11 Insular Hotel vs Waterfront

8/12/2019 11 Insular Hotel vs Waterfront

1/24

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 174040-41 September 22, 2010

INSULAR OTEL EMPLO!EES UNION-N"L,Petitioner,vs.#ATER"RONT INSULAR OTEL $A%AO,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

efore this Court is a petition for revie! on certiorari,"under Rule #$ of the Rules of Court, see%in&to set aside the Decision'dated October "", '(($, and the Resolution)dated *ul+ "), '(( of

the Court of -ppealsC-/ in consolidated labor cases doc%eted as C-01.R. SP No. 2)2)" and C-01.R. SP No. 2)$3. Said Decision reversed the Decision#dated the -pril $, '((# of the -ccreditedVoluntar+ -rbitrator Rosalina 4. Monte5o -V- Monte5o/.

6he facts of the case, as culled fro7 the records, are as follo!s8

On Nove7ber , '(((, respondent 9aterfront Insular :otel Davao respondent/ sent theDepart7ent of 4abor and E7plo+7entDO4E/, Re&ion ;I, Davao Cit+, a Notice of Suspension ofOperations$notif+in& the sa7e that it !ill suspend its operations for a period of si< 7onths due tosevere and serious business losses. In said notice, respondent assured the DO4E that if theco7pan+ could not resu7e its operations !ithin the sinion DI:=E>0N=4/, the reco&ni?ed labor or&ani?ation in 9aterfront Davao, sentrespondent a nu7ber of letters as%in& 7ana&e7ent to reconsider its decision.

In a letterdated Nove7ber 2, '(((, Ro5as inti7ated that the 7e7bers of the >nion !eredeter7ined to %eep their 5obs and that the+ believed the+ too had to help respondent, thus8

< < < nion@s &esture of their intention to help the co7pan+, thus8

"/ Suspension of AtheB C- for ten +ears, No stri%e no loc%0out shall be enforced.

'/ Pa+ all the e7plo+ees their benefits due, and put the len&th of service to ?ero !ith a7ini7u7 hirin& rate. Pa+7ent of benefits 7a+ be on a sta&&ered basis or as available.

)/ Ni&ht pre7iu7 and holida+ pa+s shall be accordin& to la!. Overti7e hours rendered shallbe offsetted as practiced.

#/ Reduce the sic% leaves and vacation leaves to "$ da+s"$da+s.

$/ E7er&enc+ leave and birthda+ off are hereb+ !aived.

/ Dut+ 7eal allo!ance is fi


3/24

6hese proposals shall auto7aticall+ supersede the affected provisions of the C-.""

In a hand!ritten letter"'dated Nove7ber '$, '(((, Ro5as once a&ain appealed to respondent for it toconsider their proposals and to re0open the hotel. In said letter, Ro5as stated that 7anpo!er for finioninvolved !as GD-RI>S *OVESDEIE P4-N-S E6. -4, National =ederation of 4abor.G 6he issueraised in said Notice !as the GDi7inution of !a&es and other benefits throu&h unla!ful

Me7orandu7 of -&ree7ent.G

On -u&ust ', '((', the NCM called *oves and respondent to a conference to enion0N=4 I:E>0N=4/, represented b+ *oves, si&ned a Sub7ission

-&ree7ent"3!herein the+ chose -V- -lfredo C. Olvida -V- Olvida/ to act as voluntar+ arbitrator.Sub7itted for the resolution of -V- Olvida !as the deter7ination of !hether or not there !as adi7inution of !a&es and other benefits throu&h an unla!ful MO-. In support of his authorit+ to filethe co7plaint, *oves, assisted b+ -tt+. Danilo Cullo Cullo/, presented several Special Po!ers of

-ttorne+ SP-/ !hich !ere, ho!ever, undated and unnotari?ed.

On Septe7ber ', '((', respondent filed !ith the NCM a Manifestation !ith Motion for a SecondPreli7inar+ Conference,"2raisin& the follo!in& &rounds8

"/ 6he persons !ho filed the instant co7plaint in the na7e of the Insular :otel E7plo+ees>nion0N=4 have no authorit+ to represent the >nionH

'/ 6he individuals !ho e


4/24

On Septe7ber ", '((', a second preli7inar+ conference !as conducted in the NCM, !here Cullodenied an+ e0N=4 but b+ the N=4. 9hen as%ed to present hisauthorit+ fro7 N=4, Cullo ad7itted that the case !as, in fact, filed b+ individual e7plo+ees na7ed inthe SP-s. 6he hearin& officer directed both parties to elevate the afore7entioned issues to -V-Olvida.'(

6he case !as doc%eted as Case No. -C0''(0R0""0(0(''0(' and referred to -V- Olvida.Respondent a&ain raised its ob5ections, specificall+ ar&uin& that the persons !ho si&ned theco7plaint !ere not the authori?ed representatives of the >nion indicated in the Sub7ission

-&ree7ent nor !ere the+ parties to the MO-. -V- Olvida directed respondent to file a for7al 7otionto !ithdra! its sub7ission to voluntar+ arbitration.

On October ", '((', respondent filed its Motion to 9ithdra!.'"Cullo then filed anOpposition''!here the sa7e !as captioned8

N-6ION-4 =EDER-6ION O= 4-OR-nd 3 Individual E7plo+ees, >nion Me7bers,

Co7plainants,

0versus0

9aterfront Insular :otel Davao,Respondent.

In said Opposition, Cullo reiterated that the co7plainants !ere not representin& I:E>0N=4, to !it8

< < < nionH !hich !as filled up !ith Insular :otel E7plo+ees >nion0N=4. 6here is nothin& there that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt26


5/24

indicates that it is a co7plainant as the case is initiated b+ the individual !or%ers and National=ederation of 4abor, not b+ the local union. 6he local union !as not included as part+0co7plainantconsiderin& that it !as a part+ to the assailed MO-.'3

On March "2, '((), -V- Olvida issued a Resolution'2den+in& respondent@s Motion forReconsideration. :e, ho!ever, ruled that respondent !as correct !hen it raised its ob5ection to N=4

as proper part+0co7plainant, thus8

-nent to the real co7plainant in this instant voluntar+ arbitration case, the respondent is correct!hen it raised ob5ection to the National =ederation of 4abor N=4/ and as proper part+0co7plainants.

6he proper part+0co7plainant is INS>4-R :O6E4 EMP4OEES >NION0N=4, the reco&ni?ed andincu7bent bar&ainin& a&ent of the ran%0and0file e7plo+ees of the respondent hotel. In thesub7ission a&ree7ent of the parties dated -u&ust ', '((', the part+ co7plainant !ritten isINS>4-R :O6E4 EMP4OEES >NION0N=4 and not the N-6ION-4 =EDER-6ION O= 4-ORand 3 other 7e7bers.

:o!ever, since the N=4 is the 7other federation of the local union, and si&nator+ to the e


6/24

On Septe7ber "', '((), the NCM sent both parties a Notice)as%in& the7 to appear before it forthe selection of the ne! voluntar+ arbitrator. Respondent, ho!ever, 7aintained its stand that theNCM had no 5urisdiction over the case. ConseFuentl+, at the instance of Cullo, the NCMapproved ex partethe selection of -V- Monte5o as the ne! voluntar+ arbitrator.

On -pril $, '((#, -V- Monte5o rendered a Decision)3rulin& in favor of Cullo, the dispositive portion

of !hich reads8

9:EREO=, in vie! of the all the fore&oin&, 5ud&7ent is hereb+ rendered8

". Declarin& the Me7orandu7 of -&ree7ent in Fuestion as invalid as it is contrar+ to la!and public polic+H

'. Declarin& that there is a di7inution of the !a&es and other benefits of the >nion 7e7bersand officers under the said invalid MO-.

). Orderin& respondent 7ana&e7ent to i77ediatel+ reinstate the !or%ers !a&e rates andother benefits that the+ !ere receivin& and en5o+in& before the si&nin& of the invalid MO-H

#. Orderin& the 7ana&e7ent respondent to pa+ attorne+Js fees in an a7ount eFuivalent toten percent "(/ of !hatever total a7ount that the !or%ers union 7a+ receive representin&individual !a&e differentials.

-s to the other clai7s of the >nion re&ardin& di7inution of other benefits, this accredited voluntar+arbitrator is of the opinion that she has no authorit+ to entertain, particularl+ as to the co7putationthereof.

SO ORDERED.)2

oth parties appealed the Decision of -V- Monte5o to the C-. Cullo onl+ assailed the Decision in so

far as it did not cate&oricall+ order respondent to pa+ the covered !or%ers their differentials in !a&esrec%oned fro7 the effectivit+ of the MO- up to the actual reinstate7ent of the reduced !a&es andbenefits. Cullos@ petition !as doc%eted as C-01.R. SP No. 2)2)". Respondent, for its part,Fuestioned a7on& others the 5urisdiction of the NCM. Respondent 7aintained that the MO- it hadentered into !ith the officers of the >nion !as valid. Respondent@s petition !as doc%eted as C-01.R.SP No. 2)$3. oth cases !ere consolidated b+ the C-.

On October "", '(($, the C- rendered a Decision)rulin& in favor of respondent, the dispositiveportion of !hich reads8

9:ERE=ORE, pre7ises considered, the petition for revie! in C-01.R. SP No. 2)$3 is hereb+1R-N6ED, !hile the petition in C-01.R. SP No. 2)2)" is DENIED. ConseFuentl+, the assailed

Decision dated -pril $, '((# rendered b+ -V- Rosalina 4. Monte5o is hereb+ REVERSED and a ne!one entered declarin& the Me7orandu7 of -&ree7ent dated Ma+ 2, '((" V-4ID andEN=ORCE-4E. Parties are DIREC6ED to co7pl+ !ith the ter7s and conditions thereof.

SO ORDERED.#(

-&&rieved, Cullo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, !hich !as, ho!ever, denied b+ the C- in aResolution#"dated *ul+ "), '((.


7/24

:ence, herein petition, !ith Cullo raisin& the follo!in& issues for this Court@s resolution, to !it8

I.

9I6: D>E RESPEC6, 6:E :ONOR-4E CO>R6 O= -PPE-4S COMMI66ED SERIO>SERRORS IN =INDIN1 6:-6 6:E -CCREDI6ED VO4>N6-R -RI6R-6OR :-S NO

*>RISDIC6ION OVER 6:E C-SE SIMP4 EC->SE 6:E NO6ICE O= MEDI-6ION DOES NO6MEN6ION 6:E N-ME O= 6:E 4OC-4 >NION >6 ON4 6:E -==I4I-6E =EDER-6ION6:ERE DISRE1-RDIN1 6:E S>MISSION -1REEMEN6 D>4 SI1NED 6:E P-R6IES

-ND 6:EIR 4E1-4 CO>NSE4S 6:-6 MEN6IONS 6:E N-ME O= 6:E 4OC-4 >NION.

II.

9I6: D>E RESPEC6, 6:E :ONOR-4E CO>R6 O= -PPE-4S COMMI66ED SERIO>S ERROR DISRE1-RDIN1 6:E PROVISIONS O= 6:E C- SIMP4 EC->SE I6 E4IEVED 6:E>NPROVEN -44E1-6IONS O= RESPONDEN6 :O6E4 6:-6 I6 9-S S>==ERIN1 =ROM=IN-NCI-4 CRISIS.

III.

6:E :ONOR-4E CO>R6 O= -PPE-4S M>S6 :-VE SERIO>S4 ERRED IN CONC4>DIN16:-6 -R6IC4E "(( O= 6:E 4-OR CODE -PP4IES ON4 6O ENE=I6S EN*OED PRIOR 6O6:E -DOP6ION O= 6:E 4-OR CODE 9:IC:, IN E==EC6, -44O9S 6:E DIMIN>6ION O=6:E ENE=I6S EN*OED EMP4OEES =ROM I6S -DOP6ION :ENCE=OR6:.#'

6he petition is not 7eritorious.

-nent the first error raised, Cullo ar&ues that the C- erred !hen it overloo%ed the fact that before thecase !as sub7itted to voluntar+ arbitration, the parties si&ned a Sub7ission -&ree7ent !hich7entioned the na7e of the local union and not onl+ N=4. Cullo, thus, contends that the C-

co77itted error !hen it ruled that the voluntar+ arbitrator had no 5urisdiction over the case si7pl+because the Notice of Mediation did not state the na7e of the local union thereb+ disre&ardin& theSub7ission -&ree7ent !hich states the na7es of local union as Insular :otel E7plo+ees >nion0N=4.#)

In its Me7orandu7,##respondent 7aintains its position that the NCM and Voluntar+ -rbitrators hadno 5urisdiction over the co7plaint. Respondent, ho!ever, no! also contends that I:E>0N=4 is anon0entit+ since it is DI:=E>0N=4 !hich is considered b+ the DO4E as the onl+ re&istered union in9aterfront Davao.#$Respondent ar&ues that the Sub7ission -&ree7ent does not na7e the localunion DI:=E>0N=4 and that it had ti7el+ !ithdra!n its consent to arbitrate b+ filin& a 7otion to!ithdra!.

- revie! of the develop7ent of the case sho!s that there has been 7uch confusion as to theidentit+ of the part+ !hich filed the case a&ainst respondent. In the Notice of Mediation #filed beforethe NCM, it stated that the union involved !as GD-RI>S *OVESDEIE P4-N-S E6. -4.,National =ederation of 4abor.G In the Sub7ission -&ree7ent,#3ho!ever, it stated that the unioninvolved !as GINS>4-R :O6E4 EMP4OEES >NION0N=4.G

=urther7ore, a perusal of the records !ould reveal that after si&nin& the Sub7ission -&ree7ent,respondent persistentl+ Fuestioned the authorit+ and standin& of the individual e7plo+ees to file theco7plaint. Cullo then clarified in subseFuent docu7ents captioned as GNational =ederation of 4abor
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt47


8/24

and 3 Individual E7plo+ees, >nion Me7bers, ComplainantsG that the individual co7plainants arenot representin& the union, but filin& the co7plaint throu&h their appointed attorne+s0in0fact.#2-V-Olvida, ho!ever, in a Resolution dated March "2, '((), a&reed !ith respondent that the properpart+0co7plainant should be INS>4-R :O6E4 EMP4OEES >NION0N=4, to !it8

< < < In the sub7ission a&ree7ent of the parties dated -u&ust ', '((', the part+ co7plainant

!ritten is INS>4-R :O6E4 EMP4OEES >NION0N=4 and not the N-6ION-4 =EDER-6ION O=4-OR and 3 other 7e7bers.#

6he dispositive portion of the Resolution dated March "2, '(() of -V- Olvida reads8

9:ERE=ORE, pre7ises considered, the 7otion for reconsideration filed b+ respondent is DENIED.6he resolution dated Nove7ber "", '((', is 7odified in so far as the part+ co7plainant isconcerned, thus, instead of GNational =ederation of 4abor and 3 individual e7plo+ees, union7e7bers,G shall be GInsular :otel E7plo+ees >nion0N=4 et. al., as stated in the 5oint sub7issiona&ree7ent dated -u&ust ', '(('. Respondent is directed to co7pl+ !ith the decision of this

-rbitrator dated Nove7ber "", '(('.$(

-fter the March "2, '(() Resolution of -V- Olvida, Cullo adopted GInsular :otel E7plo+ees >nion0N=4 et. al.,ComplainantG as the caption in all his subseFuent pleadin&s. Respondent, ho!ever, !asstill ada7ant that neither Cullo nor the individual e7plo+ees had authorit+ to file the case in behalf ofthe >nion.

9hile it is undisputed that a sub7ission a&ree7ent !as si&ned b+ respondent and GI:E>0N=4,G thenrepresented b+ *oves and Cullo, this Court finds that there are t!o circu7stances !hich affect itsvalidit+8 first, the Notice of Mediation !as filed b+ a part+ !ho had no authorit+ to do soH second, thatrespondent had persistentl+ voiced out its ob5ection Fuestionin& the authorit+ of *oves, Cullo and theindividual 7e7bers of the >nion to file the co7plaint before the NCM.

Procedurall+, the first step to sub7it a case for 7ediation is to file a notice of preventive 7ediation

!ith the NCM. It is onl+ after this step that a sub7ission a&ree7ent 7a+ be entered into b+ theparties concerned.

Section ), Rule IV of the NCM Manual of Procedure provides !ho 7a+ file a notice of preventive7ediation, to !it8

9ho 7a+ file a notice or declare a stri%e or loc%out or reFuest preventive 7ediation. 0

A* )ert((e+ or + re)o/*(e+ b'r/'(*(*/ represe*t't(em' (e ' *ot()e or +e)'re 'str(3e or reest or pree*t(e me+('t(o* (* )'ses o b'r/'(*(*/ +e'+o)3s '*+ *'(r 'borpr')t()es. 6he e7plo+er 7a+ file a notice or declare a loc%out or reFuest for preventive 7ediation inthe sa7e cases. In the absence of a certified or dul+ reco&ni?ed bar&ainin& representative, an+le&iti7ate labor or&ani?ation in the establish7ent 7a+ file a notice, reFuest preventive 7ediation ordeclare a stri%e, but onl+ on &rounds of unfair labor practice.

=ro7 the fore&oin&, it is clear that onl+ a certified or dul+ reco&ni?ed bar&ainin& a&ent 7a+ file anotice or reFuest for preventive 7ediation. It is curious that even Cullo hi7self ad7itted, in a nu7berof pleadin&s, that the case !as filed not b+ the >nion but b+ individual 7e7bers thereof. Clearl+,therefore, the NCM had no 5urisdiction to entertain the notice filed before it.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt50


9/24

Even thou&h respondent si&ned a Sub7ission -&ree7ent, it had, ho!ever, i77ediatel+ 7anifestedits desire to !ithdra! fro7 the proceedin&s after it beca7e apparent that the >nion had no part inthe co7plaint. -s a 7atter of fact, onl+ four da+s had lapsed after the si&nin& of the Sub7ission

-&ree7ent !hen respondent called the attention of -V- Olvida in a GManifestation !ith Motion for aSecond Preli7inar+ ConferenceG$"that the persons !ho filed the instant co7plaint in the na7e ofInsular :otel E7plo+ees >nion0N=4 had no authorit+ to represent the >nion. Respondent cannot be

estopped in raisin& the 5urisdictional issue, because it is basic that the issue of 5urisdiction 7a+ beraised at an+ sta&e of the proceedin&s, even on appeal, and is not lost b+ !aiver or b+ estoppel.

In Figueroa v. People,$'this Court e


10/24

Petitioners have not, ho!ever, been dul+ authori?ed to represent the union. -propos is this CourtJspronounce7ent in -tlas =ar7s, Inc. v. National 4abor Relations Co77ission, vi?8

< < < Pursuant to -rticle '( of the 4abor Code, the parties to a C- shall na7e or desi&nate theirrespective representatives to the &rievance 7achiner+ and if the &rievance is unsettled in that level,it shall auto7aticall+ be referred to the voluntar+ arbitrators desi&nated in advance b+ parties to a

C-. ConseFuentl+, onl+ disputes involvin& the union and the co7pan+ s&' be reerre+ to t&e/r(e'*)e m')&(*er or o*t'r 'rb(tr'tors. E7phasis and underscorin& supplied./$$

If the individual 7e7bers of the >nion have no authorit+ to file the case, does the federation to !hichthe local union is affiliated have the standin& to do soL On this note, Coastal #ubic $a% Terminal,Inc. v. &epartment o' abor and Emplo%ment$is enli&htenin&, thus8

< < < - local union does not o!e its e


11/24

9hile the Nove7ber ", '(( Certification$of the DO4E clearl+ states that GI:E>0N=4G is not are&istered labor or&ani?ation, this Court finds that respondent is estopped fro7 Fuestionin& thesa7e as it did not raise the said issue in the proceedin&s before the NCM and the Voluntar+

-rbitrators. - perusal of the records reveals that the 7ain theor+ posed b+ respondent !as !hetheror not the individual e7plo+ees had the authorit+ to file the co7plaint not!ithstandin& the apparentnon0participation of the union. Respondent never put in issue the fact that DI:=E>0N=4 !as not the

sa7e as I:E>0N=4. ConseFuentl+, it is alread+ too late in the da+ to assert the sa7e.

-nent the second issue raised b+ Cullo, the sa7e is a&ain !ithout 7erit.

Cullo contends that respondent !as not reall+ sufferin& fro7 serious losses as found b+ the C-.Cullo anchors his position on the denial b+ the 9a&e oard of respondent@s petition for e


12/24

PRO:II6ION -1-INS6 E4IMIN-6ION OR DIMIN>6ION O= ENE=I6S0 Nothin& in this oo% shallbe construed to eli7inate or in an+ !a+ di7inish supple7ents, or other e7plo+ee benefits bein&en5o+ed at the ti7e of the pro7ul&ation of this Code.

On this note,)pex *ining Compan%, Inc. v. NC$is instructive, to !it8

Clearl+, the prohibition a&ainst eli7ination or di7inution of benefits set out in -rticle "(( of the 4aborCode is specificall+ concerned !ith benefits alread+ en5o+ed at the ti7e of the pro7ul&ation of the4abor Code. -rticle "(( does not, in other !ords, purport to appl+ to situations arisin& after thepro7ul&ation date of the 4abor Code < < nion 7e7bers at a 7eetin& convened, or b+

plebiscite held for such special purpose.G-ccordin&l+, it is undisputed that the MO- !as notsub5ect to ratification b+ the &eneral 7e7bership of the >nion. 6he Fuestion to be resolved then is,does the non0ratification of the MO- in accordance !ith the >nion@s constitution prove fatal to thevalidit+ thereofL

It 7ust be re7e7bered that after the MO- !as si&ned, the 7e7bers of the >nion individuall+ si&nedcontracts deno7inated as GReconfir7ation of E7plo+7ent.G3(Cullo did not dispute the fact that ofthe 23 7e7bers of the >nion, !ho si&ned and accepted the GReconfir7ation of E7plo+7ent,G 3" are


13/24

the respondent e7plo+ees in the case at bar. Moreover, it bears to stress that all the e7plo+ees!ere assisted b+ Ro5as, DI:=E>0N=4@s president, !ho even co0si&ned each contract.

Stipulated in each Reconfir7ation of E7plo+7ent !ere the ne! salar+ and benefits sche7e. Inaddition, it bears to stress that specific provisions of the ne! contract also 7ade reference to theMO-. 6hus, the individual 7e7bers of the union cannot fei&n %no!led&e of the enion7e7bers of the MO-.

In Planters Products, Inc. v. NC,3"this Court refrained fro7 declarin& a C- invalidnot!ithstandin& that the sa7e !as not ratified in vie! of the fact that the e7plo+ees had en5o+edbenefits under it, thus8

>nder -rticle ')" of the 4abor Code and Sec. ", Rule I;, oo% V of the I7ple7entin& Rules, theparties to a collective Abar&ainin&B a&ree7ent are reFuired to furnish copies of the appropriateRe&ional Office !ith acco7pan+in& proof of ratification b+ the 7a5orit+ of all the !or%ers in a

bar&ainin& unit. 6his !as not done in the case at bar. ut !e do not declare the "2#0"23 C-invalid or void considerin& that the e7plo+ees have en5o+ed benefits fro7 it. 6he+ cannot receivebenefits under provisions favorable to the7 and later insist that the C- is void si7pl+ becauseother provisions turn out not to the li%in& of certain e7plo+ees. < < nion, it cannot escape this Court@s attention thatit !as the e0N=4 clearl+ provide that thepresident is authori?ed to represent the union on all occasions and in all 7atters in !hichrepresentation of the union 7a+ be a&reed or reFuired.3)=urther7ore, Ro5as !as properl+authori?ed under a oard of Directors Resolution3#to ne&otiate !ith respondent, the pertinentportions of !hich read8

SECRE6-R@s CER6I=IC-6E

I, M-. SOCORRO 4ISE66E . I-RR-, < < 0N=4, on '2 =eb. '((" !ith a Fuoru7 dul+ constituted, the follo!in&resolutions !ere unani7ousl+ approved8

RESO4VED, as it is hereb+ resolved that the Manifesto dated '$ =eb. '((" be approved ratified andadoptedH
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt74


14/24

RESOL%E$, "URTER, t&'t Mr. $om R. Ro;'s, t&e pres(+e*t o t&e $I"EU-N"L, be &ereb't&or(e+ to *e/ot('te 5(t& #'terro*t I*s'r ote $''o '*+ to 5or3 or t&e 'tter6s'))ept'*)e o t&e propos's )o*t'(*e+ (* $I"EU-N"L M'*(estoH and

RESOL%E$, "INALL!, t&'t Mr. $om R. Ro;'s (s &ereb 't&or(e+ to s(/* '* '*+ '+o)me*ts to (mpeme*t, '*+ )'rr (*to ee)t, &(s ore/o(*/ 't&or(t.3$

9ithal, !hile the scales of 5ustice usuall+ tilt in favor of labor, the peculiar circu7stances hereinprevent this Court fro7 appl+in& the sa7e in the instant petition. Even if our la!s endeavor to &ivelife to the constitutional polic+ on social 5ustice and on the protection of labor, it does not 7ean thatever+ labor dispute !ill be decided in favor of the !or%ers. 6he la! also reco&ni?es that7ana&e7ent has ri&hts !hich are also entitled to respect and enforce7ent in the interest of fairpla+.3

#ERE"ORE, pre7ises considered, the petition is $ENIE$. 6he Decision dated October "", '(($,and the Resolution dated *ul+ "), '(( of the Court of -ppeals in consolidated labor cases doc%etedas C-01.R. SP No. 2)2)" and C-01.R. SP No. 2)$3, are A""IRME$.

SO ORDERED.

$IOS$A$O M. PERALTA-ssociate *ustice

9E CONC>R8

ANTONIO T. CARPIO-ssociate *ustice

Chairperson

PRES:ITERO . %ELASCO, R.

-ssociate *ustice

LUCAS P. :ERSAMIN

-ssociate *ustice

RO:ERTO A. A:A$-ssociate *ustice

- 6 6 E S 6 - 6 I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case!as assi&ned to the !riter of the opinion of the CourtJs Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO-ssociate *ustice

Second Division, Chairperson

C E R 6 I = I C - 6 I O N

Pursuant to Section "), -rticle VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonJs -ttestation, Icertif+ that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case!as assi&ned to the !riter of the opinion of the CourtJs Division.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#fnt76


15/24

RENATO C. CORONAChief *ustice

"oot*otes

Desi&nated as an additional 7e7ber in lieu of -ssociate *ustice -ntonio Eduardo .Nachura per Special Order No. 22) dated Septe7ber ", '("(.

Desi&nated as an additional 7e7ber in lieu of -ssociate *ustice *ose Catral Mendo?a perSpecial Order No. 22 dated Septe7ber ", '("(.

"Rollo, pp. 30).

'Penned b+ -ssociate *ustice Rodri&o =. 4i7, *r., !ith -ssociate *ustices 6eresita D+04iacco =lores and Ra7on R. 1arcia concurrin&H id. at 02'.

)Id. at 2#02$.

#Rollo, pp. 20.

$C- rollo, Vol. ", p. )#'.

Rollo, p. $$2.

3Id.

2Id. at $$.

Id.

"(Id. at $(0$".

""Id.

"'Id. at $'0$).

")C- rollo, Vol. ", pp. )'0)#.

M - N I = E S 6 O

On behalf of all its 7e7bers, the Davao Insular :otel =ree E7plo+eesJ >nion0National =ederation of 4abor the G>nionG/, hereb+ declares8

9:ERE-S, the >nion reco&ni?es and ad7its that the Davao Insular :otel theG:otelG/, in the sound e


16/24

9:ERE-S, the >nion ac%no!led&es that the heav+ losses enion hereb+ sub7its to the :otel

the follo!in& proposals8

-. RE6IREMEN6 RED>CED ENE=I6S8

". Retire7ent. 6he :otel shall pa+ all e7plo+ees Fualified to retire theirretire7ent benefits under the ter7s and conditions of the e


17/24

in its discretion, fill up its other 7annin& reFuire7ents in enion. 6he 7e7bers of theco77ittee shall choose a presidin& officer a7on& the7selves. 6he findin&sof the co77ittee shall be for!arded to the :u7an Relations Depart7entMana&er, !ho shall &ive his reco77endations to the 1eneral Mana&er. 6hedecision of the 1eneral Mana&er shall be final and i77ediatel+ enion. 6he >nion further underta%es not tointervene in an+ 7atter that is pri7aril+ !ithin the eM O= -1REEMEN6

no! -ll Men + 6hese Presents8

6his Me7orandu7 of -&ree7ent, entered into this da+ of Ma+ (2 '((" at Cebu Cit+,

Philippines, b+ and bet!een8

D-V-O INS>4-R :O6E4, COMP-N, INC., a corporation dul+ or&ani?ed ande


18/24

D-V-O INS>4-R :O6E4 =REE EMP4OEESJ >NION0N-6ION-4 =EDER-6IONO= 4-OR DI:=E>N=4/, the dul+ reco&ni?ed enionG

9 I 6 N E S S E 6 : 8

9:ERE-S, due to severe econo7ic losses, the :otel !as constrained tote7poraril+ cease operations on Dece7ber 3, '(((.

9:ERE-S, the >nion ac%no!led&es and ad7its that the closure of the :otel !as inaccordance !ith the sound, valid, and &ood faith e


19/24

III of the C-. :o!ever, this provision shall not in an+ !a+ preclude the :otel, in thevalid enion 6he >nion further underta%es not tointervene in an+ 7atter that is pri7aril+ !ithin the enion. 6he 7e7bers of the co77ittee shall choose apresidin& officer a7on& the7selves. 6he findin&s of the co77ittee shall be

for!arded to the :u7an Resources Depart7ent Mana&er, !ho shall &ive hisreco77endations to the 1eneral Mana&er, shall beco7e i77ediatel+ final ande


20/24

Section "a. -dditional Rates E7plo+ees reFuested for dut+ durin& his da+ off shallbe paid his rest da+ pre7iu7 in accordance !ith the reFuire7ents of the provisionsof the 4abor Code.

Section '. Overti7e 9or% Overti7e pre7iu7s shall be deter7ined in accordance!ith the reFuire7ents of the provisions of the 4abor Code. Offsettin& of overti7e

shall be continued.

Section #. Ni&htshift Differential Pa+7ent of ni&ht shift differential pre7iu7 shall bein accordance !ith the reFuire7ents of the provisions of the 4abor Code.

E. :E-46: ENE=I6S -rticle VIII/

Section ' of -rticle VIII is hereb+ a7ended to read as follo!s8

Section '. Medical -llo!ance 6he e7plo+ee shall char&e the cost of 7edicineandor 7edical assistance incurred b+ hi7 up to the a7ount of P",$((.(( per +ear.

=. >NI=ORM -rticle I;/

6he follo!in& provision shall be introduced under -rticle I; as Section $8

Section $. >nifor7s 4aundr+ 4aundr+ of unifor7s shall be the sole responsibilit+ ofthe e7plo+ees and shall be done outside the :otel pre7ises.

1. V-C-6ION 4E-VE -rticle ;I/

Section " of -rticle ;I are hereb+ a7ended to read as follo!s8

Section ". Nu7ber of Da+s Vacation 4eave E7plo+ees !ho have rendered at leastone +ear of continuous service shall be entitled to a vacation leave of ten "(/!or%in& da+s after each co7pleted +ear of service.

Sections "a and "b are hereb+ repealed.

:. SIC 4E-VE -rticle ;II/

Section "a of -rticle ;II is hereb+ a7ended to read as follo!sH

Section "a. Nu7ber of Da+s Sic% 4eave E7plo+ees shall be &ranted ten "(/!or%in& da+s sic% leave !ith pa+ per +ear.

>nused sic% leave at the end of each +ear shall be "(( convertible to cash.

I. EMER1ENC 4E-VE -rticle ;;III/

6he follo!in& provisions shall be introduced as Section under -rticle ;;III of theC-8

-rticle ;III of the C- on E7er&enc+ 4eave is hereb+ e


21/24

< < < R-6ION RENE9-4 -rticle ;;VI/

Section " of -rticle ;;VI of the C- shall be a7ended to read as follo!s8

Section ". Effectivit+ and Duration 6his -&ree7ent, as a7ended, shall be in fullforce and effect i77ediatel+ upon its enion e


22/24

'3Id. at '22.

'2Id. at 2)022.

'Id. at 22.

)(Id. at )"30)#".

)"Id. at )2(0#($.

)'Id. at #(0#'#.

))C- rollo, Vol. ', pp. '(0)'.

)#Id. at 3$.

)$Id. at 3033.

)Id. at 32.

)3C- rollo, Vol. ", pp. 20"((.

)2Id. at "((.

)Rollo, pp. 02'.

#(Id. at 2".

#"Id. at 2#02$.

#'Id. at #30#2.

#)Id. at #2.

##Id. at 2330(.

#$See DO4E Certification dated Nove7ber ", '((, id. at $$".

#C- rollo, Vol. ", pp. ""(0""".

#3Id. at ""'.

#2See Opposition to Motion to 9ithdra!, C- rollo, Vol. ", id. at "')0"'$.

#C- rollo, Vol. ", p. 23.

$(Id. at 22.

$"Id. at "")0 ""$.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt51


23/24

$'1.R. No. "#3#(, *ul+ "#, '((2, $$2 SCR- ).

$)Id. at 2"02).

$#1.R. No. "2)))$, Dece7ber '), '((, ( SCR- '').

$$Id. at ')"0')'.

$1.R. No. "$3""3, Nove7ber '(, '((, $(3 SCR- )((.

$3Id. at )""0)"'. E7phasis supplied./

$2Rollo, pp. 33032.

$Id. at $$".

(See rollo, pp. '$0'.

"Id. at '$. E7phasis supplied./

'Id. at 3.

)C- rollo, Vol.", pp. )#)0)$$.

#'(("0 P),#$,)#.((

'((' 0 P)',2#$,$.((

'(() 0 P'),'#,32#.((

'((# 0 P ,$#(,'3.((

'(($ 0 P ),))(,).((

See -udited =inancial State7ents, rollo, pp. $30$#.

$1.R. No. 2'((, =ebruar+ '$, "', '( SCR- #3.

Id. at $(".

3#'$ Phil. " '(('/.

2Id. at "2'0"2). E7phasis supplied./

C- rollo, Vol. ", p. '3.

3(See copies of Reconfir7ation of E7plo+7ent, rollo, pp. $033(.

3"'$" Phil. )"( "2/.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt71


24/24

3'Id. at )''. E7phasis supplied/.

3)See -rticle VII, Section " of DI:=E>0N=4 Constitution and +04a!s, C- rollo, Vol. ", p.'3".

3#Rollo, p. $$.

3$Id. E7phasis supplied/.

3&uncan )ssociation o' &etailmanPT/0! v. /laxo 0ellcome P-ilippines, Inc.,#2" Phil.23, 3(( '((#/.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_174040_2010.html#rnt76

Documents

11 Insular Hotel vs Waterfront