FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202833. November 21, 2018.]
ABEMELIC SIQUINIA, FRANCISCO C. MIRANDA, ALMER SAN DIEGO, AND JESSIE G. PRUTO, petitioners, vs.PENTA-SHIMIZU-TOA JOINT VENTURE, ISAO MICHISHITA, PROJECT MANAGER AND KENICHI SHIRABE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202833 (ABEMELIC SIQUINIA, FRANCISCO C. MIRANDA, ALMER SAN DIEGO, and JESSIE G. PRUTO, Petitioners, v. PENTA-SHIMIZU-TOA JOINT VENTURE, ISAO MICHISHITA, PROJECT MANAGER and KENICHI SHIRABE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, Respondents.)1 — By petition for review on certiorari, 2 the petitioners seek to set aside the decision promulgated on July 13, 2012, 3 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the rulings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in their favor, and dismissed their complaint.
Antecedents
The factual and procedural antecedents as summarized by the CA are as follows:
Complainants in their consolidated position paper narrated the following antecedent facts, to wit:
Complainants were hired on different dates to render varying works for the respondents in their construction projects within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
Respondents required them to sign many "Project Employment Contracts" or "Extension of Contract" (copies made Annexes "A" and series), that purported to bind the complainants as employees only during the duration of specific projects. CAIHTE
But in the whole period of their employment, the projects did not cease and the complainants were, in fact, continuously employed by the respondents, with Sunday of every week, their only rest day.
Beginning December of 2009, respondents started terminating the complainants and at that, without paying them their separation pays.
xxx xxx xxx
No notice apprising them of the respondents' intention to terminate them and requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated was ever furnished them. Neither were they served with any Notice of Termination.
To date, respondent joint venture continues to undertake various construction projects with the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. 4
Respondents, on the other hand, articulated the following antecedents hereunder made, to wit:
Respondents PENTA-OCEAN CONSTRUCTION CO. (hereinafter "Penta"), is a private Japanese corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Japan with duly registered Philippine branch office located at Unit 1908, Herrera Tower, Herrera corner Valero Sts., Salcedo Village, Makati City, Metro Manila; SHIMIZU CORPORATION (hereinafter "Shimizu") is likewise a private Japanese corporation duly incorporated under laws of Japan with duly registered Philippine branch office located at Unit 5th Floor, King's Court Bldg. 1, 2129 Chino Roces Ave., Makati City, Metro Manila, and TOA CORPORATION (hereinafter "TOA"), a private Japanese corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Japan with duly registered Philippine branch office located at 3F-B ODC International Plaza, 219 Salcedo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, have entered into an unincorporated joint venture agreement (JVA) for the construction and completion of the Subject Bay Port Development project inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, SBMA Olongapo City, where subpoena and other legal processes of this Honorable Office may be served. DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
Complainant Francisco Miranda (hereinafter "Francisco") was initially hired by the respondents on temporary employment as project employee Sweeper for the duration of eleven months (11) beginning 01 September 2008 up to 31 August 2009, and earning a monthly compensation of Pesos: Eight Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 (Php8,500.00) inclusive of monthly transportation and meal allowances.
Upon the expiration of Miranda's original contract on 31 August 2009, his temporary employment as Sweeper was extended from 01 September 2009 to 31 December 2009.
However, upon the expiration of his contract on 31 December 2009, respondents decided not to extend Francisco's project employment considering that his services as sweeper for the project are no longer needed for the duration or completion of the project. In compliance with the due process requirement of one (1) month written notice, respondents sent a written notice to Francisco of respondents' decision not to renew his project employment after its expiration on 28 February 2010.
Because of complainant Francisco's termination from project employment, the former reported to the herein respondents and had his clearance processed. On 29 January 2010, Francisco received his last salary from then respondents. 5 [Emphasis omitted]
xxx xxx xxx
Complainant Jessie Pruto (hereinafter "Pruto") was initially hired by the respondents on temporary employment as project employee Survey Aide for the duration of six months (6) beginning 14 December 2004 up to 13 June 2005, and earning a monthly compensation of Pesos: Six Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Seven and 00/100 (Php6,967.00) inclusive of monthly transportation and meal allowances.
Upon the expiration of Pruto's original contract on 13 June 2005, his temporary employment as Survey Aide was extended by the respondents under the same terms and conditions contained in his original contract, to wit:
14 June 2004-01 July 2007
03 June 2007-31 October 2007
01 November 2007-31 December 2007
01 January 2008-29 February 2008
01 March 2008-31 March 2008
01 April 2008 to 31 May 2008
01 June 2008-30 June 2008 aDSIHc
On 30 August 2008, Pruto was offered another project employment as Survey Instrument Man for the Project for the duration of eleven (11) months effective 01 September 2008 until 31 August 2009, and earning a monthly compensation of Pesos: Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and 00/100 (Php11,800.00) inclusive of monthly transportation and meal allowances. The said project employment contract was extended twice from 01 September 2009 to 31 December 2009 and from 01 January 2010 to 31 January 2010.
However, upon the expiration of his contract on 31 January 2010, respondents decided not to extend Pruto's project employment considering that his services as Survey Instrument Man for the project are no longer needed for the duration or completion of the project. In compliance with the due process requirement of one (1) month written notice, respondents sent a written notice to Pruto of respondents' decision not to renew his project employment after its expiration on 31 January 2010.
Because of complainant Pruto's termination from project employment, the former reported to the herein respondents and had his clearance processed. On 15 March 2010, Pruto received his last salary from the respondents. 6 [Emphasis omitted]
xxx xxx xxx
Complainant Abemelic Siquinia (hereinafter "Siquinia") was initially hired by the respondents on temporary employment as project employee Surveyor for the duration of three months (3) beginning 25 July 2007 up to 31 October 2007 and earning a monthly compensation of Pesos: Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and 00/100 (Php17,200.00) inclusive of monthly transportation and meal allowances.
Upon the expiration of Siquinia's original contract on 31 October 2007, his temporary employment as Surveyor was extended by the respondents under the same terms and conditions contained in his original contract, wit: ETHIDa
01 November 2007-31 December 2007
01 January 2008-29 February 2009
01 March 2008-31 March 2008
01 April 2008-31 May 208 [sic]
01 June 2008-30 June 2008
On 30 August 2008, Siquinia was offered another project employment as Assistant Land Surveyor for the project for the duration of eleven (11) months effective 01 September 2008 up to _____ August 2009 and earning a monthly compensation of Pesos: Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 (Php15,500.00) [sic] inclusive of monthly transportation and meal allowances. However, upon the expiration of his contract on 31 December 2009, respondents decided not to extend Siquinia's project employment considering that his services as Assistant Land Surveyor for the project are no longer needed for the duration or completion of the project. In compliance with the due process requirement of one (1) month written notice, respondents sent a written notice to Siquinia of respondents' decision not to renew his project employment after its expiration on 31 December 2009.
Because of complainant Siquinia's termination from project employment, the former reported to the herein respondents and had his clearance processed. On 30 January 2010, Siquinia received his last salary from the respondents.
On March 30, 2010, herein complainants for unknown reason filed these cases for illegal dismissal against the herein respondents. 7 [Emphasis omitted]
On November 30, 2010, Labor Arbiter Bactin rendered his Decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complainants are hereby declared 'ILLEGALLY DISMISSED' from their employment to be paid of their backwages from the date of their termination up to the promulgation of this Decision and to be paid likewise of their Separation Pay in lieu of their reinstatement.
Respondents are hereby ordered jointly and solidarily liable to pay the complainants the following: cSEDTC
1. BACKWAGES of all the eight (8) complainants in the total amount of SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P798,400.00);
2. SEPARATION PAY of all the eight (8) complainants in the total amount of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P266,400.00); and
3. All other claims of these complainants are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis omitted)
Aggrieved, Joint Venture, et al., filed their Appeal with the NLRC on January 21, 2011 which was, however, dismissed for non-perfection. 8
The Ruling of the NLRC
In arriving at the disputed decision, the NLRC held:
Perusal of the Records will show that instead of posting the required bond in the total amount of P1,064,800.00 the Respondents only posted a Supersedeas Bond in the amount of P532,400.00 and filed a Motion to Reduce Cash Bond together with their Notice of Appeal.
The rule on this matter is Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedures of the National Labor Relations Commission, which states that:
'Section 6. Bond. — In case the decision of a Labor Arbiter, or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall 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.
xxx xxx xxx
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.' [Underscoring omitted]
There being no meritorious grounds, We find the Motion to Reduce Bond to be devoid of merit. [Emphasis omitted]
Verily, it should be stressed that: SDAaTC
'x x x the appeal bond requirement is a rule of jurisdiction and not of procedure. There is little leeway for condoning a liberal interpretation thereof, and certainly none premised on the ground that its requirements are mere technicalities. It must be emphasized that there is no inherent right to an appeal in a labor case, as it arises solely from grant of statute, namely the Labor Code.
We have indeed held that the requirement for posting the surety bound is not merely procedural but jurisdictional and cannot be trifled with. Non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. The petitioners cannot be allowed to seek refuge in a liberal application of rules for their act of negligence. (Computer Innovations Center/Nelson Yu Quilos vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Reynaldo C. Cariño, G.R. No. 152410, June 29, 2005).' [Markings omitted]
Likewise, it has been [sic] time and again been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which, the right to appeal is lost. (Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 381 SCRA 185, 2002).
All told, the Appeal filed by the Respondents should be dismissed for failure to post the required bond. [emphasis, italics and underscoring omitted]
Subsequently, the respondents herein moved for reconsideration of the resolution, but the NLRC denied their motion for lack of merit. 9
The respondents assailed the adverse ruling of the NLRC via certiorari, raising the following issues, namely:
WHETHER OR NOT THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES AND NOT PROJECT EMPLOYEES AND THAT THE SUBSEQUENT TERMINATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.
WHETHER OR NOT THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS SOLELY OF THEIR DEPOSIT OF 50% OF THE REQUIRED BOND INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE MONETARY AWARD. 10 acEHCD
As stated, the CA promulgated the now-assailed decision on July 13, 2012 reversing the ruling of the NLRC, and disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The March 31, 2011 and May 25, 2011 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission, as well as the November 30, 2010 Decision of Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The consolidated complaints below are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Hence, this appeal, in which the petitioners argue that the CA gravely erred in stating that the respondents perfected their appeal despite the absence of the prescribed appeal by the NLRC; and that the CA erred in declaring them as mere project employees. 11
The respondents counter that the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing their appeal on the basis solely of their having deposited only 50% of the total amount of the appeal bond required to be posted; and that the CA correctly ruled that the petitioners were project employees whose employments were fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion of which were determined at the time of the engagement. 12
Ruling of the Court
After a full review of the records, we deny the petition for review on certiorari.
We rule that the CA's findings were in accord with the law and jurisprudence. Hence, the dismissal of the complaint was warranted.
We adopt and reiterate the following ratiocination by the CA of its decision, to wit:
We do not agree.
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides the procedure in case of an appeal from the Labor Arbiter's monetary award, viz.:
ART. 223. Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. SDHTEC
Amplifying the aforequoted law are the provisions of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which read:
SECTION 1. PERIODS OF APPEAL. — Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter and the POEA Administrator shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter and in case of a decision of the Regional Director within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, resolutions or orders.
SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. — (a) The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Sec. 1 of this Rule; shall be verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Sec. 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum shopping with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
xxx xxx xxx
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 cash or surety bond. The appeal bond shall either be in cash or surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
xxx xxx xxx
A certified true copy of the bond shall be furnished by the appellant to the appellee who shall verify the regularity and genuineness thereof and immediately report to the Commission any irregularity.
Upon verification by the Commission that the bond is irregular or not genuine, the Commission shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal.
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
The filing of a motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. AScHCD
It is thus clear from both the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement, and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites mentioned shall not stop the running of the period for perfection of appeal. The posting of cash or surety bond is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, and non-compliance therewith is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.
Notably, however, under the above-quoted Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC's New Rules of Procedure, the bond may be reduced albeit only on meritorious grounds and upon posting of a partial bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.InNicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, the Court reviewed the jurisprudence respecting the bond requirement for perfecting appeal and summarized the guidelines under which the NLRC must exercise its discretion in considering an appellant's motion for reduction of bond, viz.:
[T]he bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases. These cases include instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.
Conversely the reduction of the bond is not warranted when no meritorious ground is shown to justify the same; the appellant absolutely failed to comply with the requirement of posting a bond, even if partial; or when the circumstances show the employer's unwillingness to ensure the satisfaction of its workers' valid claims.
Applying the foregoing jurisprudential guidelines, We find it difficult to conclude that Joint Venture, et al.'s, motion to reduce bond was not meritorious.
Especially that Joint Venture, et al., posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of P532,400.00 simultaneously with their filing of their Notice of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond before the NLRC. More so that in asking for the reduction of bond, Joint Venture, et al., posited that:
3. x x x Respondents are unincorporated joint venture who undertook the construction and development of Subic Port Development Project. The project was already completed as early as June of 2010 as proven by the hereto attached Certificate of Acceptance and Defects Liability Certificate issued by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) x x x. AcICHD
4. In fact, the Respondents are maintaining only three (3) employees at the moment considering that what remains to be done is the turn-over of the entire port complex to SBMA. Only the documentation and transfer of records are being undertaken at the office of the Respondents. x x x
5. Hence, there is a real difficulty on the part of the Respondents to immediately come up with the full amount of the award to be deposited as appeal bond on such very short period of time. Additionally, the appeal filed by the Respondents is very meritorious considering that by the very nature of the existence of the unincorporated joint venture to complete the Subic Port Development Project, which is limited only to such Project, their employees cannot be classified under any category, but that of project employees.
6. Respondents have no other projects lined up after the Subic Port Development Project and has naturally disbanded after the completion thereof, save only for the official turn-over to the SBMA of the developed port facilities. They have no pool of employees where they can place the complainants in the meantime, to be deployed for the next projects as there will be no more next projects to speak of. [Emphasis omitted]
Moreover, the amount of P532,400.00 which Joint Venture, et al., posted as partial supersedeas bond is 50% of the total amount required to be posted, a "reasonable amount (indeed) in relation to the monetary award" as required by Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules. The NLRC thus abused, gravely, its discretion when it dismissed Joint Venture, et al.'s, appeal on the alleged ground that they failed to post an appeal bond.
Resolving now the issue pertaining to the status of employment of private respondents, Joint Venture, et al., contend that the latter were their project employees and the joint venture did not incur any liability when their employment was terminated; that the decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not in accord with the evidence at hand as guided by prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.
The contention has merit.
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides, thus:
Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. TAIaHE
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
With particular reference to the construction industry, Department (of Labor and Employment) Order No. 19, Series of 1993, states:
2.1. Classification of employees. — The employees in the construction industry are generally categorized as a) project employees and b) non-project employees. Project employees are those employed in connection with a particular construction project or phase thereof and whose employment is co-terminous with each project or phase of the project to which they are assigned.
xxx xxx xxx
2.2. Indicators of project employment. — Either one or more of the following circumstances, among other[s], may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee.
(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable.
(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring.
(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged.
(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his services to any other employer. cDHAES
(e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' termination/dismissals/suspensions.
(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies. (emphasis Ours)
The above-quoted provisions made it clear that a projectemployee is one whose "employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season." The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees" is whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
In a number of cases, the Court already held that the length of service or the re-hiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does not confer upon them regular employment status, since their re-hiring is only a natural consequence of the fact that experienced construction workers are preferred. Employees who are hired for carrying out a separate job, distinct from the other undertakings of the company, the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to the employees at the time of the employment, are properly treated as project employees and their services may be lawfully terminated upon the completion of a project. Should the terms of their employment fail to comply with this standard, they cannot be considered project employees.
Again, the principal test for determining whether employees are temporary "project employees" as contra-distinguished from permanent "regular employees" is whether they are assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time they are engaged for that project. Such duration, as well as the particular work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employees at the time of hiring.
In this case, the contracts of employment of respondents attest to the fact that they were hired by Joint Venture, et al., for specific projects. Said contracts clearly provide that they were "project employees" and that their respective employment shall be terminated upon the scheduled completion of the project for which they were hired. The duration for each undertaking of the respondents were not only reasonably determinable but were specified in the contracts with certainty. The specific service or undertaking to be performed by them were also expressly indicated in the contract and private respondents were informed of their status as project employees upon signing their contracts. ASEcHI
Considering the foregoing circumstances which qualify as indicators of project employment, it cannot be denied that Joint Venture, et al., discharged the burden of proving that they indeed hired private respondents as project employees for the Subic Bay Port Development Project. The fact that private respondents were repeatedly and successively re-hired did not automatically confer upon them the status of "regular employees." For, as earlier pointed out, length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee. It is the fact that private respondents' employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, completion of which was determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 13, 2012, without pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Labelled as ALEXANDER MIRANDA, RIC M. BARTOLOME, ET AL. V. PENTA-SHIMIZU-TOA JOINT VENTURE, ISAO MICHISHITA, ET AL., in the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 11-30.
3.Id. at 37-61; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id. at 7.
6.Id. at 44-45.
7.Id. at 10-11.
8.Id. at 47-49.
9.Id. at 47-49.
10. Id. at 50.
11. Id. at 18.
12. Id. at 234-235.
13. Id. at 51-61.