FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 186621. March 12, 2014.]

SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. and/or ESTANISLAO 1

AGBAY , petitioners, vs . JESUS J. COMING , respondent.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR. , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse and
set aside the Decision 2 dated February 21, 2008 and Resolution 3 dated February 9, 2009
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02113.
Petitioner South East International Rattan, Inc. (SEIRI) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries with
principal place of business at Paknaan, Mandaue City, while petitioner Estanislao Agbay, as
per records, is the President and General Manager of SEIRI. 4
On November 3, 2003, respondent Jesus J. Coming led a complaint 5 for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, damages and
attorney's fees.
Respondent alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator on
March 17, 1984. His work schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Initially, his
compensation was on "pakiao" basis but sometime in June 1984, it was xed at P150.00
per day which was paid weekly. In 1990, without any apparent reason, his employment was
interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume work in two months time. Being an
uneducated person, respondent was persuaded by the management as well as his brother
not to complain, as otherwise petitioners might decide not to call him back for work.
Fearing such consequence, respondent accepted his fate. Nonetheless, after two months
he reported back to work upon order of management. 6
Despite being an employee for many years with his work performance never
questioned by petitioners, respondent was dismissed on January 1, 2002 without lawful
cause. He was told that he will be terminated because the company is not doing well
nancially and that he would be called back to work only if they need his services again.
Respondent waited for almost a year but petitioners did not call him back to work. When
he nally led the complaint before the regional arbitration branch, his brother Vicente was
used by management to persuade him to withdraw the case. 7 TDSICH

On their part, petitioners denied having hired respondent asserting that SEIRI was
incorporated only in 1986, and that respondent actually worked for SEIRI's furniture
suppliers because when the company started in 1987 it was engaged purely in buying and
exporting furniture and its business operations were suspended from the last quarter of
1989 to August 1992. They stressed that respondent was not included in the list of
employees submitted to the Social Security System (SSS). Moreover, respondent's
brother, Vicente Coming, executed an a davit 8 in support of petitioners' position while
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar issued notarized certi cations 9 that respondent
worked for them instead. 1 0
With the denial of petitioners that respondent was their employee, the latter
submitted an a davit 1 1 signed by ve former co-workers stating that respondent was
one of the pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost twenty years.
In his Decision 1 2 dated April 30, 2004, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon ruled that
respondent is a regular employee of SEIRI and that the termination of his employment was
illegal. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
the respondent South East (Int'1.) Rattan, Inc. to pay complainant Jesus J.
Coming the following:

1. Separation pay P114,400.00

2. Backwages P30,400.00
3. Wage differential P15,015.00
4. 13th month pay P5,958.00
5. Holiday pay P4,000.00
Service incentive leave
6. P2,000.00
pay
––––––––––
Total award P171,773.00
==========

The other claims and the case against respondent Estanislao Agbay are
dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 1 3

Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-Cebu City

where they submitted the following additional evidence: (1) copies of SEIRI's payrolls and
individual pay records of employees; 1 4 (2) a davit 1 5 of SEIRI's Treasurer, Angelina
Agbay; and (3) second affidavit 1 6 of Vicente Coming.
On July 28, 2005, the NLRC's Fourth Division rendered its Decision, 1 7 the dispositive
portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is
hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered DISMISSING the
complaint.

SO ORDERED. 1 8

The NLRC likewise denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. 1 9

Respondent elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
By Decision dated February 21, 2008, the CA reversed the NLRC and ruled that there
existed an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent who was
dismissed without just and valid cause.
The CA thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
The assailed Decision dated July 28, 2005 issued by the National Labor Relations
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Commission (NLRC), Fourth Division, Cebu City in NLRC Case No. V-000625-2004
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated April 30,
2004 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION on the computation of backwages
which should be computed from the time of illegal termination until the nality of
this decision. HaEcAC

Further, the Labor Arbiter is directed to make the proper adjustment in the
computation of the award of separation pay as well as the monetary awards of
wage differential, 13th month pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave pay.

SO ORDERED. 2 0

Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied it under Resolution
dated February 9, 2009.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
6.1
WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE FINDING OF
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE EXISTS EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT IS IN
ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT.

6.2

WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY BOTH PARTIES.
6.3

WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE FINDING OF

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE.
6.4

WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED, THE RULING OF THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE BACKWAGES DUE THE RESPONDENT SHOULD
BE COMPUTED FROM THE TIME OF ILLEGAL TERMINATION UNTIL THE
FINALITY OF THE DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.
21

Resolution of the rst issue is paramount in view of petitioners' denial of the

existence of employer-employee relationship.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given
case is essentially a question of fact. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and this
applies with greater force in labor cases. 2 2 Only errors of law are generally reviewed by
this Court. 2 3 This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the
Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual ndings of the Labor
Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are con icting. 2 4 Here, the ndings of the NLRC differed
from those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA, which compels the Court's exercise of its
authority to review and pass upon the evidence presented and to draw its own conclusions
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 therefrom. 2 5
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has
invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the employee's conduct, or the so-called "control test." 2 6 In resolving the issue of
whether such relationship exists in a given case, substantial evidence — that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion — is su cient. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the
existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted, a nding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest
on substantial evidence. 2 7 TaDSHC

In support of their claim that respondent was not their employee, petitioners
presented Employment Reports to the SSS from 1987 to 2002, the Certi cations issued
by Mayol and Apondar, two a davits of Vicente Coming, payroll sheets (1999-2000),
individual pay envelopes and employee earnings records (1999-2000) and a davit of
Angelina Agbay (Treasurer and Human Resources O cer). The payroll and pay records did
not include the name of respondent. The a davit of Ms. Agbay stated that after SEIRI
started its business in 1986 purely on export trading, it ceased operations in 1989 as
evidenced by Certi cation dated January 18, 1994 from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC); that when business resumed in 1992, SEIRI undertook only a little of
manufacturing; that the company never hired any workers for varnishing and pole sizing
because it bought the same from various suppliers, including Faustino Apondar;
respondent was never hired by SEIRI; and while it is true that Mr. Estanislao Agbay is the
company President, he never dispensed the salaries of workers. 2 8
In his first affidavit, Vicente Coming averred that:
6.  [Jesus Coming] is a furniture factory worker. In 1982 to 1986, he
was working with Ben Mayol as round core maker/splitter.

7.   Thereafter, we joined Okay Okay Yard owned by Amelito

Montececillo. This is a rattan trader with business address near Cebu Rattan
Factory on a "Pakiao" basis.
8.   However, Jesus and I did not stay long at Okay Okay Yard and
instead we joined Eleuterio Agbay in Labogon, Cebu in 1989. In 1991, we went
back to Okay Okay located near the residence of Atty. Vicente de la Serna in
Mandaue City. We were on a "pakiao" basis. We stayed put until 1993 when we
resigned and joined Dodoy Luna in Labogon, Mandaue City as classi er until
1995. In 1996[,] Jesus rested. It was only in 1997 that he worked back. He
replaced me, as a classi er in Rattan Traders owned by Allan Mayol. But then,
towards the end of the year, he left the factory and relaxed in our place of birth, in
Sogod, Cebu.
9.  It was only towards the end of 1999 that Jesus was taken back by
Allan Mayol as sizing machine operator. However, the work was off and on basis.
Not regular in nature, he was harping a side line job with me knowing that I am
now working with Faustino Apondar that supplies rattan furniture's [sic] to South
East (Int'l.) Rattan, Inc. As a brother, I allowed Jesus to work with me and collect
the proceeds of his services as part of my collectibles from Faustino Apondar
since I was on a "pakiao" basis. He was working at his pleasure. Which means, he
works if he likes to? That will be until 10:00 o'clock in the evening.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 xxx xxx xxx 2 9

The Certification dated January 20, 2004 of Allan Mayol reads:

This is to certify that I personally know Jesus Coming, the brother of
Vicente Coming. Jesus is a rattan factory worker and he was working with me as
rattan pole sizing/classi er of my business from 1997 up to part of 1998 when
he left my factory at will I took him back towards the end of 1999, this time as a
sizing machine operator. In all these years, his services are not regular. He works
only if he likes to. 3 0

Faustino Apondar likewise issued a Certification which states:

This is to certify that I am a maker/supplier of finished Rattan Furniture. As
such, I have several rattan furniture workers under me, one of whom is Vicente
Coming, the brother of Jesus Coming.
That sometime in 1999, Vicente pleaded to me for a side line job of his
brother, Jesus who was already connected with Allan Mayol. Having vouched for
the integrity of his brother and knowing that the job is temporary in character, I
allowed Jesus to work with his brother Vicente. However, the proceeds will be
collected together with his brother Vicente since it was the latter who was working
with me. He renders services to his brother work only after the regular working
hours but off and on basis. 3 1

On the other hand, respondent submitted the a davit executed by Eleoterio Brigoli,
Pedro Brigoli, Napoleon Coming, Efren Coming and Gil Coming who all attested that
respondent was their co-worker at SEIRI. Their affidavit reads:
We, the undersigned, all of legal ages, Filipino, and resident[s] of Cebu,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say:
That we are former employees of SOUTH EAST RATTAN which is owned
by Estan Eslao Agbay;
That we personally know JESUS COMING considering that we worked
together in one company SOUTH EAST RATTANT [sic];
That we together with JESUS COMING are all under the employ of ESTAN
ESLAO AGBAY considering that the latter is the one directly paying us and holds
the absolute control of all aspects of our employment; aICcHA

That it is not true that JESUS COMING is under the employ of one person
other than ESTAN ESLAO AGBAY OF SOUTH EAST RATTAN;
That Jesus Coming is one of the pioneer employees of SOUTH EAST
RATTAN and had been employed therein for almost twenty years;
That we executed this a davit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts
and to deny any contrary allegation made by the company against his
employment with SOUTH EAST RATTAN. 3 2

In his decision, Labor Arbiter Carreon found that respondent's work as sizing
machine operator is usually necessary and desirable to the rattan furniture business of
petitioners and their failure to include respondent in the employment report to SSS is not
conclusive proof that respondent is not their employee. As to the a davit of Vicente
Coming, Labor Arbiter Carreon did not give weight to his statement that respondent is not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioners' employee but that of one Faustino Apondar. Labor Arbiter Carreon was not
convinced that Faustino Apondar is an independent contractor who has a contractual
relationship with petitioners.
In reversing the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC reasoned as follows:
First complainant alleged that he worked continuously from March 17,
1984 up to January 21, 2002. Records reveal however that South East (Int'l.)
Rattan, Inc. was incorporated only last July 18, 1986 (p. 55 records)[.] Moreover,
when they started to actually operate in 1987, the company was engaged purely
on "buying and exporting rattan furniture" hence no manufacturing employees
were hired. Furthermore, from the last quarter of 1989 up to August of 1992, the
company suspended operations due to economic reverses as per Certi cation
issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (p. 56 records)[.]
Second, for all his insistence that he was a regular employee, complainant
failed to present a single payslip, voucher or a copy of a company payroll
showing that he rendered service during the period indicated therein. . . .

From the above established facts we are inclined to give weight and
credence to the Certi cations of Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar, both
suppliers of nished Rattan Furniture (pp. 442-43, records). It appears that
complainant rst worked with Allan Mayol and later with Faustino Apondar upon
the proddings of his brother Vicente. Vicente's a davit as to complainant's
employment history was more detailed and forthright. . . .
xxx xxx xxx

In the case at bar, there is likewise substantial evidence to support our

findings that complainant was not an employee of respondents. Thus:
1.   Complainant's name does not appear in the list of employees
reported to the SSS.
2.   His name does not also appear in the sample payrolls of
respondents' employees.
3.  The certi cation of Allan Mayol and Fasutino Apondar[,] supplier
of nished rattan products[,] that complainant had at one time or
another worked with them.
4.   The A davit of Vicente Coming, complainant's full brother[,]
attesting that complainant had never been an employee of
respondent. The only connection was that their employer Faustino
Apondar supplies finished rattan products to respondents. 3 3

On the other hand, the CA gave more credence to the declarations of the ve former
employees of petitioners that respondent was their co-worker in SEIRI. One of said
a ants is Vicente Coming's own son, Gil Coming. Vicente averred in his second a davit
that when he confronted his son, the latter explained that he was merely told by their
Pastor to sign the a davit as it will put an end to the controversy. Vicente insisted that his
son did not know the contents and implications of the document he signed. As to the
absence of respondent's name in the payroll and SSS employment report, the CA observed
that the payrolls submitted were only from January 1, 1999 to December 29, 2000 and not
the entire period of eighteen years when respondent claimed he worked for SEIRI. It further
noted that the names of the ve a ants, whom petitioners admitted to be their former
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 employees, likewise do not appear in the aforesaid documents. According to the CA, it is
apparent that petitioners maintained a separate payroll for certain employees or willfully
retained a portion of the payroll. SEcADa

. . . As to the "control test", the following facts indubitably reveal that

respondents wielded control over the work performance of petitioner, to wit: (1)
they required him to work within the company premises; (2) they obliged petitioner
to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same job;
(3) they enforced the observance of de nite hours of work from 8 o'clock in the
morning to 5 o'clock in the afternoon; (4) the mode of payment of petitioner's
salary was under their discretion, at rst paying him on pakiao basis and
thereafter, on daily basis; (5) they implemented company rules and regulations;
(6) [Estanislao] Agbay directly paid petitioner's salaries and controlled all aspects
of his employment and (7) petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in
the business of the respondent company. 3 4

We affirm the CA.

In Tan v. Lagrama , 3 5 the Court held that the fact that a worker was not reported as
an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee
relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to
perform his obligation. 3 6
Nor does the fact that respondent's name does not appear in the payrolls and pay
envelope records submitted by petitioners negate the existence of employer-employee
relationship. For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must
contain a true and complete list of the employee. 3 7 In this case, the exhibits offered by
petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of payrolls and pay earnings records are
only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not cover the entire 18-year period during which
respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
In their comment to the petition led by respondent in the CA, petitioners
emphasized that in the certi cations issued by Mayol and Apondar, it was shown that
respondent was employed and working for them in those years he claimed to be working
for SEIRI. However, a reading of the certi cation by Mayol would show that while the latter
claims to have respondent under his employ in 1997, 1998 and 1999, respondent's
services were not regular and that he works only if he wants to. Apondar's certi cation
likewise stated that respondent worked for him since 1999 through his brother Vicente as
"sideline" but only after regular working hours and "off and on" basis. Even assuming the
truth of the foregoing statements, these do not foreclose respondent's regular or full-time
employment with SEIRI. In effect, petitioners suggest that respondent was employed by
SEIRI's suppliers, Mayol and Apondar but no competent proof was presented as to the
latter's status as independent contractors.
In the same comment, petitioners further admitted that the ve a ants who
attested to respondent's employment with SEIRI are its former workers whom they
describe as "disgruntled workers of SEIRI" with an axe to grind against petitioners, and that
their execution of a davit in support of respondent's claim is "their very way of hitting
back the management of SEIRI after disciplinary measures were meted against them." 3 8
This allegation though was not substantiated by petitioners. Instead, after the CA rendered
its decision reversing the NLRC's ruling, petitioners subsequently changed their theory by
denying the employment relationship with the ve a ants in their motion for
reconsideration, thus:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 . . . Since the ve workers were occupying and working on a leased
premises of the private respondent, they were called workers of SEIRI (private
respondent). Such admission however, does not connote employment. For the
truth of the matter, all of the ve employees of the supplier assigned at the leased
premises of the private respondent. Because of the recommendation of the
private respondent with regards to the disciplinary measures meted on the ve
workers, they wanted to hit back against the private respondent. Their motive to
implicate private respondent was to vindicate. De nitely, they have an axe to
grind against the private respondent. Mention has to be made that despite the
dismissal of these ve (5) witnesses from their service, none of them ever went to
the National Labor [Relations] Commission and invoked their rights, if any,
against their employer or at the very least against the respondent. The reason is
obvious, since they knew pretty well that they were not employees of SEIRI but
rather under the employ of Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar, working on a
leased premise of respondent. . . . 3 9

Petitioners' admission that the ve a ants were their former employees is binding
upon them. While they claim that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol
and Apondar, they did not submit proof that the latter were indeed independent
contractors; clearly, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their own
a rmative allegation. 4 0 There is thus no showing that the ve former employees of SEIRI
were motivated by malice, bad faith or any ill-motive in executing their a davit supporting
the claims of respondent.
In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising
from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer. 4 1
As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under
Article 279 4 2 of the Labor Code and may only be dismissed for a just 4 3 or authorized 4 4
cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.
Respondent, whose employment was terminated without valid cause by petitioners,
is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his
full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other bene ts or their monetary equivalent,
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages
shall be computed from the time of the illegal termination up to the nality of the decision.
Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should likewise be
awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement in not possible. 4 5
WHEREFORE , the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED . The Decision dated
February 21, 2008 and Resolution dated February 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. No. CEB-SP No. 02113 are hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD .
Petitioners to pay the costs of suit. acHDTE

SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Estaneslao and Estan Eslao in some parts of the records.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 2.Rollo, pp. 37-46. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
3.Id. at 47-48. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices
Francisco P. Acosta and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
4.Records, pp. 21, 27-37 and 56.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 1, 47.
7.Id. at 47.

8.Id. at 44-45.
9.Id. at 42-43.
10.Id. at 23, 51.
11.Id. at 62.

12. Id. at 63-68.

13.Id. at 67.
14.Id. at 101-282.
15.Id. at 283-284.
16.Id. at 285.

17.Id. at 313-318.
18.Id. at 318.
19.Id. at 345-347.
20.Rollo, p. 46.
21.Id. at 16.

22.Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Pena , 478 Phil. 68, 77 (2004), citing Fleischer Co., Inc. v. NLRC , 407
Phil. 391, 399 (2001).

23.Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion , G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422, 434, citing
Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap , 558 Phil.
666, 673 (2007).
24.Jao v. BCC Products Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 163700, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 38, 44.

25.Id. at 45.
26.Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison , G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011, 655 SCRA 193,
202, citing Philippine Global Communications, Inc. v. De Vera , 498 Phil. 301, 308-309
(2005).
27.Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio , G.R. No. 161787, July 27, 2011, 654
SCRA 490, 498, citing Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, People's Broadcasting
(Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment ,
G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 724, 753 and Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 473, 478.
28.Records, pp. 27-43, 56, 101-287.
29.Id. at 44.
30.Id. at 42.

31.Id. at 43.
32.Id. at 62.
33.Id. at 314-315, 317-318.
34.Rollo, p. 43.
35.436 Phil. 190, 204-205 (2002), citing Lambo v. NLRC, 375 Phil. 855, 862 (1999).

36.Id. at 205, citing Spouses Santos v. NLRC, 354 Phil. 918, 932 (1998).
37.Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, supra note 27.
38.CA rollo, p. 205.
39.Id. at 241-242.

40.Masing and Sons Development Corporation v. Rogelio, supra note 27, at 502.
41.Id.
42.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 bene ts or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement.

43.LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 282.

44.Id., Arts. 283 and 284.
45.CRC Agricultural Trading v. National Labor Relations Commission , G.R. No. 177664,
December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 138, 151, citing RBC Cable Master System v. Baluyot, G.R.
No. 172670, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 668, 679 and Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena ,
561 Phil. 620, 644 (2007).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com