Constantino v. Kraft Foods [Phils.], Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 246129-30. September 29, 2021.]

DONATO A. CONSTANTINO, petitioner, vs.KRAFT FOODS [PHILS.], INC. [NOW KNOWN AS MONDELEZ PHILS., INC.] AND MA. VICTORIA TIONGSON, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

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

"G.R. Nos. 246129-30 (Donato A. Constantino, Petitioner, v. Kraft Foods [Phils.], Inc. [now known as Mondelez Phils., Inc.] and Ma. Victoria Tiongson, Respondents.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (petition) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 29 June 2018 and the Amended Decision 3 dated 15 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP No. 151242 and CA-G.R. SP No. 151249.

Antecedents

This case is an offshoot of the Court's Resolution in Kraft Foods Phils., Inc. and Ma. Victoria Tiongson v. Donato A. Constantino (Kraft). 4 The facts, as summarized in Kraft and culled from the records, are as follows:

Respondent Kraft Foods (Phils.), Inc. 5 (KFP) employed Donato Constantino (petitioner) as Business Development Manager. 6 The terms and conditions of his employment were set forth in a Letter of Understanding (LOU) dated 15 January 2003, the list of benefits attached to it, and the Kraft Foods, Inc. International Assignment Policy (Assignment Policy). 7

Petitioner was initially assigned at KFP's Cikarang, Indonesia office until 31 March 2006. 8 His assignment was then extended for another year, or from 01 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, 9 after which he was supposed to return to the Philippines. 10 However, petitioner did not do so. 11 Instead, the parties commenced negotiations for a new LOU for a different position, Project Manager, covering the period 01 April 2007 until 31 March 2008. 12 DHESca

Due to disagreements on the terms and conditions of the new LOU, the negotiations fell through. 13 KFP then sent a letter informing petitioner that his stint in Indonesia would end on 14 September 2007 and he would be repatriated to the Philippines. 14 In the same letter, KFP informed petitioner that, upon his return, he would be included in the involuntary separation program due to the unavailability of positions suitable for his rank and need. 15 Accordingly, petitioner returned to the Philippines on 14 September 2007. 16

On 27 December 2007, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full backwages, automotive purchase assistance, home housing refurbishing assistance, pro-rated home leave pay, 12% Management Incentive Program (MIP) incentive, Retirement Fund B, moral damages, and exemplary damages. 17 The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint but ordered KFP to pay petitioner his Retirement Fund B as of 30 September 2007. 18 The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA. 19

The CA reversed the findings of the NLRC and the LA. 20 The dispositive portion of the CA's 08 March 2013 Decision, 21 reads:

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 19 July 2010 and the Order dated 30 September 2010 of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS [COMMISSION], Fourth Division, in NLRC LAC No. 11-003934-08 [are] hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent, KRAFT FOODS (PHILS.), INC. is hereby ORDERED to reinstate complainant DONATO A. CONSTANTINO without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay him the following:

1. Full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and his other benefits computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him or 14 September 2007, up to the time of his actual reinstatement less the amount of P1,055,561.87 he received as separation pay;

2. Moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00;

3. Exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00;

4. Retirement Fund B in the amount of P569,117.95;

5. Automobile Assistance in the amount of $5,000.00; and

6. Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award.

SO ORDERED.22

On appeal to this Court, We affirmed the CA's Decision and found that petitioner was illegally dismissed because KFP failed to comply with the requisites for a valid redundancy program. 23 Our Resolution in Kraft attained finality on 22 December 2014. 24 The case was then returned to the LA for execution.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

Petitioner filed a Motion for Computation and Execution dated 27 March 2015, 25 where he computed the total judgment award to be Php59,486,183.97 as of 31 May 2015. 26 KFP opposed the motion on the ground that salary adjustments, MIP bonus, holiday pay, cash conversion of leave credits, expatriation (expat) allowance, and home leave allowance should be excluded from the judgment award. 27 KFP also argued that petitioner's reinstatement was no longer possible under the circumstances. 28

Petitioner filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Partial Execution, where he prayed for the release of the undisputed portion 29 of the judgment award. 30 Over KFP's objection, the LA granted petitioner's motion and issued a writ of execution for the amount of Php18,316,519.09. 31 KFP paid said amount to petitioner. 32

With respect to the contested items, the LA issued an Order 33 dated 10 October 2016, requiring the inclusion of the following items in the judgment award:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent KRAFT FOODS PHILIPPINES, INC. now MONDELEZ PHILIPPINES, INC. is hereby ORDERED to reinstate complainant DONATO A. CONSTANTINO and to pay complainant the following monetary awards:

 

1. Backwages	P3,751,092.12
2. 13th Month Pay	P312,591.01
3. Management Incentive Plan	P2,492,545.16
4. Holiday Pay	P889,933.86
5. Vacation Leave	P1,533,872.49
6. Sick Leave	P1,150,404.37
7. Rice Subsidy	P379,995.00
8. Expat Allowance	P15,549,215.94
9. Home Leave Allowance	P1,191,991.58
10. Merit Increase in Salary	P2,521,305.29
11. Merit Increase in 13th Month Pay	P210,108.77
12. Merit Increase in MIP	P327,769.68
13. Merit Increase in Holiday Pay	P110,937.32
14. Merit Increase in Vacation Leave	P201,704.23
15. Merit Increase in Sick Leave	P151,278.17
Total	P30,774,745.00
10% Attorney's Fees	P3,077,474.50
Total	P33,852,219.50

 

Accordingly, let an Updated Writ of Execution be issued against the respondent Kraft Foods Philippines, Inc., now MONDELEZ PHILIPPINES, INC.

SO ORDERED. 34 cCHITA

The LA ruled that the listed items were granted as a matter of company practice and as part of petitioner's regular compensation. 35 However, the LA disallowed the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, following this Court's order for petitioner's reinstatement in Kraft. 36

Aggrieved, KFP filed before the NLRC a Petition for Extraordinary Remedies with Application for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Permanent Injunction. 37

Ruling of the NLRC

The NLRC issued a temporary restraining order and, subsequently, a writ of preliminary injunction. 38

On 27 January 2017, the NLRC rendered a Decision, 39 partially granting KFP's petition. The NLRC affirmed the award of holiday pay, payment of rice subsidy, and cash conversion of sick leaves and vacation leaves. 40 The NLRC also sustained the LA's directive to reinstate petitioner pursuant to this Court's directive in Kraft. 41

However, the NLRC held that the MIP bonus and merit increases should not be included in petitioner's backwages since these were contingent on company and individual performance. 42 The NLRC also reversed the inclusion of expat and home leave allowances because petitioner's foreign assignment had already ended before his dismissal. 43

Petitioner and KFP filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which were denied in a Resolution 44 dated 31 March 2017. The NLRC also lifted the writ of preliminary injunction. 45

Petitioner and KFP filed their respective petitions for certiorari before the CA. 46

Ruling of the CA

In a Decision 47 dated 29 June 2018, the CA affirmed with modification the NLRC's Decision. The CA held that the NLRC correctly excluded the MIP bonus, expat and home leave allowances, and merit increases from the judgment award. 48

As to KFP's prayer for the exclusion of holiday pay, vacation leave pay, sick leave pay, and meal or rice subsidy, the CA ruled that these were unconditionally paid to petitioner on top of his monthly basic salary. 49 Thus, their inclusion in the computation of backwages is proper. 50

Nonetheless, the CA partly granted KFP's petition for certiorari by holding that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is warranted, given that petitioner's position no longer exists following KFP's global reorganization. 51 Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 52 the CA ordered that backwages be computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of its Decision. 53 The fallo of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition (For Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151242 is hereby DISMISSED, while the Petition for Certiorari (With Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151249 is PARTLY GRANTED.

The Decision dated January 27, 2017 as well as the Resolution dated March 31, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, in NLRC LER No. 10-287-16(4)/NLRC LAC No. 11-003934-08/NLRC NCR CN 12-14213-07, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay shall be awarded to Constantino, the computation of which must be consistent with Our earlier discussion.

SO ORDERED.54

Both petitioner and KFP moved for reconsideration. 55 KFP argued that it was erroneous to compute petitioner's backwages and separation pay until the finality of the CA's Decision, since petitioner had already reached the compulsory retirement age of sixty (60) years old as of 02 February 2018. 56

Accordingly, the CA rendered an Amended Decision 57 dated 15 March 2019, modifying the period covered in the computation of backwages and separation pay, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Donato A. Constantino is hereby DENIED.

On the other hand, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Kraft Foods Philippines, Inc., now known as Mondelez Philippines, Inc., is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated June 29, 2018 is hereby MODIFIED in that the award of backwages and separation pay should be computed until the date of Constantino's retirement on February 2, 2018. In all other respects, the June 29, 2018 Decision STANDS.

SO ORDERED.58

Hence, this petition.

Issue

The issues for this Court's resolution are:

1. whether the CA erred when it found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's exclusion of the: (a) MIP bonus; (b) expat allowance and home leave allowance; and (c) annual merit increases in salary and benefits, from petitioner's backwages; and TaDCEc

2. whether the CA erred when it held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of petitioner.

Ruling of the Court

At the outset, We note that petitioner's arguments are anchored on the factual basis of the CA's findings. 59 He cites evidence showing that he and other KFP employees were regularly paid certain bonuses and allowances as part of their compensation. 60 Petitioner also raises factual issues on the legitimacy and period of KFP's organizational restructuring. 61

The petition is, essentially, seeking a review on the merits based on the evidence adduced before the LA and the NLRC. However, the nature of this petition proscribes Us from resolving questions of fact, except in the course of determining whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. 62 The Court's scope of review in a Rule 45 petition, following a Rule 65 petition before the CA, is circumscribed by two well-established precepts: (1) Rule 45 petitions are limited to questions of law; and (2) the underlying issue is the NLRC's potential grave abuse of discretion. 63

Resolving the issues with this refocused lens, We deny the petition.

The CA correctly ruled that the NLRC

Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines guarantees the right of every illegally dismissed employee to the twin reliefs of reinstatement and backwages. Backwages include the whole amount of salaries, plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which the employee would have been normally entitled had he not been illegally dismissed. 64

Based on Our review of the records and the CA's rulings, we find that the CA correctly affirmed the exclusion of certain items from petitioner's backwages.

On the MIP bonus

Petitioner argues that the MIP bonus should be included in his backwages because he and other KFP employees regularly received it as part of their regular compensation. 65 He adds that the payment of the MIP bonus was guaranteed; only the actual amount was dependent on company and individual performance. 66

We are not persuaded. To consider a bonus part of the wage, salary, or compensation, the bonus must be granted without qualification. 67 If the bonus is paid only if profits are realized or if a certain level of productivity is achieved, it cannot be considered part of the wage. 68

The pertinent portion of the LOU in this case states:

 

Compensation:
Annual Base Salary	PHP1,849,900.00 (Paid over 13 months)
Target Incentive (10%)	PHP184,990.00
Please note that the actual incentive payment cannot be guaranteed as it is dependent upon actual company and individual performance
Total Cash Compensation	PHP2,034,890.00 69 [Emphasis supplied]

 

The CA did not err in affirming the NLRC's finding that the MIP bonus was not part of petitioner's compensation. Both the NLRC and the CA found that the conditions attached to the payment of the MIP bonus are clear: (1) company performance; and (2) individual performance. The LOU itself stated that actual incentive payment cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, one of the MIP award statements attached to the petition states that "[p]ayment of this incentive award does not guarantee future payments of the like." 70 cDEHIC

Clearly, the payment of the MIP bonus was not guaranteed. The amount in the LOU was denominated as a "Target Incentive" because it merely illustrated the possible incentive that petitioner might receive. There is simply no contractual or legal basis to petitioner's claim that the payment of the MIP bonus is assured, and only the amount is subject to the conditions. 71

The contingent nature of the MIP bonus is further highlighted by the process preceding its payment. Even petitioner concedes that KFP conducted annual performance appraisals to determine the amount of MIP bonus 72 and this includes the business unit rating, among others. 73

While petitioner was consistently rated "E" or "Exceeds Performance," 74 he failed to show that he would have received the MIP bonus even if he were granted a lower rating. Moreover, the business unit ratings fluctuated throughout the years. 75 In fact, petitioner received varying amounts of the MIP bonus throughout the years, i.e., either higher or lower than the amount specified in the LOU. 76 Likewise, there is no showing that petitioner would have received the MIP bonus regardless of how low the business unit rating was.

On the expat allowance and home

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to receive expat allowance and home leave allowance because he was illegally dismissed while on international assignment in Indonesia. 77 Again, We do not agree.

The claimed expat allowance is comprised of the goods and service differential and the hardship allowance. 78 The LOU labels these items as assignment-specific compensation that will not be included as part of the compensation package after the completion of the international assignment:

Assignment Specific Compensation

Goods and Services Differential — PHP1,072,539.00

Hardship Allowance (20% + 10% DP) — PHP554,970.00

xxx xxx xxx

The Differentials/Allowances are all job related items and will not be included as part of your compensation package after completion of this assignment. 79

As to the home leave allowance, the Assignment Policy states that it shall only be paid once the employee has completed the relocation; thereafter, 1/12 of the allowance will accrue for every month on foreign assignment. 80

With the clear limitations to the award of expat and home leave allowances, the next issue that must be addressed is whether petitioner was still on foreign assignment on 14 September 2007, such that he would have received the allowances had he not been dismissed. 81

We find that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it ruled that petitioner's foreign assignment had already ended as of 31 March 2007. Petitioner failed to present any LOU extending his foreign assignment beyond 31 March 2007. 82 The new LOU extending the 31 March 2007 term was never perfected due to parties' failure to come to an agreement on the new contract's terms and conditions. This is precisely the reason petitioner was ordered to return to the Philippines.

Consequently, while petitioner remained in Indonesia after 31 March 2007, he was no longer on an international assignment covered by the LOU and the Assignment Policy. If anything, KFP's act of allowing petitioner to stay in Indonesia beyond 31 March 2007 while negotiating a new LOU was made out of tolerance or liberality.

Petitioner argues that Our Resolution in Kraft evinces that he was still assigned in Indonesia at the time of his dismissal. 83 Petitioner's argument is unmeritorious. Our pronouncement in Kraft84 only affirmed the existence of an employer-employee relationship even after the expiration of the foreign assignment on 31 March 2007. Moreover, had petitioner not been dismissed by KFP, he would have still been repatriated to the Philippines due to the parties' failure to mutually agree on the terms of the new LOU. In fact, We reiterated in Kraft that "no contract of foreign assignment governed the parties at the time the most recent LOU expired." 85 It is beyond Our power to order the renewal of an expired contract.

On the annual merit increases in

Similar to his arguments for the other items, petitioner posits that he has a vested right to merit increases, which were regularly given. 86 KFP counters that the award of backwages should not include prospective salary increases. 87

In the recent case of Dumapis v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 88 the Court En Banc clarified the rule on salary increases and benefits to be included in the award of backwages: 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.

Petitioner admits that merit increases hinged on the results of annual performance reviews. 89 Based on documents attached to the petition, the merit increase took into account the same rating used as basis for the MIP bonus. 90 Similar to our disquisition regarding the MIP bonus, We find that the annual merit increases should not be included in petitioner's backwages as they were contingent on performance.

With the foregoing, We rule that the CA correctly held that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion when the latter excluded the MIP bonus, expat and home leave allowances, and merit increases in the computation of petitioner's backwages. The NLRC's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with Our pronouncements on the scope of backwages. The NLRC's factual findings on the first issue were all affirmed by the CA. Thus, absent any showing that this case falls within the recognized exceptions, the NLRC's factual findings bind this Court. TaCEHA

The CA correctly awarded separation

The LA and the NLRC insisted on petitioner's reinstatement due to the final and executory Resolution in Kraft. 91 On the other hand, the CA attributed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when the latter ignored supervening events showing the impossibility of petitioner's reinstatement. 92

We affirm the CA. A final and executory decision ordering reinstatement does not preclude the subsequent award of separation pay. We have consistently acknowledged that supervening events may render reinstatement impossible or inappropriate, in which case, separation pay may be awarded instead. 93 To afford complete relief to an employee in case reinstatement is no longer feasible, the alternative relief of payment of separation pay should be read into an order directing reinstatement, even in the absence of an express pronouncement to such effect.

The CA correctly ruled that Our Resolution in Kraft does not negate the option of awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement if, at the execution stage, reinstatement turns out to be impossible or improper. As correctly found by the CA, KFP presented proof of its reorganization during the execution proceedings before the LA and the NLRC. 94 Records show that, from 2012 to 2016, KFP's parent company, Kraft Foods, Inc., was undergoing a global transformation, which led Mondelez International, Inc. 95 to take over KFP in the Philippines. 96

We find the NLRC's insinuation of bad faith or attempt to evade a judgment on the part of KFP to be misplaced. 97 Good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. 98 There is no evidence of bad faith in this case. As early as 2012, Kraft Foods, Inc. announced its organizational restructuring, not only in the Philippines but in other countries, as well. 99 KFP sent several letters and reports to the Department of Labor and Employment informing the latter of the structural changes in KFP, resulting in the redundancy of several key positions. 100

In addition to KFP's reorganization, the alternative award of separation pay is justified by the long passage of time that petitioner was out of KFP's employment. 101 In fact, petitioner attained the retirement age of sixty (60) years old on 02 February 2018.

On this score, petitioner claims that he has until his 65th birthday on 02 February 2023 to work for KFP. Petitioner's argument is untenable. Under Article 287 of the Labor Code, the compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (65) years old is only controlling in the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing a different age not less than sixty (60). The law expressly permits employers and employees to fix the employee's retirement age. 102

In this case, KFP's retirement plan states that "[t]he normal retirement date of a Member shall be the first day of the month coincident with or next following the Member's 60th birthday." 103 However, the employee may render service until his 65th birthday, at the option of KFP and upon agreement by the employee. 104 This late retirement at sixty-five (65) years old shall be on a case-to-case and yearly extension basis. 105 acHTIC

While the retirement plan does not use the term "mandatory" or "compulsory," it is clear that the retirement plan fixes the retirement age at sixty (60). Late retirement is discretionary, at the option of KFP, and on a case-to-case basis. KFP did not exercise the said option for petitioner. Thus, the general rule applies: petitioner is deemed to have retired when he attained the age of sixty (60).

However, We modify the date when petitioner's retirement is deemed effective. The CA reckoned his retirement on 02 February 2018, or on the exact date of petitioner's sixtieth (60th) birthday. Following KFP's retirement plan, the retirement date should be the first day of the month next following petitioner's sixtieth (60th) birthday. 106 Hence, petitioner is deemed to have retired on 01 March 2018.

On a related note, petitioner argues that, even assuming the retirement age of sixty (60) applies, We should order the payment of Retirement Fund A and Retirement Fund B in accordance with KFP's retirement plan. Petitioner's entitlement to these benefits was not passed upon by the NLRC and the CA in the proceedings a quo. It is beyond Our power, in a Rule 45 petition, to determine at the first instance the retirement benefits due to petitioner. We remand this issue to the LA for the computation of petitioner's retirement benefits under the applicable retirement plan.

Petitioner's backwages and

As a rule, when separation pay is ordered after the finality of the decision ordering the reinstatement by reason of a supervening event that makes the award of reinstatement no longer possible, backwages are computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay. 107 The finality of the decision terminates the employment relationship. 108

In this case, however, the employer-employee relationship was deemed terminated on petitioner's supposed retirement date on 01 March 2018. Thus, both backwages and separation pay should be computed until 01 March 2018.

Next, the Court imposes legal interest upon the total monetary award. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, 109 backwages, allowances, and other benefits payable to petitioner shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from 22 December 2014, when this Court's Resolution in Kraft attained finality, until fully paid. The inclusion of interest is not barred by the principle of immutability of judgment because it is compensatory interest arising from a final judgment. 110

Similarly, the separation pay awarded by the CA and this Court shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.

Finally, the Court drops Ma. Victoria Tiongson as a party-respondent because petitioner failed to allege any fact that would make her solidarily liable with KFP.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 June 2018 and the Amended Decision dated 15 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151242 and CA-G.R. SP No. 151249 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent Kraft Foods (Phils.), Inc. (now known as Mondelez Phils., Inc.) is ORDERED to pay petitioner: ScaCEH

(1) FULL BACKWAGES, exclusive of the: (a) Management Incentive Plan bonus; (b) expatriation allowance; (c) home leave allowance; and (d) merit increases in salary and other benefits, from the time petitioner's compensation was withheld from him on 14 September 2007 until petitioner's retirement date on 01 March 2018, with LEGAL INTEREST at six percent (6%) per annum computed from 22 December 2014, the date of finality of the Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 208602, until fully paid;

(2) SEPARATION PAY IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT at one month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year, computed from the date of the start of petitioner's employment until his retirement date on 01 March 2018, with LEGAL INTEREST of six percent (6%) per annum for (2) from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction; and

(3) ATTORNEY'S FEES equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the recomputed judgment award in G.R. No. 208602, pursuant to the Court's Resolution therein.

The Labor Arbiter is hereby ORDERED to recompute the total monetary award due to petitioner in accordance with this Resolution, and deduct from the total monetary award any amount already received by petitioner from Respondent Kraft Foods (Phils.), Inc. (now known as Mondelez Phils, Inc.) by virtue of petitioner's illegal dismissal and the Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 208602.

The Labor Arbiter is further DIRECTED to determine with dispatch petitioner's retirement benefits under Article 287 of the Labor Code of the Philippines and the applicable retirement plan, in light of Our ruling that petitioner's retirement date is on 01 March 2018.

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

By authority of the Court:

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

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 40-114.

2.Id. at 116-136; penned by CA Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pablito A. Perez concurring.

3.Id. at 137-144.

4.Id. at 190-208. G.R. No. 208602, 23 June 2014 (Notice).

5. Now known as Mondelez Philippines, Inc.

6.Rollo, p. 200.

7.Id. at 59.

8.Id. at 200.

9.Id. at 62.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 63-64.

13.Id. at 64.

14.Id. at 201.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 67.

17.Id. at 201.

18.Id.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 202.

21.Id. at 186-198; penned by CA Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.

22.Id. at 197-198.

23.Id. at 210.

24.Id. at 209.

25.Id. at 47.

26.Id.

27.Id. at 238.

28.Id.

29.Id. at 48-49. This portion is comprised of: (1) backwages from 14 September 2007 to 22 December 2014; (2) 13th month pay; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) automobile assistance; (6) Retirement Fund B; and (7) 10% attorney's fees.

30.Id. at 212.

31.Id.

32.Id.

33.Id. at 210-234; penned by LA Augusto L. Villanueva.

34.Id. at 232.

35.Id. at 215.

36.Id. at 213-215.

37.Id. at 771-819; docketed as NLRC LER No. 10-287-16(4)/NLRC LAC No. 11-003934-08/NLRC NCR CN 12-14213-07.

38.Id. at 240.

39.Id. at 235-258; penned by Presiding Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog, III with Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus concurring.

40.Id. at 246-248.

41.Id. at 256-257.

42.Id. at 252-256.

43.Id. at 250-252.

44.Id. at 259-263; penned by Presiding Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog, III with Commissioners Erlinda T. Agus and Dominador B. Mendroso, Jr. concurring.

45.Id. at 263.

46.Id. at 121. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 151242 and CA-G.R. SP No. 151249, respectively.

47.Id. at 116-136; penned by CA Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pablito A. Perez concurring.

48.Id. at 124.

49.Id. at 127-128.

50.Id. at 127.

51.Id. at 129-131.

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

53.Rollo, pp. 132-133.

54.Id. at 133.

55.Id. at 137.

56.Id. at 138.

57.Id. at 137-144.

58.Id. at 142-143.

59.Id. at 76.

60.Id. at 76-96.

61.Id. at 98-105.

62.See Manalo v. Ateneo de Naga University, 772 Phil. 366 (2015) citing Brown Madonna Press v. Casas, 759 Phil. 479 (2015).

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

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

65.Rollo, pp. 76-79.

66.Id. at 79 and 82.

67.See Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, 681 Phil. 519 (2012).

68.Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 860 (1995).

69.Rollo, p. 1001.

70.Id. at 593.

71.Id. at 730.

72.Id. at 77.

73.Id. at 591-593.

74.Id.

75.Id.

76.Id. at 76. Based on petitioner's summary, he received: (1) Php138,750.00 in 2003; (2) Php180,733.00 in 2004 (but this amount is unsupported by any evidence); (3) Php242,000.00 in 2005; (4) Php263,403.00 in 2006; (5) Php179,114.00 in 2007; (6) Php183,409.84 in 2007 as a prorated amount for his performance in 2007.

77.Id. at 85.

78.Id. at 220.

79.Id. at 1002.

80.Id. at 647.

81. Labor Code of the Philippines, Art. 294.

82.Rollo, p. 250.

83.Rollo, pp. 70-75.

84. The relevant paragraph reads:

Granted that no contract of foreign assignment governed the parties at the time the most recent LOU expired, it cannot be denied that respondent remained employed by petitioner even beyond March 31, 2007. What is striking is the fact that petitioner tries to limit its relationship with respondent on mere contracts of assignments not taking into account the fact that their relationship is first and foremost governed by labor laws. A temporary assignment does not mean severance of employer-employee relationship. In fact, as expressed by petitioner in the LOU, it is quite clear that it agreed to remain as the employer of respondent despite the fact that he was assigned in a foreign land.

85.Id.

86.Id. at 91.

87.Id. at 744.

88. G.R. No. 204060, 15 September 2020.

89.Rollo, p. 89.

90.Id. at 700-703.

91.Id. at 256-257.

92.Id. at 130-131.

93.Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, 721 Phil. 84 (2013); Escario v. National Labor Relations Commission, 645 Phil. 503 (2010).

94.Rollo, pp. 129-130.

95.Id. at 340.

96.Id. at 1120.

97.Id. at 261.

98.Yangson v. Department of Education, G.R. No. 200170, 03 June 2019.

99.Rollo, p. 1111.

100.Id. at 1124-1134.

101.See Agustin v. Alphaland Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 218282, 09 September 2020.

102.See Pulong v. Super Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. No. 247819, 14 October 2019.

103.Rollo, p. 1155.

104.Id.

105.Id.

106.Id.

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

108.Id.

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

110.Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. v. Zaragosa, G.R. No. 229302, 20 June 2018.