASE No. 10-16169-11 / NLRC LAC
· NO. 05-001595-12 is affirmed except for the award of Separation Pay
which is hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphases Ours)
Thus, this petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner,
attributing the following errors committed by the CA for the Court's
consideration, to wit:
1. THE NLRC COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT
EXEMPT FROM THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW;
2. THE NLRC COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT GRANTED THE CLAIM OF THE EMPLOYEES
FOR WAGE DIFFERENTIAL WITHOUT DUE REGARD TO
· THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER
\UENT THE AMOUNT OF SALARY BEING PAID TO HIS
b1vlPLOYEES; and
14
Id. at 63-65.
15
Id. at 32-41.
16
Id. at 39-40.
17
Id. at 43-47.
18
Id. at 45.
?ju
Decision 5 C, .R. No. 227200
3. THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN ARBITRARILY COMPUTING THE
ALLEGED LIABILITY OF THE PETITIONER. 19
Ruling of the Court
The petition is not meritorious.
As the Court sees it, the petitioner merely reiterates the same points he
has raised in his petition before the CA. The petitioner argues that he is
exempted from the application of the "Minimum Wage Law" as he is
engaged in the service business that employs less than ten (10) employees.
He asserts that the mere fact that his business has not been granted
exemption by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) does not
disqualify him from availing the benefits of the said law, as a layman like
him cannot be expected to be knowledgeable of this requirement. 20 Also, the
petitioner faults the NLRC in not considering the "Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay" issued by the Guest Relations Officers/Waitresses
working at MPRB as proof that the same individuals are not it~ employees. 21
.Preliminarily, it must be stated that the labor tribunals and the CA
were unanimous in ruling that Cerro' s suspension is legal and that the rest of
the respondents have not been dismissed. The Court agrees.
Cerro admitted having appropriated the funds of the MPRB
without the knowledge and consent of its owner, for sure, this act
justifies the exercise of management prerogative to place him under
preventive suspension particularly considering his position. 22 Being an
Officer-in-Charge of MPRB, Cerro is responsible for the company's
over-all operations and, as such in a position, cause damage to the property
of the employer.
19
Id.atl6-17.
20
Id.at 18.
21
Id. at 20.
22
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as
amended by DOLE Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997, which read:
SEC. 8. Preventive suspension. - The employer may place the worker concenie'l under preventive
suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the
employer or of his co-workers.
SEC. 9. Period of suspension. - No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days.
The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or
the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the
wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound to reimburse the
amount paid to him during the extension if the employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to
dismiss the worker.
ry£N
Decision 6 G.R. No. 227200
Similarly, the Court affirms that the rest of the respondents have not
been terminated. It is a basic principle in illegal dismissal cases that the
employees must first establish by competent evidence the fact of their
termination from employment. In this regard, mere allegation does not
suffice, evidence must be substantial and the fact of dismissal must be clear,
positi\re and convincing. 23 In the case at bar, respondents Caliguiran,
Panganiban, Pauig, Lim, Napitan, Caronan, and Baguno failed to discharge
this burden. The only evidence they presented are text messages supposedly
in1vrming them that they have been terminated. However, as opined by the
tnbunn_ 1" below, nowhere from the language thereof can it be remotely
inferrt '.t that they are being terminated. 24 It was also not shown that the
respondents tried reporting for work, but were prevented to do so.
Jurisprudence settled that the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained
in the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act proving that the
employees have been dismissed, as the employees' claim in that eventuality
would be "self-serving, conjectural and of no probative value." 25 In the
same vein, the rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal
dismissal cases finds no application in this case as the petitioner denies
having dismissed the respondents, 26 and the latter failed to prove the fact of
termination.
· Next, the petitioner argues that the respondents are not entitled to
wage differentials as he is engaged in the service business employing less
than ten (10) employees.
It is a basic principle in procedure that the burden is upon the person
who asserts the truth of the matter that he has alleged. 27 The Court
emphasized in C. Planas Commercial v. NLRC (Second Division), 28 that in
order to be exempted under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6727 or the Wage
Rc:.:onalization Act, two elements must concur - first, it must be shown that
tL(.: establishment is regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers,
and ~ :.~.Jnd, that the establishment had applied for and was granted
exemption by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the
applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission. 29 The
conclusion proceeds from the unequivocal language of the law itself:
Section 4. x x x
xxxx
(c) Exempted from the provisions of this Act are xx x
23
Tri-C General Services v. Matuto, et al., 770 Phil. 251, 262(2015).
24
Rollo, p. 88.
25
Tri-C General Services v. Matuto, et al., supra note 23, at 262.
:!6
Id. at 262-263.
27
Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, et al., 497 Phil. 788, 803 (2005).
28
511 Phil. 232 (2005).
:!()
Id. at 241-242.
f1u
Decision 7 G.R. No. 227200
Retail/service establishments regularly employing not more than
ten ( 10) workers may be exempted from the applicability of this Act upon
application with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the
Commission. Whenever an application for exemption has been duly filed
· with the appropriate Regional Board, action on any complaint for alleged
non-compliance with this Act shall be deferred pending resolution of the
application for exemption by the appropriate Regional Board.
In the event that applications for exemptions are not granted,
employees shall receive the appropriate compensation due them as
provided for by this Act plus interest of one per cent (1 %) per month
retroactive to the effectivity of this Act. 30
Herein, the petitioner himself admitted that he did not apply for such
exemption, thus, it is clear that he cannot claim benefits under the law. The
petitioner cannot shield himself from complying with the law by the lone
fact that he is just a layman and cannot be expected to know of the law's
requirements. Under our legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith. 31 Furthermore, the policy of the Labor Code,
under which R.A. No. 6727 is premised, is to include all establishments,
except a few specific classes, under the coverage of the law. 32 As the
petitioner failed to apply for an exemption, and it is undisputed that the
respondents are MPRB's employees and are paid less than the prescribed
mm1mum wage, the petitioner's liability for wage differential cannot be
denied.
Although inconsequential, with the petitioner's liability already
established, it is still useful to state that the first element is also wanting in
the case at bar. Herein, the LA, the NLRC, and the CA all found that the
petitioner is employing more than ten (10) employees in his establishment.
The petitioner counters the foregoing conclusion, raising in evidence the
affidavit issued collectively by its guest relations officers/waitresses.
Employment status is not determined by contract or document.
Neither is an employee's avowal of his or her employment status - as
regular, casual, contractual, seasonal - conclusive upon the Court. To be
sure, employment status is determined by the four-fold test, and the
attendant circumstances of each case, as supported by any competent and
relevant evidence. 33 The status of employment cannot be dictated by the
stipulation of contract or any document, because the same is contrary to
public policy and heavily impressed with public interest. The law relating to
labor and employment is an area where the parties are not at liberty to
30
R.A. No. 6727, Wage Rationalization Act.
31
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 3.
32
Cf Murillo v. Sun Valley Realty, Inc., 246 Phil. 279, 285-286 (1988).
33
Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388, 412-413 (2014).
~~
Decision 8 G.R. No. 227200
insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and
regulations by means of contract or waiver. 34
· Still, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the labor
tribunals. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who
are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction,
are ge~~rally accorded not only respect but even finality and bind this Court
when ·~upported by substantial evidence, 35 as in the case at bar. The mere
existence of these guest relations officers/waitresses employed under the
same terms and conditions as the respondents is sufficient to disqualify
petitioner and MPRB from the exemption under R.A. No. 6727. Devoid of
any unfairness or arbitrariness in the labor tribunals' decision making
process, the Court is left with no recourse but to affirm the findings made by
them. 36
Since there is a clear violation of R.A. No. 6727, the petitioner is also
liable to pay interest on the appropriate compensation due, not only by the
express provision of the law but because the failure to pay constitutes a loan
or forbearance of money, at the rate of one percent ( 1% ) per month or twelve
percent (12%) per annum. The Court must clarify that in keeping with the
reason behind the law in imposing the same interest, and in light of the
Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 37 the imposition of interest
must be reconciled with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board
Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013, 38 which effectively amended the
rate of interest. 39 Accordingly, the amount of wage differentials which the
petitioner owed to the respondents shall earn interest at the rate of twelve
percent ( 12%) per annum from the time payment thereof has accrued or their
respective dates of employment until the date they last reported for work or
July 1, 7013, whichever is earlier. 40 Thereafter, it having been concluded
that th~~ respondents have not been illegally dismissed and as such entitled to
reinstatement, provided that they have rendered services within the period,
the interest shall be six percent (6%) per annum until their full satisfaction. 41
Simple enough, the case presents no controversy on this aspect as it appears
14
Servidad v. NLRC, 364 Phil. 518, 527 (1999), citing Pakistan International Airlines Corp. v. Hon.
Opie, 268 Phil. 92, 101 ( 1990).
15
C. Planas Commercial v. NLRC (Second Division), supra note 28, at 243.
3r, Id. at 243-244.
17
716Phil.267(2013).
38
The Monetary Board, in its kesolution No. 796 dated 16 May 2013, approved the following
revisions governing the rate of interest in the absence of stipulation in loan contracts, thereby amending
Section 2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982:
Section 1. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the
rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six
percent (6%) per annum.
Section 2. In view of the above, Subsection X305. I of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and
Sections 4305Q. I, 4305S.3 and 4303 P.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions
are hereby amended accordingly.
This Circular shall take effect on 1 July 2013.
:,9
See Sec. ol the Dep 't. ol Public Works and Highways. et al. v. Sps. Tecson, 758 Phil. 604, 639
(20 I 5).
40
Id.
·11
Id.
/mjPr
Decision 9 G.R. No. 227200
that the respondents ceased to report to work prior to July 1, 2013 per
Report42 of the Computation Division of the NLRC:
NAMES DATE DATE LAST REPORTED
EMPLOYED TO WORK
Cerro November 18, 2008 June 30, 2010
Caliguiran November 18, 2008 June 30, 2010
Panganiban November 18, 2008 June 30, 2010
Napitan March 26, 2010 June 30, 2010
Lim January 23, 2011 October 18, 2011
Baguno March 2, 2011 October 18, 2011
Pauig November 18, 2008 June 30, 2010
Caronan March 2, 2011 October 18, 2011
Fittingly, the foregoing dates should serve as basis not only of the amount of
wage differential but of the proper interest due. Having ruled out illegal
dismissal, no wages are due for the period they have not reported to work.
Finally, the petitioner raises as the final error on this appeal the award
of the monetary benefits in favor of the respondents. The petitioner posits
that the NLRC and the CA erred in not relying on his documentary evidence.
He claims that had the payrolls been considered, they would be sufficient to
prove that the respondents have been paid of the benefits they now claim.
Ultimately, the petitioner argues that while the documents he presented are
mere photocopies, the fact that the allegation of forgery has been dismissed
by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City43 should render the
same sufficient for the purpose of this appeal.
The petitioner's arguments are not persuasive.
The dismissal of the allegation of forgery only means, at most,
that the signatures therein are genuine. In fact, the Resolution 44 issued
by the Assistant City Prosecutor provides that the basis of dismissal is
not the absolute certainty that the signatures in the payroll belong to
the respondents; rather, it is because of the failure by the respondents
to adduce evidence to establish the manner in which the petitioner
committed the alleged forgery. 45 The dismissal notwithstanding, the fact
remains that the documents presented by the petitioner are plain
photocopies and insufficient in this regard to support his allegation of
payment. While photocopied documents are generally admitted and given
probative value in administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and
fabrication prompt the petitioner to present the original documents for
42
Rollo, pp. 60-61.
43
Id. at 170-173.
44
Id.
45
Id. at 172.
ryRN
Decision 10 G.R. No. 227200 I
inspection. 46 This is to give the respondents the opportunity to examine and
controvert the documents presented. 47 Notably, the petitioner did not present
the originals nor even attempted to explain why he cannot present the same,
when these should have been easily accounted for as the same were in his
possession. The non-presentation of the original without any explanation,
that the photocopied documents do not present a complete list of MPRB's
employees, the absence of certification as to their authenticity, and the
allegation of forgery by the respondents raise legitimate doubts on the
authenticity of the payrolls which renders the same devoid of any rational
probative value. 48
Tnclosing, while not raised as an issue in this appeal, on account of its
close ,·~lation to the errors herein assigned49 and for the guidance of the
Bench and the Bar, the Court deems it proper to discuss the propriety of the
award for separation pay.
The CA, on motion for reconsideration, amended its decision and
deleted the award of separation pay, ratiocinating that the grant of the said
benefit is inconsistent with the finding that there is no illegal dismissal.
While the Court agrees with the ultimate result, a clarification must
nonetheless be made.
· Indeed, "where the employee was neither found to have been
dismissed nor to have abandoned his/her work, the general course of action
is for the Court to dismiss the complaint, direct the employee to return
to work, and order the employer to accept the employee." 50 However,
the same is not absolute. In the following instances, separation pay was
awarded in lieu of reinstatement, viz.:
1) in case of closure of establishment under Article 298 [formerly Article
283] of the Labor Code; 2) in case of termination due to disease or
:-.i:::1<.ness under Article 299 [formerly Article 284] of the Labor Code; 3) as
· measure of social justice in those instances where the employee is
validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character; 4) where the dismissed employee's
position is no longer available; 5) when the continued relationship
between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to the
strained relations between them; or 6) when the dismissed employee opted
not to be reinstated, or the payment of separation benefits would be for the
. best interest of the parties involved. In all of these cases, the grant of
separation pay presupposes that the employee to whom it was given was
dismissed from employment, whether legally or illegally. In fine, as a
46
Loon, et al. v. Power Master, Inc., et al., 723Phil.515, 530 (2013).
47
Id.
48
Asuncion v. NLRC, 414 Phil. 329, 338-339 (2001).
49
Aklan College, Inc. v. Enero, et al., 597 Phil. 60, 74-75 (2009).
so Claudia's Kitchen, Inc., et al. v. Tanguin, 8 I I Phil. 784, 799 (2017), citing Dee Jay's Inn and
Cafe and/or Melinda Ferraris v. Raneses, 796 Phil. 574, 595-596(2016).
ryu
Decision 11 t: .R. No. 227200
general rule, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement could not be awarded
to an employee whose employment was not terminated by his employer.
xxxx
There were cases, however, wherein the Court awarded separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement to the employee even after a finding that
there was neither dismissal nor abandonment. In Nightowl
Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v. Lumahan (Nightowl), the Court
awarded separation pay in view of the findings of the NLRC that
respondent stopped reporting for work for more than ten (10) years and
·. never returned, based on the documentary evidence of petitioner. 51
(Citations omitted, emphasis and underscoring Ours)
However, none of the foregoing circumstances obtain in the case at
bar. Not only were the parties unable to adduce evidence in support of the
foregoing, much less, they have not made any allegation for the Court to
consider that reinstatement is no longer preferred in the case at bar.
In the same vein, jurisprudence also recognizes the doctrine of
strained relations as an exception to the general rule of rei!lstatement. In
which instance, separation pay is accepted as an altefriative when
reinstatement is no longer desirable or viable. The doctrine, however, does
not automatically apply nor can be inferred whenever a case for illegal
dismissal is filed. Strained relations between the parties cannot be based on
impression alone. It must be proven as a fact and supported by substantial
evidence. 52 There being no allegation, much more evidence to prove that
reinstatement is impossible because of the strained relations of the parties,
the NLRC's order for reinstatement is proper.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for
review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated
October 27, 2015 and the Amended Decision dated September 19, 2016 of
the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 131134 are hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the wage differential which petitioner
Manuel B. Pablico must pay respondents Numeriano Cerro, Jr., Michael
Caliguiran, Efren Panganiban, Gloria Napitan, Reynalie Lim, Manny
Baguno, Genius Pauig, and Richard Caronan shall be subject to interest at
the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. Further, all of the monetary
awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. The appealed decision is
affirmed in all other respects.
51
Id. at 799-800.
52
Id.; Golden Ace Builders, et al. v. Ta/de, 634 Phil. 364, 370-371 (20 I 0).
ry~
Decision 12 G.R. No. 227200 \ ·
SO ORDERED.
ANDR~~EYES, JR.
As:;Q(ate Justice
WE LONCUR:
Associa¥/ Justice
Chairperson
RAMO~.tERNANDO
Associate Justice
,,,..-
H E N R I ~"JNTING
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
Associate J\tstice
Chairperson, Third Division
Decision 13 G.R. No. 227200
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
, -
CERTIFU:U fRUE COl Y
-
1
'
JUL , 9 20\9
