SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 201535, October 05, 2015
NEC SYSTEM INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION (NESIC) PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. RALPH T. CRISOLOGO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to nullify the November 18, 2011 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108873 which annulled the November 11, 2008 Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 043319-05, as well as the CA's April 12, 2012 Resolution4 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration5 thereon.
Factual Antecedents
On May 3, 1993, respondent Ralph T. Crisologo was employed by petitioner NEC System Integrated Construction Phils., Inc. (NESIC), a Philippine corporation wholly owned by NEC System Integration & Construction, Ltd., of Japan (NESIC Japan), a business engaged in providing specialty and technical telecommunications services. He was assigned as Manager of petitioner's Communication Facilities Engineering Department.
Due to his exemplary work performance, respondent was promoted several times: as Deputy Manager of the Corporate Planning Office directly under the office of the President; as Department Manager for Transmission Systems; as Head of Data Communications Department; as Assistant Vice-President, and eventually as Vice-President, of the Information Network Group; and as Vice-President of the Production Engineering Group6 - which is composed of the Telecommunications Group and the Information Network Group.7
Sometime in July 2001, respondent was appointed as Executive Senior Manager - Quality Control and Training,8 with a gross monthly salary of P93,596.84 including allowances.9 Although respondent was reluctant to accept the new position as this was a demotion from his position at that time as Vice-President, he nevertheless accepted the new position at the special request of then NESIC President Noriyuki Yamashita (Yamashita) in order to specifically train a certain Nakahata of Engineering and Operations Group for possible appointment as General Manager of NESIC Japan. In a July 3, 2001 Memorandum10 to Yamashita, respondent voiced his reservations about being effectively demoted yet expressed his willingness to train Nakahata on condition that his salary "remain the same," and that he would still be Head of the line functions for the ISED, or the Integrated Systems Engineering Department (Production Engineering Group). Respondent also expressed the "hope" that the appointment is only temporary. Respondent's memorandum is phrased as follows:
Sir,
As per our initial verbal conversation concerning the above subject, I would like to state my concern[s] as follows:
a.) Although I feel bad about my position as long as my salary scale would remain the same this might be acceptable.
b.) I am willing to train and assist Mr. Nakahata as General Manager so he would improve his skills and perform better when he would be ultimately be [sic] sent back to NESIC Japan.
c.) I would still be a line function as HEAD for ISED.11
d.) I just hope that this would be on a temporary basis.
Thanks for your continued support and trust in me.12 (Emphasis supplied)
x x x [W]e regret to inform you that the Company will undergo an organizational change that will involve the company-wide restructuring of work assignments and the abolition of certain positions from various departments. In this regard, it is also very unfortunate that you are among the employees that we have to let go and this shall take effect on April 5, 2004.
We would like you to understand that this move is brought about by the financial losses that we had in the previous year and the continued decrease in major projects. Although we have implemented cost reduction measures, these have not been substantial to keep the Company financially stable. Based on the latest sales forecasts and the trend in the currency fluctuations, the current Company situation is likely to continue in 2004. Thus, it is imperative that the,Company implement drastic cost reduction measures to make its business viable in the coming year. It is for this reason that the Company has to reduce its existing headcount in order to significantly reduce operating costs.
The Company offers you the Separation Pay (non-taxable): 100% of the latest monthly basic salary for every year of service wherein any fraction of over six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) year. This is to be released on or before March 12, 2004.
You will be receiving the following as part of your Last Pay (net of accountabilities to the Company), on or before April 30, 2004:
- Salary (including overtime if applicable) and allowances for March 1 - April 5, 2004
- Conversion of Earned Leave Balances for CY2004 (Vacation Leave and Sick Leave)
- 13th month pay (computed at 3 months/12 months) and Tax Refund for CY200424
upon evaluation of the company's organizational structure, [petitioner] found that the position of Executive Senior Manager - Quality Control and Training - was superfluous and in excess of the needs of the company. Since the position of Executive Senior Manager - Quality Control and Training is not a line position -[petitioner] determined that the line managers of [petitioner's] Engineering and Operations Group could review their own quality systems and processes, while [petitioner's] Support Group could handle the training of employees. As [respondent's] position was superfluous based on the foregoing findings, [petitioner found it necessary to abolish] the position of Executive Senior Manager - Quality Control and Training - as part of the company reorganization. At the same time, such abolition was in line with the Retrenchment Program's goal to prevent or reduce substantial business losses.25cralawredChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The sole issue for resolution in the instant case is: WHETHER XXX THE RETRENCHMENT MEASURE ADOPTED BY THE RESPONDENTS WHICH RESULTED TO [sic] THE TERMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT WAS JUST AND VALID.
There are formidable obstacles to a finding against the validity of the retrenchment program implemented by the respondent company. The evidence on record amply supports this conclusion.
The duly audited Financial Statements for December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the Report of Independent Auditors of the Sycip Gorres Velayo and Co., clearly [indicate] that the respondent company suffered a net loss of Php25,814,677.00 in calendar year 2003 despite implementing cost reduction program for the second half of said year. Pursuant to the Memorandum issued by the President on August 12, 2003 x x x, the following measures composed the company's cost reduction plans, to wit:"1. All Project/Contractual Employees shall be terminated effective September 2003. x x x
"2. Existing number [of] rented vehicles must be reduced by 50%. x x x
"3. Office supplies purchases will be put on hold except those that are extremely necessary in the operations of the company x x x.
"4. Communication expenses such as mobile phones must be reduced by 30%. x x x
Thus, in line with the cost reduction plan of the respondent company, various measures calculated to reduce operating expenses were undertaken x x x.
Despite the implementation of all the cost reduction measures, the respondent company still incurred business losses by the end of 2003. Respondents might not be faulted for taking the ultimate measure of retrenchment of workers.
The respondents justified the retrenchment of the complainant, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary"15. Upon evaluation of the company's organization[al] structure, NPI's management found that the position of Executive Senior Manager - Quality Control and Training was superfluous and in excess of the needs of the company, xxx NPI determined that the line managers of NPI's Engineering and Operations Group could review their own quality systems and processes, while NPI's Support Group could handle the training of employees. As complainant's position was superfluous based on the foregoing findings, NPI's management [abolished it. S]uch abolition was in line with the Retrenchment Program's goal to prevent or reduce substantial business losses."This Arbitration Branch finds merit in the respondents' arguments. The characterization of an employee's services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment x x x. The wisdom or soundness of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary review on the part of Labor Arbiters [of] the NLRC provided of course, that violation of law on arbitrary or malicious action is not shown (Golden Thread Knitting vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119157, March 11, 1999, citing Wiltshire File Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 83349, 7 February 1991,193 SCRA 655).
What militates strongly against the complainant's argument of illegal dismissal is that he executed a "Waiver and Quitclaim," which states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary"2. That in connection with my former employment with NPI, for valuable consideration in the amount of [PESOS:] ONE MILLION TWO THOUSAND SIXTY FIVE & 24/100 ONLY (Php1,002,065.24), by these presents, I hereby release, waive and forever discharge NPI, its officers, directors, representatives or employees from any action for sums of money or other obligations arising from my previous employment with NPI. I acknowledge that I have received all amounts that are now or in the future may be due from NPI. I therefore undertake not to do any act prejudicial to the interest of NPI, its branches, or its projects here in the Philippines, or abroad arising from my previous employment."Complainant as a senior managerial employee very well knew the implications and significance of said waiver and quitclaim. As a matter of fact, he did not dispute the validity and due execution of the said waiver and quitclaim. Moreover, this Arbitration Branch finds that complainant in the execution of the said waiver and quitclaim received a valuable consideration which is not considered unconscionable under the circumstances.
Finally, complainant's claim for service incentive leave pay may not be granted considering that complainant was a managerial employee and pursuant to Art. 82 of the Labor Code, he is excepted from the enjoyment of said benefit. Likewise, his claim for 13th month [pay] for 2004 has already been included in his final terminal pay.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The main thrust of complainant's appeal is whether x x x he was validly dismissed on the ground of retrenchment to prevent losses.
It must be stressed that retrenchment is a management prerogative, a means to protect and preserve the employer's viability and ensure [its] survival. This Court [sic] has always respected this prerogative during trying times but there must be faithful compliance by management with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence (Central Azucarera delaCarlotavs. NLRC, G.R. No. 100092, December 19, 1995).
The Labor Code, as amended, recognizes retrenchment as a mode of terminating an employment relationship. The Code provides as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryArt. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. - The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.Under this provision, there are three basic requisites for a valid retrenchment. These are: (a) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (b) written notice to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month's pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
It is undisputed in the instant case that the second requirement of written notice to the DOLE and the employees concerned at least a month before the retrenchment has been satisfactorily fulfilled by respondents x x x. What needs close examination is the first requirement, i.e. that the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and that such losses are proven.
There are four standards of retrenchment that must be observed to comply with the law. First, the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis. Second, the substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent, as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer. Third, because of the consequential nature of retrenchment, it must be reasonably necessary and likely to prevent the expected losses. Fourth, the alleged losses, if already incurred, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence x x x.
In his appeal, complainant avers that NPI's actual losses amounting to P25,814,677 cannot be considered substantial because NPI is such a big Japanese Multinational Company with an average yearly sales of over P300,000,000 and the incurred loss for CY 2003 of P25,814,677 is x x x a mere 9% of its revenue; that NPI's projected losses for 2004 were not reasonably imminent because NPI's Income Statement as of February of 2004 showed an expected loss for CY 2004 of P8,081,190; and that retrenchment was not valid because NPI even hired and regularized three personnels [sic] namely, Ms. Suzette Mendoza, Ms. Fredes Marie Lucas and Mr. Chester Genobaten.
We agree with the Labor Arbiter in his findings that respondents should not be faulted for taking the ultimate measure of retrenchment of workers. Records show that in line with the cost production [sic] plan of the respondents [sic] company, various measures calculated to reduce operating expenses were already undertaken xxx.
Moreover, it cannot be disputed that prior to complainant's dismissal, NPI actually suffered substantial losses in calendar year 2003 amounting to P25,814,677 as shown in the Financial Statements (December 31, 2003 and 2002) and Report of Independent Auditors prepared by Sycip Gorres Velayo and Co. x x x. We agree with the respondents that the said actual loss is substantial by any account and cannot be considered de minimis. It should also be noted that NPFs actual loss in 2003 constituted more than half of its P50,000,000.00 authorized capital stock x x x.
Further, the assertion by the complainant that NPFs projected losses for the year 2004 were not reasonably imminent deserves scant consideration. In fact, x x x the Financial Statements x x x and Report of Independent Auditors x x x reveals [sic] that NPI actually suffered P30,745,801 x x x.
If the Labor Code allows retrenchment in cases where the employer foresees imminent losses, then retrenchment is all the more justified when the employer has actually incurred substantial losses. In the case at bar, NPI did not only suffer losses of P25,814,677 in 2003. NPI also projected and, in fact, actually suffered losses of P30,745,801 in 2004.
Anent the allegation of complainant regarding the hiring of new employees by the respondents, the same is substantially justified by the respondents. Ms. Suzette Mendoza and Ms. Fredes Marie Lucas were respectively hired in September and October of 2003 in order to augment NPFs Marketing and Sales Department. On the other hand, Mr. Chester Genobaten who was allegedly hired as complainant's replacement was hired in November of 2003 as the successor of an Assistant General Manager who was scheduled to retire in December of 2003. When NPI re-hired Mr. Genobaten in November of 2003, complainant's Quality Control and Training position was not yet being considered for abolition x x x. NPI validly exercised management prerogative.
Be that as it may, We cannot ignore the fact that complainant signed a Waiver and Quitclaim. The Labor Arbiter is correct in stating that the complainant is bound by the Quitclaim he executed. Considering that he received a valuable consideration in the amount of P1,002,065.24; that he executed the said Quitclaim three days after he received a copy of his termination [notice], or after he had sufficient time to reflect on the validity of his dismissal; that complainant is not an ordinary rank and file employee but occupying a managerial position, We cannot believe complainant's claim that he was made to sign the Waiver and Quitclaim under pressure. Undisputably [sic], it was voluntarily executed by the complainant. In Periquet vs. NLRC, 186 SCRA 724, the Supreme Court held that not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be discarded simply because of a change of mind.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of complainant is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera dated November 30,2004 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.41ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the public respondent NLRC is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, a new one is rendered ordering private respondents as follows -
1. To pay petitioner full backwages x x x;cralawlawlibrary
2. To pay petitioner separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, x x x with the corresponding deduction of whatever amount he had already received from private respondents as separation pay;cralawlawlibrary
3. To pay petitioner his Salary (including overtime if applicable) and allowances for 01 March - 10 April 2004, the Conversion of Earned Leave Balances for CY2004 (Vacation Leave and Sick Leave), and 13th month pay (for the covered period of CY2004) and Tax Refund for CY2004; and
4. To pay petitioner attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
The other reliefs prayed for are denied for lack of merit.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.47ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
As for the fifth requirement listed above, private respondents48 were not able to show x x x reasonable criteria as to why petitioner49 was one of the seventeen (17) employees laid off. They merely stated that there was no need for them to adopt a set of criteria, as these [are applicable] only if the employer has to choose whom to terminate among several employees occupying similar positions.
We hold that private respondents failed to use fair and reasonable criteria in determining which employees shall be retrenched or retained. Private respondents have not explained why petitioner had to be laid off without considering his many years of service with private respondents - eleven (11) years. The fact that petitioner had been in private respondents' employ for so long a time indicates that he had been retained because of his loyal and efficient service. Moreover, there is no showing also that petitioner's job performance is below par. The absence of criteria in the selection of an employee to be dismissed renders the dismissal arbitrary.
Private respondents' allegation that petitioner's position was superfluous and in excess of the needs of the company should not be given any credit. There was no substantial evidence presented by private respondents to justify petitioner's dismissal due to redundancy. In private respondents' letter addressed to the DOLE, they mentioned "the company-wide restructuring which has, x x x, resulted in a reorganization of work assignments and the abolition of certain positions that are no longer needed in the new organizational set up" "in the face of losses in millions and continued decrease in major projects." In the letter addressed to petitioner, private respondents also alleged that "the Company will undergo an organizational change that will involve the company-wide restructuring of work assignments and the abolition of certain positions from various departments." These letters do not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence, that is, the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirement of the enterprise. It is the burden of private respondents, as employer, to prove the factual and legal basis for the dismissal of their employee, i.e., petitioner, on the ground of redundancy.
It is however not enough for a company to merely declare that positions have become redundant. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected employees. In Panlilio v. NLRC, the Supreme Court said that the following evidence may be proffered to substantiate redundancy: "the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring." In another case, it was held that the company sufficiently established the fact of redundancy through "affidavits executed by the officers of the respondent [company], explaining the reasons and necessities for the implementation of the redundancy program."
The employer must comply with the following requisites to ensure the validity of the implementation of a redundancy program: (1) a written notice served on both the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month (sic) pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. In several instances, the Court has held that it is important for a company to have fair and reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy program, such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) efficiency and (c) seniority. This[,] private respondents failed to do.
We find that private respondents failed to establish either redundancy or retrenchment. Hence, petitioner's termination from employment was illegal.
Finally, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ariola vs. Philex Mining Corporation, invalidated a retrenchment program for its improper implementation despite proof of financial losses, x x x
xxxx
Thus, from the foregoing, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in finding that the retrenchment of petitioner was valid.
Article 279 of the Labor Code pertinently provides:
Art. 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.50
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO, [AND] MORE SO IN GRANTING, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI NOTWITHSTANDING RESPONDENT'S DEFECTIVE VERIFICATION/ CERTIFICATION.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI [AND IN REJECTING] THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC.III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE NLRC.IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI [AND IN HOLDING] THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUISITES OF A VALID TERMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF RETRENCHMENT AND/OR REDUNDANCY.
a. All the requisites of a valid termination on the grounds of retrenchment and/or redundancy are present.
b. Petitioner complied with the 30-day notice rule.
c. Respondent was terminated based on fair and reasonable criteria.
d. Petitioner presented substantial evidence to prove redundancy.V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI NOTWITHSTANDING RESPONDENT'S EXECUTION OF A VALID QUITCLAIM AND WAIVER.VI.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING RESPONDENT FULL BACKWAGES AND SEPARATION PAY.VII.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING RESPONDENT ATTORNEY'S FEE'S.54
That I, RALPH T. CRISOLOGO, of legal age, Filipino and with address at 100 AMR. U.P.C. VILL. T. SORA QC, on my own free will, and for valuable consideration, hereby declare and manifest:
1. That I have ceased to be employed at NESIC Philippines, Inc. (NPI) due to retrenchment resulting from reorganization at the close of business hours of April 5, 2004.
2. That in connection with my former employment with NPI, for valuable consideration in the amount of [PESOS:] ONE MILLION TWO THOUSAND SIXTY FIVE & 24/100 ONLY (Php 1,002,065.24), by these presents, I hereby release, waive and forever discharge NPI, its officers, directors, representatives or employees from any action for sums of money or other obligations arising from my previous employment with NPI. I acknowledge that I have received all amounts that are now or in the future may be due me from NPI. I therefore undertake not to do any act prejudicial to the interest of NPI, its branches, or its projects here in the Philippines or abroad arising from my previous employment.
3. That I acknowledge that I have no cause of action whatsoever, criminal, civil or otherwise against NPI, its officers, agents or representatives or project employees with respect to any matter arising from or cessation of my employment with NPI. I further warrant that I will institute no action and will
not continue to prosecute, pending actions, if any against NPI, its officers, agents or representatives or project employees.
IN WINTESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12 day of March, 2004 at Makati City.
(Signed)
RALPH T. CRISOLOGO
Employee's Signature over Printed Name60
(Emphases supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
March 31, 2004
Mr. RALPH T. CRISOLOGO
100 Ambuklao Rd., NPC Village
Tandang Sora, Quezon City
Dear Mr. Crisologo,
We would like to inform you that we are adjusting the effectivity of your retrenchment to April 10, 2004 instead of April 5, 2004 in consideration of the actual receipt of the Original Copy of the Retrenchment Letter dated March 5, 2004 sent to your [residence] through registered mail on the same date and basing on the certification issued by the QC Central Post Office. In addition to the Separation Pay you have received on March 12, 2004, you shall be receiving the following as part of your Last Pay (net of accountabilities to the Company), on or before April 30, 2004:Your Certificate of Employment shall be reflecting your service to the Company from your hiring date up to April 10, 2004.
- Salary (including overtime if applicable) and allowances for March 1 - April 10, 2004
- Conversion of Earned Leave Balances for CY2004 (Vacation Leave and Sick Leave)
- 13th month pay (for the covered period of CY2004) and Tax Refund for CY 2004
Again, THANK YOU and we wish you luck in all your future endeavors.
Very sincerely,
(Signed)
HIDEAKI AMAKAWA
President67
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. As in this case.
Endnotes:
* Designated as Acting Chief Justice, per Special Order No. 2235 dated September 29, 2015; designated as Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2222 dated September 29, 2015.
** Per Special Order No. 2223 dated September 29, 2015.
*** Per Special Order No. 2246 dated October 5, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 31-72.
2 Id. at 74-91; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Normandie B. Pizarro.
3 Id. at 146-152; penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and concurred in by Commissioner Perlita P. Velasco.
4 Id. at 93-95.
5 Id. at 96-120.
6 Id. at 709.
7 Id. at 679-684; 701-716, 724, 726-727.
8 Id. at 681-682.
9 Id. at 745-746.
10 Id. at 712.
11 Integrated Systems Engineering Department (Production Engineering Group).
12Rollo, p. 712.
13Id. at 711; presumably, Yamashita intended "GM" to mean "General Manager."
14 Id. at 717.
15 Id. at 282.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 283-284.
18 Id. at 285-286.
19 Id. at 287-304.
20 Id. at 290.
21 Id. at 305.
22 Id. at 306-308.
23 Id. at 309.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 256; also, at 37-38.
26 Id. at 310-311.
27 Id. at 128-129; 731-732.
28 Id. at 249-250.
29 Id. at 679-699.
30 Id. at 829-853.
31 Id. at 784, 786.
32 Id. at 769-781.
33 Id. at 251-276.
34 Id. at 325-348.
35 Id. at 390-419.
36 Id. at 332.
37 Id. at 424-430; penned by Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera.
38 Id. at 427-430.
39 Id. at 199-215; Memorandum of Appeal.
40 Id. at 146-152.
41 Id. at 148-152.
42 Id. at 490-491; Resolution dated February 27, 2009.
43 Id. at 121-145.
44 Id. at 221-247.
45 Id. at 492-506.
46 Id. at 508.
47 Id. at 89-91.
48 Herein petitioner and Amakawa.
49 Herein respondent.
50Rollo, pp. 82-86.
51 ART. 111. Attorney's fees. - (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney's fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered
52 Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;cralawlawlibrary
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;cralawlawlibrary
(3) hi criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;cralawlawlibrary
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;cralawlawlibrary
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim;cralawlawlibrary
(6) In actions for legal support;cralawlawlibrary
(7) hi actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;cralawlawlibrary
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;cralawlawlibrary
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;cralawlawlibrary
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;cralawlawlibrary
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
53Rollo, pp. 1135-1136.
54 Id. at 42-43.
55 Id. at 1108-1126.
56 Citing Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246 (2008).
57Rollo, pp. 967-981.
58 Id. at 1026; Resolution dated October 10,2012.
59 Id. at 310.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 Id. at 311.
66 Id. at 312.
67 Id.
68 Entitled "Profile and Working Experience with NESIC Philippines, Inc., id. at 321-324.
69 264 Phil. 1115, 1122 (1990).
70 G.R. No. 93059, June 3,1991, 198 SCRA 111.
71 Id. at 119.
72 Id.
73 Supra note 65.
74 Supra note 66.
75 497 Phil. 945 (2005).
76 G.R. No. 110261, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 96.
77 519 Phil. 438 (2006).
78 526 Phil 448 (2006).