Concentrix Services Corp v. Aranas

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229568. September 29, 2021.]

CONCENTRIX SERVICES CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. ALLAN L. ARANAS AND ARISTOTLE SOMBILLO, respondents.

[G.R. No. 229690. September 29, 2021.]

ALLAN L. ARANAS AND ARISTOTLE SOMBILLO, petitioners,vs. SYNNEX-CONCENTRIX CORPORATION/CONCENTRIX SERVICES CORPORATION, MICHAEL JOHANNES TABUNAR AND ROMA VILLARAMA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 229568 (Concentrix Services Corporation, Petitioner, v. Allan L. Aranas and Aristotle Sombillo, Respondents, and G.R. No. 229690 (Allan L. Aranas and Aristotle Sombillo, Petitioners, v. Synnex-Concentrix Corporation/Concentrix Services Corporation, Michael Johannes Tabunar and Roma Villarama, Respondents.) — These consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari1 (petitions) seek to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 28 October 2016 and Resolution 3 dated 27 January 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143375.

Antecedents

Concentrix Services Corporation 4 (Concentrix) is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines as a technical solutions provider and contact center. 5 In 2010, Concentrix hired Allan Aranas (Aranas) as Team Captain for its Dish Network account. 6 In 2011, Aristotle Sombillo (Sombillo) was employed by Concentrix as a Technical Support Agent for the same account. 7 Both Aranas and Sombillo were regular employees of Concentrix. 8

On 19 August 2011, Sombillo and Aranas, along with twelve (12) other call center agents and their respective Team Captains, were pulled out of the call center floor to meet Concentrix's Operations Manager, John Benedict Reyes (Reyes). 9 Reyes informed the agents and Team Captains that they shall be "off the phone" until further notice and pending an investigation, as they allegedly divulged account information to a caller who introduced himself as a technician or installer of Dish Network services. 10

Previously, or on 09 August 2011, Concentrix issued a Business Alert prescribing a new standard operating procedure regarding account security on technician calls. The Business Alert was made effective immediately. 11

Sombillo's alleged violation pertains to a call on 27 July 2011, where he provided account information to the supposed technician. Sombillo does not deny the disclosure. He claimed, however, that he and the other agents merely followed standard operating procedure. 12

A few weeks after, Aranas was transferred to Concentrix's Global Command Center (GCC), but he retained the designation of Team Captain. 13 Eventually, Aranas was also assigned in the Sony account as a Fraud Analyst. 14 Sombillo was transferred to the Quality Assurance (QA) Department as a Trender. 15 When the position became obsolete, Sombillo was reassigned as QA Trainee. 16 Some of the other agents and Team Captains who were pulled out of the Dish Network account no longer reported to work, while other Team Captains were transferred to other accounts. 17

Concentrix neither filed any formal charge, nor initiated proceedings, against Aranas and Sombillo. Their transfers were not accompanied by any formal notice or revised contract. 18 Due to their reassignment, Aranas and Sombillo stopped receiving certain incentives and benefits. Moreover, their new functions and duties were different from those of their original positions. 19 After more than two (2) years in their new roles, Aranas and Sombillo filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. 20

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On 26 February 2015, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision 21 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, evidence and law considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. However, respondents are hereby given five (5) days from receipt hereof to bestow on complainants the proper designations/titles as befits their post transfer functions and responsibilities as essayed in this case.

SO ORDERED.22

The LA found that Aranas and Sombillo were not constructively dismissed because their transfer did not result in a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries and benefits. 23 They merely lost performance incentives. 24 Moreover, the transfer was legitimately made to respond to actual manpower demand. 25 Nonetheless, the LA directed Concentrix to grant Aranas and Sombillo the appropriate titles so as to reflect their true status at the company.

Aggrieved, Aranas and Sombillo appealed the LA Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Ruling of the NLRC

In a Decision 26 dated 31 July 2015, the NLRC denied the appeal and affirmed the LA Decision. The NLRC held that there was no demotion in rank since the new duties and responsibilities of Aranas and Sombillo were not clerical, as claimed. 27 Similarly, their benefits were not diminished because they were receiving the same salary. 28

Aranas and Sombillo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 29 which was denied in a Resolution dated 30 September 2015. 30 Aranas and Sombillo then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. 31

Ruling of the CA

The CA granted the petition and directed the reinstatement of Aranas and Sombillo. The fallo of the Decision dated 28 October 2016 reads:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated July 31, 2015 and Resolution dated September 30, 2015 of public respondent NLRC are reversed and set aside. Private respondents are ordered to reinstate petitioners to their former positions, without loss of seniority rights, including incentives.

SO ORDERED.32

According to the CA, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion as the latter's ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence. 33 According to the CA, Aranas and Sombillo were constructively dismissed when they were transferred to positions that had markedly different duties from their previous positions. 34 Their "floating" status, coupled with the absence of performance reviews, made them ineligible to receive incentives. 35

The CA then directed Concentrix to reinstate both employees to their previous positions so that they may regain their eligibility to the incentives they enjoyed. However, the CA did not award backwages since Aranas and Sombillo were receiving the same salaries even after their transfers. 36

Concentrix moved for reconsideration. 37 Aranas and Sombillo also filed a motion for partial reconsideration, 38 praying that the CA decision be modified to award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, monthly and quarterly incentives, upsell incentives, profit share, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 39 Both motions were denied by the CA in a Resolution 40 dated 27 January 2017.

Hence, these consolidated petitions.

In the meantime, Sombillo resigned from Concentrix in December 2015. His formal notice contained his sentiments on his "involuntary resignation." 41 In April 2016, Concentrix terminated Aranas after his absence without official leave. 42

Issues

The issues for this Court's resolution are whether:

1. The CA erred when it held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding constructive dismissal;

2. The CA erred when it did not award backwages, including the monthly and quarterly incentives, upsell incentives, and profit share;

3. The CA erred when it refused to award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; and

4. The CA erred in not awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Ruling of the Court

The NLRC gravely abused its

In resolving whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion, We must pass upon the main issue of whether Aranas and Sombillo were indeed constructively dismissed. This question is factual and requires an examination of the evidence on record. 43 While this Court is not a trier of facts, 44 there are exceptions to said rule, among which is when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the NLRC and the LA, as in this case. 45 To finally resolve the dispute, the Court will pass upon the factual issue presented.

As a rule, management prerogative ensnares all aspects of employment, including work assignments and transfers of employees. 46 But, like other rights, the employer's privilege of controlling its enterprise has limits. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. 47 The employer has the burden of showing that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. 48 Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal. 49

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes an employee's continued employment impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or has made an employee's working conditions or environment harsh, hostile and unfavorable, such that the employee feels obliged to resign from his or her employment. 50 In resolving allegations of constructive dismissal, the question to be asked is whether, given the circumstances, the employer acted fairly in exercising a prerogative. 51

In this case, the evidence on record overwhelmingly points to a finding of constructive dismissal. The transfers of Aranas and Sombillo were unreasonable, inconvenient, and prejudicial to their career development. On the surface, their new roles may appear of equal rank, salary, and benefits, but the records suggest otherwise. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it arrived at conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence. 52

Specific to Aranas, he retained the designation of Team Captain when he was transferred to the GCC. 53 However, his new duties were vastly different from his previous responsibilities. As Team Captain for the Dish Network account, Aranas supervised and trained a group of Technical Support Agents, including Sombillo. 54 He also handled escalated calls and acted as second-level support for complicated client inquiries. 55

However, after his transfer, his functions involved, primarily, a hodgepodge of documentation and administrative tasks, such as: managing Dish Network's roster (statistics per agent report); acting as Sony Account's Fraud Analyst; managing Avaya Call Management System for Dish Network employees; preparing daily, weekly, and monthly absenteeism reports; monitoring of break or lunch adherence; and managing the sick hotline and log-in identification. 56 Thus, on paper, he was called a Team Captain, but he was not performing the duties of one.

We have recognized that a radical change in one's nature of work may result in a demeaning and humiliating work condition, as what happened in this case. 57 Indeed, a shift from a supervisory and technical role to a more administrative one is a demotion in rank.

Moreover, Aranas' post-transfer role was nebulous. He was the only employee in GCC whose position was Team Captain. 58 The roster of employees in said department did not include his name. 59 Aranas did not report to the head of GCC. For time-keeping purposes, he reported to the Senior Operations Manager for the Google account. Yet, his leave application was approved by the Senior Sales Manager for the Sony account. 60 Simply put, he was left straddling among various accounts and departments, with no team of his own.

Since he had no direct supervisor and his designation did not fit his actual duties, Aranas' performance was not reviewed. Consequently, he was barred from qualifying for performance-based incentives that could have very well doubled his take-home pay. 61 His basic salary was not reduced, but his actual earnings were substantially diminished due to the absence of performance reviews. 62 Moreover, the lack of performance ratings entailed his ineligibility for promotion to higher positions.

Sombillo suffered the same fate. Prior to his transfer, he handled inbound calls from Dish Network's customers, identified their concerns, and offered the corresponding solutions. 63 When he was transferred to the QA Department, he was merely tasked to consolidate reports prepared by employees officially in the QA Department. 64 Out of the eight-nine (89) employees in said department, only Sombillo held the position of QA Trainee. 65 He did not even perform the duties of a QA Specialist, 66 which was the lowest position in the QA Department.

If Sombillo was indeed "training" to be part of the QA Department, he should have been assigned duties similar to those of a QA Specialist. Moreover, Sombillo remained a QA Trainee for years. 67 Had there been a real shortage of manpower in the QA Department, Sombillo would have been assigned as a QA Specialist, or at least given the functions of one.

Similar to Aranas, Sombillo's performance was not reviewed, and he became ineligible to receive performance-based incentives. 68 The lack of performance reviews also meant that he was bound to be a QA Trainee for perpetuity, with no chance of promotion into a non-trainee position.

The obscurity of the positions held by Aranas and Sombillo was further confirmed by an email sent by the Human Resource Business Partner of Concentrix, which states that Aranas and Sombillo "are not mandated to come in to work since they were declared as part of our Dish floaters list." 69

Concentrix failed to refute any of the foregoing facts. It merely wielded its management prerogative to justify its actions. Also, it relied solely on an affidavit executed by its Senior Operations Manager, 70 which affidavit did not even attest to the specifics of the reassignments. We have ruled that the employer's burden of proof is not discharged by an affidavit containing general statements on the claimed manpower shortage. 71

From all indications, the transfers were effected to remove Aranas and Sombillo from the Dish Account following the 27 July 2011 call. They were penalized for not following a standard operating procedure that had yet to be issued. Worse, they were not given any meaningful opportunity to be heard, for no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. Instead, Concentrix unceremoniously transferred them to other departments but maintained their salaries and benefits so as to avoid a clear impression of constructive dismissal. Yet, they were made ineligible to receive substantial performance-based bonuses; their career growth was stalled by their tenuous roles within the organization.

Indeed, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it turned a blind eye on these circumstances which, taken together, clearly constitute constructive dismissal. The fact that Aranas and Sombillo continued to report to work does not negate this conclusion. 72 Constructive dismissal occurs not when the employee ceases to report for work, but when the unwarranted acts of the employer are committed to the end that the employee's continued employment shall become so intolerable. 73 That Aranas and Sombillo, both breadwinners, had no choice but to continue working, and endure unfair treatment for years, should not be taken against them. 74

Aranas and Sombillo are entitled to

Since the second and third issues are closely related, We shall resolve them jointly.

In view of Aranas' and Sombillo's constructive dismissal, they are entitled to reinstatement and backwages. 75 Where there is constructive dismissal, backwages must be computed from the time the employee was relieved of his or her duties. 76

We modify the CA decision insofar as it did not award backwages. Aranas' and Sombillo's continued receipt of their fixed monthly salaries even after they were constructively dismissed does not justify the non-award of backwages. The decision should still include the award because it is statutory and, in the interim, the salaries and benefits in their previous positions may have increased. The amount of salaries actually received should only be deducted when computing the final award.

Thus, Aranas and Sombillo are entitled to receive backwages computed from the time they were constructively dismissed and pulled out of the Dish Network account on 19 August 2011. 77 Backwages shall include all salary increases and benefits granted under the law and other government issuances, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, established company policies and practices, and analogous sources. 78 These increases and benefits are limited to those which are guaranteed to be given to the employees had they not been illegally dismissed. 79 Salary increases and other benefits which are contingent or dependent on variables, such as an employee's merit increase based on performance or longevity or the company's financial status, shall not be included in the award. 80

The monthly incentives, quarterly incentives, upsell incentives, and shares in the profits being claimed by Aranas and Sombillo are admittedly performance-based. 81 The bonuses are contingent on the employee's ratings based on Key Performance Indicators (KPI). 82 Hence, these conditional incentives should be excluded from backwages.

Moreover, the amount of salaries actually received by Aranas and Sombillo should be deducted from the total amount of the judgment award. We cannot grant Aranas' and Sombillo's prayer for payment of their fixed monthly salaries on top of what they had already received, for then, they would have been paid double their basic salaries.

As to the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, We find the same proper under the circumstances. Even in the proceedings before the LA, Aranas and Sombillo already prayed for separation pay. 83 An employee's prayer for separation pay is an indication of the strained relations between the parties. 84 The long passage of time since the employees' constructive dismissal also rendered reinstatement infeasible. 85

When separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement, backwages shall be computed until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay, because it is at such point that the employment relationship is terminated. 86 Thus, Sombillo's backwages should be computed until the finality of this Resolution. However, with respect to Aranas, his backwages should be computed until his last working day in Concentrix because he was terminated for his absence without official leave. 87 His employment had ended even before the issuance of this Resolution. The records do not show whether Aranas challenged the validity of his termination. At any rate, backwages after his last working day may be awarded in the appropriate case, if any.

Aranas and Sombillo are

We further modify the CA Decision to award moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs, or public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. 88

Here, the transfers of Aranas and Sombillo were obviously effected in an attempt to circumvent the proscription against constructive dismissal. Their actual earnings were substantially diminished due to the absence of performance reviews, and their career trajectories were put on hold for many years. All this was done without giving Aranas and Sombillo the courtesy of a proper proceeding. They were made to endure such discriminatory treatment for more than four (4) years. Under the circumstances, the award of Php100,000.00 as moral damages and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages per employee is justified. 89

Aranas and Sombillo are also entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of their monetary awards as they were compelled to litigate in order to seek redress for their constructive dismissal. 90 Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on the total monetary award from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. 91

Finally, the Court drops Michael Johannes Tabunar and Roma Villarama as respondents because Aranas and Sombillo failed to specifically allege any basis to hold them solidarily liable with Concentrix.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition in G.R. No. 229568 is DENIED, while the petition in G.R. No. 229690 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 October 2016 and Resolution dated 27 January 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143375 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Concentrix Services Corporation (Synnex Corporation) is ORDERED to pay:

(1) ALLAN ARANAS: (a) full backwages computed from 19 August 2011 until his last working day in Concentrix Services Corporation (Synnex Corporation); (b) separation pay in lieu of reinstatement at one (1) month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year; (c) moral damages of Php100,000.00; (d) exemplary damages of Php100,000.00; and (e) attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award; and

(2) ARISTOTLE SOMBILLO: (a) full backwages computed from 19 August 2011 until the finality of this Resolution; (b) separation pay in lieu of reinstatement at one (1) month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year, until the finality of this Resolution; (c) moral damages of Php100,000.00; (d) exemplary damages of Php100,000.00; and (e) attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.

The total amount shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

The monetary awards shall be INCLUSIVE of guaranteed salary increases and other benefits and bonuses which Allan Aranas and Aristotle Sombillo were entitled to receive under the law and other government issuances, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, established company policies and practices, and analogous sources, and EXCLUSIVE of salary increases and other benefits or bonuses which are contingent or dependent on variables, such as performance-based incentives.

The Labor Arbiter is hereby ORDERED to compute the monetary awards due in accordance with this Resolution, and deduct from the total award any amount already received by Allan Aranas and Aristotle Sombillo by way of fixed monthly or basic salaries.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), pp. 03-23 and Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), pp. 09-29.

2.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), pp. 26-40; penned by CA Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.

3.Id. at 42-43.

4. Also referred to as Synnex Corporation in the records.

5.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 14.

6.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), p. 27.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 6.

10.Id. at 7.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 12.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 85.

16.Id. at 13.

17.Id. at 156 and 164.

18.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), p. 8.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), pp. 317-339; penned by LA Benedict G. Kato.

22.Id. at 338.

23.Id. at 336.

24.Id. at 337.

25.Id.

26.Id. at 383-395; penned by NLRC Commissioner Romeo L. Go with Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles concurring.

27.Id. at 392-393.

28.Id. at 393.

29.Id. at 396-406.

30.Id. at 423-424; penned by NLRC Commission Romeo L. Go with Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto concurring.

31.Id. at 425-448.

32.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), pp. 39-40.

33.Id. at 39.

34.Id. at 35-36.

35.Id. at 35.

36.Id. at 39.

37.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), pp. 58-71.

38.Id. at 44-55.

39.Id. at 53-54.

40.Id. at 42-43.

41.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), p. 11.

42.Id. at 12.

43.Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, 05 September 2018.

44.Paragele v. GMA Network, Inc., G.R. No. 235315, 13 July 2020.

45.Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, 05 September 2018.

46.Philippine Span Asia Carriers Corp. v. Pelayo, G.R. No. 212003, 28 February 2018.

47.Blue Dairy Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 179 (1999).

48.Id.; Serman Cooperative v. Montarde, G.R. Nos. 246760-61 & 246764-65, 9 December 2020 [per J. Carandang].

49.Id.

50.LBC Express-Vis, Inc. v. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, 12 February 2020 [per J. Leonen].

51.Philippine Span Asia Carriers Corp. v. Pelayo, G.R. No. 212003, 28 February 2018 [per J. Leonen].

52.Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove, G.R. No. 187226, 28 January 2015 [per J. Reyes].

53.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 149.

54.Id. at p. 180.

55.Id. at p. 181.

56.Id. at 267.

57.Blue Dairy Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 179 (1999).

58. The other employees were designated as Command Center Specialist, Command Center Senior Specialist, Command Center Senior Specialist 2, Command Center Supervisor, or Command Center Supervisor 2 (Rollo [G.R. No. 229568], p. 281).

59.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 281.

60.Id. at 356.

61. Aranas' basic salary was Php30,906.00 (Rollo [G.R. No. 229568], p. 125). The claimed performance-based bonuses were: (1) monthly incentive of Php14,080.00; (2) quarterly incentive of Php15,950.00, (3) upsell incentive of Php28,000.00 per month; and (4) profit share of Php20,000.00 per year (Rollo, [G.R. No. 229690], p. 7).

62.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 84.

63.Id. at 164 and 190.

64.Id. at 164 and 305.

65. The other employees were designated as QA Specialist, Senior QA Specialist, or QA Supervisor (Rollo [G.R. No. 229568], pp. 283-284).

66. QA Specialists are tasked to monitor and score customer calls, emails, and chats by listening to agent calls and entering call-specific data into the QA application, among others (Rollo [G.R. No. 229568], pp. 285-287).

67.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), p. 11.

68.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 269; Sombillo's basic salary was Php17,170.00. The claimed performance-based bonuses were: (1) monthly incentive of Php6,050.00; (2) quarterly Incentives of Php15,950.00; (3) upsell incentive of Php28,000.00 per month; and (4) profit share of Php20,000 per year (Rollo [G.R. No. 229690], p. 7).

69.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), pp. 409-410.

70.Id. at 76-79.

71.Moll v. Convergys Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 253715, 28 April 2021.

72.Manalo v. Ateneo de Naga University, 772 Phil. 366 (2015).

73.The Orchard Golf and Country Club v. Francisco, 706 Phil. 479 (2013).

74.Id.

75. Labor Code, Art. 294 (previously Art. 279).

76.Ador v. Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 245422, 07 July 2020.

77.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 160.

78.Dumapis v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. 204060, 15 September 2020.

79.Id.

80.Id.

81.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), pp. 288-294.

82.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), p. 7.

83.Rollo (G.R. No. 229568), p. 171.

84.Cabañas v. Abelardo G. Luzano Law Office, G.R. No. 225803, 02 July 2018.

85.SeeAgustin v. Alphaland Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 218282, 09 September 2020.

86.Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, 721 Phil. 84 (2013).

87.Rollo (G.R. No. 229690), p. 12.

88.Jacob v. First Step Manpower Int'l. Services, Inc., G.R. No. 229984, 08 July 2020.

89.SeeBayview Management Consultants, Inc. v. Pre, G.R. No. 220170, 19 August 2020.

90.Ebus v. Results Co., Inc., G.R. No. 244388, 03 March 2021.

91.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).