FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193444. September 6, 2016.]
MAXIMA MEAT FAIR, CO., INC. AND RICARDO E. YAN, petitioners, vs. JAZZIE MEJIA, JOSE BUYCO, JR., FLORIDETH ATON, ELIZA ABANO, ROXAN SALI CUNANAN, YOLANDA DELICANA and MARY JANE BULANADI, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 6, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193444 — MAXIMA MEAT FAIR, CO., INC. AND RICARDO E. YAN, Petitioners, v. JAZZIE MEJIA, JOSE BUYCO, JR., FLORIDETH ATON, ELIZA ABANO, ROXAN SALI CUNANAN, YOLANDA DELICANA and MARY JANE BULANADI, Respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the November 9, 2009 Decision1 and August 6, 2010 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100232, 3 which annulled and set aside the February 14, 2007 Decision4 and May 31, 2007 Resolution5 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. 050363-06 6 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
NLRC CA No. 050363-06 arose as an appeal from the consolidated Decision of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR Case Nos. 10-08846-05, 10-08934-05 and 11-09940-05 involving labor complaints 7 filed by 32 employees of Maxima Meat Fair, Co., Inc. (Maxima) against the latter corporation and its officers, namely: its President, Ricardo E. Yan (Yan), Vice-President, Nelia Fernandez (Fernandez), and Treasurer, Ramona Y. Racca (Racca).
More particularly, NLRC NCR Case No. 10-08846-05 is a complaint for underpayment and/or nonpayment of the following benefits: salaries/wages (October 1-7, 2005), overtime pay, holiday pay, premium for holiday pay/rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay; including payment of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. It was filed on October 10, 2005 against Maxima, Yan, and Fernandez by the following:
Jocelyn Hernandez
Maila Nevado
Rochelle Pablo
Analiza Matanga
Regina Bongaos
Rachell Dave
Lawrence Dela Cruz
Melany Tomas
Florideth Aton
Analyn Lascano
Eliza Abaño
On November 16, 2005, the above-mentioned complaint was amended to include a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) as well as actual damages. The following employees also joined as party-complainants, to wit:
Zarah Balano
Rosalie Labay
Jose Buyco, Jr.
Mary Jane Pulusan
Rey Ocasion
Olivia Ocasion
Roxan Sali Cunanan
Jazzie Mejia
Maricel Panuga
Lorelyn Bulante
Nilda Balano
Ruby Anne Muñoz
Anna Mae Romero
NLRC NCR Case No. 10-08934-05 is another complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment and/or nonpayment of the ensuing money claims: salaries/wages for the period of October 1-7, 2005, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium for holiday/rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13th month and ECOLA. The complaint also prayed for the payment of moral, exemplary and actual damages, as well as attorney's fees. The following filed said complaint on October 25, 2005, against Maxima, Yan, Fernandez and Racca, to wit: HSAcaE
Eufrosina Pepito
Yolanda Delicana
Maura Sali
Clarice Tolentino
Mary Jane Muñoz
Mary Jane Bulanadi
And, NLRC NCR Case No. 11-09940-05 involves a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment and/or nonpayment of salaries/wages (October 1-7, 2005), premium for holiday pay and rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and ECOLA; plus payment of moral, exemplary and actual damages, including attorney's fees. It was filed on November 16, 2005 by:
Heyasmine Delubio
Teresa Miranda
Nilda Balano 8
against Maxima, Yan and Fernandez.
The facts leading to the filing by the above-named 32 employees (Jocelyn Hernandez, et al.) of the above-described labor complaints, as synthesized by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
[Hernandez, et al.] were employed by Maxima . . . as salesladies, sales supervisors or cashiers without being paid Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA), Service Incentive Leave Pay (SILP), overtime pay, 13th month pay, holiday pay and premium pay for holiday/rest day. Further, they were not paid their wages from October 1-7, 2005; nor were they allowed to have leaves of absences.
On July 24, 2005, they secretly held a meeting at Jollibee Blumentritt Street, to discuss proper actions they can possibly take against the respondent company. In that meeting, [Hernandez, et al.] signed an attendance sheet. They also agreed to compel management to give them the proper wage and benefits prescribed by law.
[Maxima] learned of the meeting. In September 2005, one of the employees obtained the attendance sheet signed by [Hernandez, et al.]. [Maxima] refused to pay petitioners' wages from October 1-7, 2005, despite the fact that [Hernandez, et al.] were paid weekly.
On October 7, 2005, instead of paying the wages, [Maxima] conducted three (3) simultaneous inventory checks on three (3) outlets, namely: Muñoz 1, Muñoz 3 and Quiapo outlets. At around 6:00 o'clock in the evening of October 7, 2005, Head Supervisor Ma. Leonora Sali, accounting staff Eloisa Merabite (both from the Head Office at Marulas, Valenzuela City), respondent Ramona Racca, together with two (2) policemen, arrived at the Muñoz 1 and 3 outlets and announced the spot inventory. [Hernandez, et al.] were surprised because although spot inventory checks were done once a month (in addition to three regular inventory checks per week), it was the first time that Ramona Racca, daughter of owner, . . . Ricardo Yan, was present and even brought two policemen. Before conducting the spot inventory checks on the two outlets, [the four named below] were made to leave the premises and were stripped of their wallets and mobile phones, which was not done before since they were always present to witness how the meat products were weighed and counted. Thereafter, [Maxima, et al.] announced that there was shortage. Although there were eight (8) employees at the two Muñoz outlets, blame was heaped on . . . Yolanda Delicana, Maura Sali, Clarice Tolentino and Eufrocina Pepito.
At around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, . . . Yolanda Delicana, Maura Sali, Clarice Tolentino and Eufrocina Pepito were arrested by the policemen and locked up at the Baler Police Station. Despite the absence of a warrant of arrest, [they] were incarcerated from October 7 to 10, 2005.
Several inventory taking were conducted at the Quiapo outlet on October 7, 2005. At around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, Gregoria Asaytona, [Maxima's] representative assigned at the head Office, conducted the spot inventory and brought six (6) policemen with her. . . . Mary Jane Muñoz and Mary Jane Bulanadi were arrested without warrant and locked up at the Quiapo Police Precinct. [Hernandez, et al.] learned of the illegal arrest and detention of their co-petitioners and the threat of the Head Supervisor that they shall next to be arrested and incarcerated.
In the morning of October 8, 2005, three (3) policemen were stationed at the Blumentritt outlet. Fearing that they will be arrested, [Hernandez, et al.] who were about to report for work, backed out and informed their [co-complainants].
On October 10, 2005, [Hernandez, et al.] filed complaints for money claims against [Maxima, et al.], origin of the Petition.
A number of the [complainants] attempted to report for work but were denied entry and told that they were already terminated. They amended their complaints to include illegal dismissal. HESIcT
[Maxima, et al.] resisted the complaints claiming that the allegation of illegal dismissal is unfounded since all [complainants] have intentionally abandoned and deserted their respective jobs in different outlets of [Maxima] starting October 8, 2005, aimed at sabotaging its entire operations. There was massive thievery and stealing of cash and[/]or meat products. Six (6) of the [complainants] were apprehended and formally charged for qualified theft before the Prosecutor's Office of Manila and Quezon City. The barrage of complaints were done to cover up the real fact of massive stealing and[/]or robbery.
[Maxima, et al.] claimed that in the last week of September 2005, they received reliable reports from honest and dedicated workers about the prevalent incidence of theft of cash from [Maxima's] outlets' cash register perpetrated by its cashiers in connivance with the outlet supervisors and sales ladies. On October 7, 2005, [Maxima, et al.] through their assistants, in coordination with the police authorities conducted a random inventory of cash and meat products in Muñoz and Quiapo franchisee outlets. As a result, four (4) workers were charged for qualified theft before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office while two (2) workers were indicted for the same offense before the Manila Prosecutor's Office. In response, [Hernandez, et al.] intentionally left their jobs without official leaves. [Maxima, et al.] further claim that [Hernandez, et al.] are not their employees because they are employees of the franchisee. 9
Labor Arbiter Decision
In a consolidated Decision dated July 28, 2006, Labor Arbiter Catalino R. Laderas (LA Laderas) ruled against Maxima, Yan, Fernandez and Racca, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the dismissal of complainants to be illegal. Accordingly, respondents are ordered jointly and severally liable:
1. To pay complainants separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service[.]
2. To pay complainants backwages from the time of their dismissal up to the date of this decision.
3. To pay complainants salary differentials, unpaid salaries, service incentive leave pay and 13th month.
[4]. To pay complainants attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award.
[5]. The complaint of [Eufrosina] Pepito and Maura Sali are hereby DISMISSED.
The Computation Unit is hereby directed to compute the monetary award which will form part of this decision. 10
Per calculation of the Computation Unit, the monetary award due to the 30 aforenamed complainants amounted to P7,610,169.03. 11
In favoring complainants Hernandez, et al., LA Laderas held that, based on the documentary evidence presented, i.e., company identification cards, sales forms, 12 photographs showing the complainants during the Christmas parties of the company, and company issued memoranda, there existed an employee-employer relationship between Hernandez, et al., on one hand, and Maxima on the other. As to the alleged widespread thievery and abandonment of work, no documentary pieces of evidence in furtherance of said assertion, however, were presented by Maxima, Yan, Fernandez and Racca, thus, their allegations remained just that, allegations.
With respect to the money claims, LA Laderas held that only the following claims had factual and legal bases and, hence, due from Maxima, Yan, Fernandez and Racca, i.e., underpayment of wages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and unpaid wages for the period of October 1-7, 2005. caITAC
Lastly, LA Laderas excluded from the effects of his decision complainants Eufrosina Pepito and Maura Sali for having executed affidavits of desistance beforehand.
Maxima and Yan 13 pertly appealed the above-quoted decision to the NLRC. With their memorandum of partial appeal was a Motion to Reduce Bond dated August 26, 2006. In said motion, Maxima and Yan cited declining profits since 1999 as basis for their prayer for the reduction of the appeal bond from P7,610,169.03 to just P3,500,000.00. Along with the foregoing pleadings, they posted a surety bond issued by Travellers Insurance and Surety Corporation (Travellers), i.e., Bond No. 19033 dated August 28, 2006.
On September 12, 2006, Hernandez, et al., minus Eufrosina Pepito and Maura Sali, filed a Report of Bond Irregularities and Motion to Dismiss Respondents' Appeal. 14 In the Report, it was alleged that:
1 TRAVELLERS INSURANCE SURETY CORPORATION, the bonding company that posted the surety bond is NOT ACCREDITED WITH THE SUPREME COURT per the NLRC list of accredited bonding companies dated August 18, 2006. Hence . . . is not authorized to transact with the NLRC pursuant to NLRC Memorandum Circular No. 11-01 (S. 2004).
2 The bonding company's accreditation and authority from the Supreme Court is VOID.
First, [t]he Certificate of Accreditation and Authority submitted was EXPIRED. The certification in fact states, to wit: 'Valid until July 31, 2006, unless otherwise suspended or revoked.' The bond was submitted on August 28, 2006, or nearly a month later . . . .
Secondly, the Accreditation and Authority granted by the Supreme Court was extended only to 'CIVIL/SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASES ONLY filed/pending before the Regional Trial Courts . . .' The bonding company is NOT accredited and NOT authorized by the Supreme Court to issue bonds with the NLRC.
3 Respondents failed to submit proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond. What was submitted was a mere certification that the bond was allegedly secured by a real estate property. The real estate mortgage was however not attached. It is respectfully submitted that the mere certification is not sufficient or acceptable proof of the collateral.
4 The ONE (1) YEAR VALIDITY of the surety bond contradicts the joint declaration under oath by the employer, its counsel and the bonding company that the bond posted shall be in effect until final disposition of the case . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
5 The appellant failed to furnish the appellee with a certified true copy of the said surety bond with all supporting documents provided under Section 6 (a) to (h) . . . .
NLRC Decision
In a Decision promulgated on February 14, 2007, the NLRC set aside the above-quoted decision and ordered the remand of the consolidated cases to LA Laderas for "further proceedings." The dispositive thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby, (sic) VACATED and SET ASIDE. The record of these cases are hereby, (sic) REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter of origin for the conduct of further proceedings. 15
In ordering the remand of the cases to LA Laderas, the NLRC held that:
The decision of the Labor Arbiter, far from illuminating on what really transpired in these cases, appears to be anchored merely on well-entrenched jurisprudence and not on a well-grounded appreciation of the facts as to what really took place in these cases.
While it is to be conceded that labor cases are of a summary, albeit non-litigious nature, the claim of illegal dismissal as proposed by the complainants and the defense of abandonment put forward by the respondents cannot, in Our opinion, be judiciously resolved without the Labor Arbiter conducting, at the very least, clarificatory questioning or of requiring the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective allegations. The conduct of further proceedings will put to rest lingering doubts as to the veracity of complainants' as well as respondents' submissions. 16 ICHDca
Hernandez, et al., moved for the reconsideration of the aforequoted NLRC Decision on the ground that (i)"[t]he Commission has deliberately violated its own Memorandum Circular 1-01 dated January 13, 2004;"17 and (ii) "the appeal was not perfected." 18
In a Resolution promulgated on May 31, 2007, the NLRC resolved to deny the aforementioned motion for reconsideration on the ground that —
The submission by the bonding company of a Manifestation (Valid Surety Bond), in Our view, has corrected whatever irregularity may have attended the posting of the bond for the appeal. We accept at face value the Manifestation of Travellers Insurance Surety Corporation and hold them answerable to all their allegations in their Manifestation.
xxx xxx xxx
Last but not the least, this Commission, if only to assuage the perception of the complainants that Memorandum 1-01 dated January 13, 2004 was violated, deems it proper to invoke paragraph (c) of Article 218 of the Labor Code, which empowers this Commission to 'correct, amend or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form, give all such directions as it may deem necessary or expedient in the determination of the dispute before it, and dismiss any matter or refrain from further hearing or from determining the dispute or part thereof, where it is trivial or where further proceedings by the Commission are not necessary or desirable.'
In addition, the Commission in a Memorandum Circular dated February 15, 2007 listed Travellers Insurance and Surety Corporation as accredited bonding companies (sic). 19
Hernandez, et al., assailed the said NLRC Decision and Resolution before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Court of Appeals Decision
In a Decision dated November 9, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The Decision and Resolution of the respondent Commission issued on February 14, 2007 and May 31, 2007 are set aside. 20
The appellate court acknowledged that Article 223 of the Labor Code is clear in that, among others, a surety bond posted by an appellant must be one that was issued by a "reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC;" and that NLRC Memorandum Circular No. 11-01 (Series of 2004) requires the strict application of the rule on posting of surety bond under Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 6, Rule VI of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. It held that "the perfection of an appeal in a manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional;" and that "the posting of . . . [cash/surety] bond is required before the NLRC can acquire jurisdiction over the employer's appeal."
The Court of Appeals took note of the Manifestation dated October 16, 2006 filed by Travellers before the NLRC that essentially claimed that it "is ratifying the said issued Surety Bond and is declaring that it is good bond, valid bond and with validity up to the finality of the decision in this case at bar. The posted bond is also valid in labor case such as this one." But it held the same to be inconsequential as it "only ratified the questioned bond. It did not post a new valid bond. Neither did it state that the bonding company was accredited with the Supreme Court."21 The Court of Appeals concluded that:
[F]or respondent's failure to comply with the requirements on the posting of the surety bond, the Labor Arbiter's Decision has become final and unappealable. The failure of the [respondents] to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal had the effect of rendering the decision of the labor arbiter final and executory and placing it beyond the power of the NLRC to review or reverse it. TCAScE
xxx xxx xxx
In the present case, there is clear and persuasive showing that respondent Commission grossly abused its discretion when it issued the assailed Decision and Resolution. 22
Maxima and Yan's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration to the above-quoted Decision was denied in a Resolution dated August 6, 2010.
Hence, the instant petition filed against 7 of the 30 employees (Hernandez, et al.) who filed the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, namely: Jazzie Mejia, Jose Buyco, Jr., Florideth Aton, Eliza Abano, Roxan Sali Cunanan, Yolanda Delican and Mary Jane Bulanadi (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Mejia, et al."). Maxima and Yan premised the instant petition on the following arguments:
4. With the above, it is petitioners' humble view that replacement of a new surety bond is not necessary. So that the reversal of the decision of the NLRC Commission on the ground that petitioners failed to replace the posted bond with a new bond is correctible by this petition for review on certiorari at the Honorable Supreme Court.
5. The herein petitioners as well as their surety company complied with the laws on bond and indeed declared that the bond is valid and with validity up to the finality of the case.
6. Petitioners are begging to the Honorable Supreme Court to give due course to this petition, otherwise the private respondents who were incarcerated for qualified theft would be rewarded instead of punished in this case. 23
In their Comment to the Petition, Mejia, et al., counters that (i) the Manifestation filed by Travellers was nothing more than a declaration that it considered the surety bond that it had issued was genuine and valid; (ii) the invocation by the NLRC of the power to "correct, amend or waive any error, defect or irregularity" was misplaced considering that, in the first place, the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal in view of the defective surety bond; and (iii) NLRC Memorandum Circular dated February 15, 2007 listing Travellers as an accredited bonding company allowed to transact with the NLRC did not change the deficient nature of the surety bond that accompanied the appeal of Maxima and Yan. Hence, Mejia, et al., agree with the Court of Appeals that Maxima and Yan's appeal was not perfected.
The Court's Ruling
Having in mind the fact that Maxima and Yan chose only to make Jazzie Mejia, Jose Buyco, Jr., Florideth Aton, Eliza Abano, Roxan Sali Cunanan, Yolanda Delican and Mary Jane Bulanadi — 7 of the 30 petitioners in the Court of Appeals — as party-respondents in the present petition, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are already final and executory in so far as the remaining 23 petitioners in the Court of Appeals are concerned. Accordingly, this Court resolves the present petition under such premise.
The petition lacks merit.
There is no dispute that Maxima and Yan posted Bond No. 19033 issued by Travellers on August 28, 2006; and that on said date, the latter's Certification of Accreditation and Authority had already expired as it was valid only until July 31, 2006. Moreover, it was only on February 15, 2007 (per NLRC Memorandum Circular of the same date) that Travellers was listed by the NLRC as an accredited bonding company. In other words, on August 28, 2006, Travellers was not a reputable surety or bonding company possessing the authority to transact business relative to issuing judicial bonds. The effect on surety bonds of expired accreditation has been tackled by this Court in Cawaling v. Menese24 where it had the occasion to address quite a similar situation, viz.:
The fact remains that due to the expired accreditation of Intra Strata, it has no authority to issue the subject bond. It was improper to honor the appeal bond issued by a surety company which was no longer accredited by this Court. Having no authority to issue judicial bonds not only does Intra Strata cease to be a reputable surety company — the bond it likewise issued was null and void. (Emphasis supplied.)
Being null and void, the surety bond posted by Maxima and Yan produced no legal effect, i.e., it was as if no surety bond was filed along with the memorandum of appeal.
Section 4 in relation to Section 6, both of Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC explicitly requires the posting of a cash or surety bond for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC when the assailed decision of the labor arbiter involves a monetary award. Section 4 provides: cTDaEH
Section 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal.— a) The appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by the appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties. (Emphasis supplied.)
And Section 6 of the same reads:
Section 6. Bond. — In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
In case of surety bond, the same shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court, . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
From the above, it is mandatory and jurisdictional that a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC or the Court be filed along with the memorandum of appeal for the perfection of an appeal; and failing to conform to such requirement, therefore, will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. 25
In this case, Maxima and Yan failed to perfect their appeal in the manner prescribed by the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Thus, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the NLRC grossly abused its discretion when it issued its assailed Decision and Resolution. The Court explained it best in Cawaling, 26 to wit:
Necessarily, after being informed of the expired accreditation of Intra Strata, respondents [Commissioners Menese, Aquino and Castillon-Lora] should have refrained from allowing Intra Strata to transact business or to post a bond in favor of Bacman. It is not within respondents' discretion to allow the filing of the appeal bond issued by a bonding company with expired accreditation regardless of its pending application for renewal of accreditation. Respondents cannot extend Intra Strata's authority or accreditation. Neither can it validate an invalid bond issued by a bonding company with expired accreditation, or give a semblance of validity to it pending this Court's approval of the application for renewal of accreditation. 27 (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution dated November 9, 2009 and August 6, 2010, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100232 are AFFIRMED. No cost.
SO ORDERED." BERSAMIN, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 75-87; penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok concurring.
2. Id. at 89-91; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ruben C. Ayson concurring.
3. Entitled "Jocelyn E. Hernandez, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al."
4. Rollo, pp. 61-67; penned by NLRC Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino with Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan concurring.
5. Id. at 69-73.
6. Entitled "Jocelyn Hernandez, et al. v. Maxima Meat Fair Corp./Ricardo Yan/Nelia Fernandez."
7. Originally, there were four complaints filed, i.e., NLRC NCR Case Nos. 10-08846-05, 10-08934-05, 11-09940-05 and 11-09889-05. However, the Labor Arbiter Decision only resolved NLRC NCR Case Nos. 10-08846-05, 10-08934-05 and 11-09940-05.
8. Also a complainant in NLRC NCR Case No. 10-08846-05.
9. Rollo, pp. 77-80.
10. Id. at 49-50.
11. Id. at 51.
12. Sales Reports, Inventory Reports, and Request for Payment Forms.
13. Only Yan signed the Verification and Certification against forum shopping, for himself and for the company as the latter's alleged authorized representative.
14. CA rollo, pp. 380-384.
15. Rollo, p. 67.
16. Id. at 66.
17. CA rollo, p. 92.
18. Id. at 96.
19. Rollo, pp. 71-72.
20. Id. at 86.
21. Id. at 85.
22. Id. at 85-86.
23. Id. at 25.
24. 721 Phil. 60, 67-68 (2013).
25. U-Bix Corp. v. Hollero, G.R. No. 199660 (Resolution), July 13, 2015.
26. Id.
27. Cawaling v. Menese, supra note 24 at 68.