case to read january 2016

7/24/2019 Case to Read January 2016

1/96

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

TSPIC CORPORATION, G.R. No. 163419

Petitioner,Present:UISUM!IN",J., Chairperson,# $ersus # C%RPIO,C%RPIO MOR%&ES,TIN"%, an'VE&%SCO, (R),JJ.

TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION (FFW),repree!"#!$ MARIA FE FLORES,

FE CAPISTRANO, AMY %URIAS,*+

CLAIRE E&ELYN &ELE', ANICE

OLAGUIR, ERICO ALIPIT, GLEN

ATULA, SER O*N *ERNAN%E',

RAC*EL NO&ILLAS, NIMFA ANILAO,

ROSE SUAR%IAGA, &ALERIE

CARON, OLI&IA E%ROSO, MARICRIS

%ONAIRE, ANALYN A'ARCON,ROSALIE RAMIRE', ULIETA ROSETE,

ANICE NERE, NIA AN%RA%E,

CAT*ERINE YAA, %IOME%ISA

ERNI,*-MARIO SALMORIN, LOI%A

COMULLO,*.MARIE ANN %ELOSSANTOS,*/UANITA YANA, +!Pro0ul1ate':SU'ETTE %ULAY,Respon'ents)2ebruar3 +., -4456#########################################################################################6

% E C I S I O N

&ELASCO, R.,J.-
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn1


2/96

The path to7ar's in'ustrial peace is a t7o#7a3 street) 2un'a0ental fairness an'protection to labor shoul' al7a3s 1o$ern 'ealin1s bet7een labor an' 0ana1e0ent)See0in1l3 conflictin1 pro$isions shoul' be har0oni8e' to arri$e at aninterpretation that is 7ithin the para0eters of the la7, co0passionate to labor, 3et,

fair to 0ana1e0ent)In this Petition for Re$ie7 on Certiorari un'er Rule /9, petitioner TSPICCorporation TSPIC; seeof%ccre'ite' Voluntar3 %rbitrator (osephus !) (i0ene8 in National Conciliation an'Me'iation !oar' Case No) (!(#%V%#-44+#4>#9>)TSPIC is en1a1e' in the business of 'esi1nin1, 0anufacturin1, an' 0ar


3/96

c; Effecti$e (anuar3 +, -44-, all e0plo3ees on re1ular status an' 7ithinthe bar1ainin1 unit on or before sai' 'ate shall be 1rante' a salar3increase eui$alent to ele$en percent ++F; of their basic 0onthl3salar3 as of Dece0ber .+, -44+)

The 7a1e salar3 increase of the first 3ear of this %1ree0ent shall be o$er an'abo$e the 7a1esalar3 increase, inclu'in1 the 7a1e 'istortion a'Gust0ent, 1rante'b3 the COMP%NA onNo$e0ber +, +BBB as per ?a1e Or'er No) NCR#4>)

The 7a1esalar3 increases for the 3ears -44+ an' -44- shall be 'ee0e' inclusi$eof the 0an'ate' 0ini0u0 7a1e increases un'er future ?a1e Or'ers, that 0a3 beissue' after ?a1e Or'er No) NCR#4>, an' shall be consi'ere' as correction ofan3 7a1e 'istortion that 0a3 ha$e been brou1ht about b3 the sai' future ?a1eOr'ers) Thus the 7a1esalar3 increases in -44+ an' -44- shall be 'ee0e' asco0pliance to future 7a1e or'ers after ?a1e Or'er No) NCR#4>)

Conseuentl3, on (anuar3 +, -444, all the re1ular ran9F; of ten percent +4F; ofhis basic pa3) In the sa0e 0anner, an e0plo3ee 7ho acuires re1ular status
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn9


4/96

on Dece0ber +, -444 7ill be entitle' to a salar3 increase eui$alent to t7ent3#fi$e percent -9F; of ten percent +4F; of his last basic pa3)On the other han', an3 0onthl3#pai' e0plo3ee 7ho acuires re1ular status 7ithinthe ter0 of the %1ree0ent shall be 1rante' re1ulari8ation increase eui$alent to

+4F of his re1ular basic salar3)Then on October =, -444, the Re1ional Tripartite ?a1e an' Pro'ucti$it3

!oar', National Capital Re1ion, issue' ?a1e Or'er No) NCR#45 *+4?O No) 5;7hich raise' the 'ail3 0ini0u0 7a1e fro0 PhP --.)94 to PhP -94effecti$e No$e0ber +, -444) Confor0abl3, the 7a1es of +> probationar3e0plo3ees, na0el3: Ni0fa %nilao, Rose Subar'ia1a, Valerie Carbon, Oli$iaE'roso, Maricris Donaire, %nal3n %8arcon, Rosalie Ra0ire8, (ulietaRosete, (anice Nebre, Nia %n'ra'e, Catherine Aaba, Dio0e'isa Erni,MarioSal0orin, &oi'a Co0ullo, Marie %nn Delos Santos, (uanita Aana, an' Su8ette

Dula3 secon' 1roup;, 7ere increase' to PhP -94)44 effecti$e No$e0ber +, -444)On $arious 'ates 'urin1 the last uarter of -444, the abo$e na0e' +>

e0plo3ees attaine' re1ular e0plo30ent*++an' recei$e' -9F of +4F of theirsalaries as 1rante' un'er the pro$ision on re1ulari8ation increase un'er %rticle ,Sec) - of the C!%)

In (anuar3 -44+, TSPIC i0ple0ente' the ne7 7a1e rates as 0an'ate' b3

the C!%) %s a result, the nine e0plo3ees first 1roup;, 7ho 7ere senior to the

abo$e#liste' recentl3 re1ulari8e' e0plo3ees, recei$e' less 7a1es)

On (anuar3 +B, -44+, a fe7 7ee


5/96

pa3) The issue 7as brou1ht to the 1rie$ance 0achiner3, but TSPIC an'the Union faile' to reach an a1ree0ent)

Conseuentl3, TSPIC an' the Union a1ree' to un'er1o $oluntar3 arbitration

on the solitar3 issue of 7hether or not the acts of the 0ana1e0ent in 0a54)+= for nine B; 0onths orP>,+++)-= for each of the0 as 7ell as an a''itional P+-,=/-)-/ for all;, orP>B4)+/ for each;, for e$er3 0onth after .4 Septe0ber -44+, until fullpa30ent, 7ith le1al interests for e$er3 0onth of 'ela3H

-; to the nine B; 7ho 7ere hire' earlier than the si6teen +=;H also na0e'

abo$e, their respecti$e a0ount of entitle0ents, accor'in1 to the Unions

correct co0putation, ran1in1 fro0 P++4)-- per 0onth or PBB+)B5 for nine0onths; to P/94)95 a 0onth or P/,499)-- for nine 0onths;, as 7ell ascorrespon'in1 0onthl3 entitle0ents after .4 Septe0ber -44+, plus le1alinterests until full pa30ent,

.; to Su8ette Dula3, the a0ount of P=45)+/ a 0onth or P9,/>.)-=;, as 7ell

as correspon'in1 0onthl3 entitle0ents after .4 Septe0ber -44+, plus le1alinterest until full pa30ent,

/; %ttorne3s fees eual to +4F of all the abo$e 0onetar3 a7ar's)

The clai0 for e6e0plar3 'a0a1es is 'enie' for 7ant of factual basis)The parties are hereb3 'irecte' to co0pl3 7ith their Goint $oluntar3

co00it0ent to abi'e b3 this %7ar' an' thus, sub0it to this Office Gointl3, a7ritten proof of $oluntar3 co0pliance 7ith this DECISION 7ithin ten +4; 'a3safter the finalit3 hereof)

SO ORDERED)*+/
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn14


6/96

TSPIC file' a Motion for Reconsi'eration 7hich 7as 'enie' in a Resolution'ate' No$e0ber -+, -44+)

%11rie$e', TSPIC file' before the C% a petition for re$ie7 un'er Rule /.'oc as'ail3 7a1es to the ne7l3 re1ulari8e' e0plo3ees to be correct, notin1 that theco0putation confor0e' to ?O No) 5 an' the pro$isions of the C!%) %ccor'in1 tothe C%, TSPIC faile' to con$ince the appellate court that the 'e'uction 7as aresult of a s3ste0 error in the auto0ate' pa3roll s3ste0) The C% e6plaine' that7hen ?O No) 5 too< effect on No$e0ber +, -444, the concerne' e0plo3ees 7ere

still probationar3 e0plo3ees 7ho 7ere recei$in1 the 0ini0u0 7a1e of PhP--.)94) The C% sai' that effecti$e No$e0ber +, -444, sai' e0plo3ees shoul' ha$erecei$e' the 0ini0u0 7a1e of PhP -94) The C% hel' that 7hen respon'ents

beca0e re1ular e0plo3ees on No$e0ber -B, -444, the3 shoul' be allo7e' thesalar3 increase 1rante' the0 un'er the C!% at the rate of -9F of +4F of their

basic salar3 for the 3ear -444H thereafter, the +-F increase for the 3ear -44+ an'the +4F increase for the 3ear -44- shoul' also be 0a'e applicable to the0)*+9

TSPIC file' a Motion for Reconsi'eration 7hich 7as 'enie' b3 the C% in its %pril-., -44/ Resolution)

TSPIC file' the instant petition 7hich raises this sole issue for our resolution: Doesthe TSPICs 'ecision to 'e'uct the alle1e' o$erpa30ent fro0 the salaries of theaffecte' 0e0bers of the Union constitute 'i0inution of benefits in $iolation of the&abor Co'eTSPIC 0aintains that the for0ula propose' b3 the Union, a'opte' b3 the arbitratoran' affir0e' b3 the C%, 7as fla7e', inas0uch as it co0pletel3 'isre1ar'e' thecre'itin1 pro$ision containe' in the last para1raph of Sec) +, %rt) of the C!%)

?e fin' TSPICs contention 0eritorious)

A Coe/"#0e +r$+#!#!$ A$reee!" # "2e + e"ee! "2e p+r"#e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn15


7/96

It is fa0iliar an' fun'a0ental 'octrine in labor la7 that the C!% is the la7bet7een the parties an' the3 are obli1e' to co0pl3 7ith its pro$isions)*+=?e sai'so inHonda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda:

% collecti$e bar1ainin1 a1ree0ent or C!% refers to the ne1otiate' contract

bet7een a le1iti0ate labor or1ani8ation an' the e0plo3er concernin1 7a1es,hours of 7or< an' all other ter0s an' con'itions of e0plo30ent in a bar1ainin1unit) %s in all contracts, the parties in a C!% 0a3 establish such stipulations,clauses, ter0s an' con'itions as the3 0a3 'ee0 con$enient pro$i'e' these are notcontrar3 to la7, 0orals, 1oo' custo0s, public or'er or public polic3) Thus, 7herethe C!% is clear an' una0bi1uous, it beco0es the la7 bet7een the parties an'

co0pliance there7ith is 0an'ate' b3 the e6press polic3 of the la7)*+>

Moreo$er, if the ter0s of a contract, as in a C!%, are clear an' lea$e no

'oubt upon the intention of the contractin1 parties, the literal 0eanin1 of their

stipulations shall control)*+5@o7e$er, so0eti0es, as in this case, thou1h thepro$isions of the C!% see0 clear an' una0bi1uous, the parties so0eti0es arri$eat conflictin1 interpretations) @ere, TSPIC 7ants to cre'it the increase 1rante' b3?O No) 5 to the increase 1rante' un'er the C!%) %ccor'in1 to TSPIC, it isspecificall3 pro$i'e' in the C!% that the salar37a1e increase for the 3ear -44+shall be 'ee0e' inclusi$e of the 0an'ate' 0ini0u0 7a1e increases un'er future7a1e or'ers that 0a3 be issue' after ?a1e Or'er No) >) The Union, on the otherhan', insists that the cre'itin1 pro$ision of the C!% fin's no application in the

present case, since at the ti0e ?O No) 5 7as issue', the probationar3 e0plo3ees

secon' 1roup; 7ere not 3et co$ere' b3 the C!%, particularl3 b3 its cre'itin1pro$ision)%s a 1eneral rule, in the interpretation of a contract, the intention of the

parties is to be pursue')*+BLittera necat spiritus vivificat) %n instru0ent 0ust beinterprete' accor'in1 to the intention of the parties) It is the 'ut3 of the courts to

place a practical an' realistic construction upon it, 1i$in1 'ue consi'eration to theconte6t in 7hich it is ne1otiate' an' the purpose 7hich it is inten'e' to ser$e)*-4%bsur' an' illo1ical interpretations shoul' also be a$oi'e') Consi'erin1 that the

parties ha$e uneui$ocall3 a1ree' to substitute the benefits 1rante' un'er the C!%7ith those 1rante' un'er 7a1e or'ers, the a1ree0ent 0ust pre$ail an' be 1i$en fulleffect)Para1raph b; of Sec) + of %rt) of the C!% pro$i'es for the 1eneral a1ree0entthat, effecti$e (anuar3 +, -44+, all e0plo3ees on re1ular status an' 7ithin the

bar1ainin1 unit on or before sai' 'ate shall be 1rante' a salar3 increase eui$alentto t7el$e +-F; of their basic 0onthl3 salar3 as of Dece0ber .+, -444) The +-F
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn20


8/96

salar3 increase is 1rante' to all e0plo3ees 7ho +; are re1ular e0plo3ees an' -;are 7ithin the bar1ainin1 unit)Secon' para1raph of c; pro$i'es that the salar3 increase for the 3ear -444 shall

not inclu'e the increase in salar3 1rante' un'er ?O No) > an' the correction of the7a1e 'istortion for No$e0ber +BBB)The last para1raph, on the other han', states the specific con'ition that the7a1esalar3 increases for the 3ears -44+ an' -44- shall be 'ee0e' inclusi$e of the0an'ate' 0ini0u0 7a1e increases un'er future 7a1e or'ers, that 0a3 be issue'after ?O No) >, an' shall be consi'ere' as correction of the 7a1e 'istortions that0a3 be brou1ht about b3 the sai' future 7a1e or'ers) Thus, the 7a1esalar3increases in -44+ an' -44- shall be 'ee0e' as co0pliance to future 7a1e or'ersafter ?O No) >)

Para1raph b; is a 1eneral pro$ision 7hich allo7s a salar3 increase to allthose 7ho are ualifie') It, ho7e$er, clashes 7ith the last para1raph 7hichspecificall3 states that the salar3 increases for the 3ears -44+ an' -44- shall be'ee0e' inclusi$e of 7a1e increases subseuent to those 1rante' un'er ?O No) >)It is a fa0iliar rule in interpretation of contracts that conflictin1 pro$isions shoul'

be har0oni8e' to 1i$e effect to all)*-+&i)

Respon'ents shoul' not be allo7e' to recei$e benefits fro0 the C!% 7hilea$oi'in1 the counterpart cre'itin1 pro$ision) The3 ha$e recei$e' theirre1ulari8ation increases un'er %rt) , Sec) - of the C!% an' the 3earl3 increase forthe 3ear -44+) The3 shoul' not then be allo7e' to a$oi' the cre'itin1 pro$ision7hich is an acco0pan3in1 con'ition)

Respon'ents attaine' re1ular e0plo30ent status before (anuar3 +, -44+)?O No) 5, increasin1 the 0ini0u0 7a1e, 7as issue' after ?O No) >) Thus,respon'ents ri1htfull3 recei$e' the +-F salar3 increase for the 3ear -44+ 1rante'
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftn22


9/96

in the C!%H an' conseuentl3, TSPIC ri1htfull3 cre'ite' that +-F increase a1ainstthe increase 1rante' b3 ?O No) 5)

Proper 5or+ 5or /op"#!$ "2e ++r#e 5or "2e 7e+r 81Thus, the proper co0putation of the salaries of in'i$i'ual respon'ents is as

follo7s:+; ?ith re1ar' to the first 1roup of respon'ents 7ho attaine' re1ular

e0plo30ent status before the effecti$it3 of ?O No) 5, the co0putation is asfollo7s:

For respondents Jerico lipit and !len "atula:*-.

?a1e rate before ?O No) 5))) P2P834.6:Increase 'ue to ?O No) 5settin1 the 0ini0u0 7a1e at PhP -94) 1;.33Total Salar3 upon effecti$it3 of ?O No) 5) P2P 8;.Increase for -44+ +-F of -444 salar3;))))))))))) P2P 3.&ess the 7a1e increase un'er ?O No) 5) 1;.33

Total 'ifference bet7een the 7a1e increase

for -44+ an' the increase 1rante' un'er ?O No) 5)) P2P14.6:?a1e rate b3 Dece0ber -444))))) P2P8;.Plus total 'ifference bet7een the 7a1e increase for -44+an' the increase 1rante' un'er ?O No) 5)) 14.6:

To"+ ?a1e rate ran1e be1innin1 (anuar3 +, -44+;P2P 864.6:For respondents Ser John Hernande# and $achel %ovillas:*-/

?a1e rate ran1e before ?O No) 5)P2P 834.6 -= +- 5-,9>>)4/

Ser (ohn @ernan'e8 -=/)=5 -= +- 5-,954)+=

Rachel No$illas -=/)=5 -= +- 5-,954)+=

%03 Durias ->4)-= -= +- 5/,.-+)+-

Claire E$el3n Vele8 ->4)-= -= +- 5/,.-+)+-

(anice Ola1uir ->4)-= -= +- 5/,.-+)+-

Maria 2e 2lores ->9)59 -= +- 5=,4=9)-4

2e Capistrano ->9)59 -= +- 5=,4=9)-4

The a7ar' for attorne3s fees of ten percent +4F; of the total a7ar'is MAINTAINE%)

SO OR%ERE%)

PRESITERO . &ELASCO, R.

%ssociate (ustice

?E CONCUR:


15/96

LEONAR%O A. >UISUMING

%ssociate (usticeChairperson

ANTONIO T. CARPIOCONC*ITA CARPIO MORALES%ssociate (ustice %ssociate (ustice

%ANTE O. TINGA

%ssociate (ustice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the abo$e Decision ha' been reache' in consultation

before the case 7as assi1ne' to the 7riter of the opinion of the Courts Di$ision)

LEONAR%O A. >UISUMING

%ssociate (usticeChairperson

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section +., %rticle VIII of the Constitution, an' the Di$isionChairpersons %ttestation, I certif3 that the conclusions in the abo$e Decision ha'

been reache' in consultation before the case 7as assi1ne' to the 7riter of theopinion of the Courts Di$ision)


16/96

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief (ustice

*+%lso appears as %0ie Durias in so0e parts of the recor's)*-%lso appears as Deo0e'isa Erne in so0e parts of the recor's)*.%lso appears as &oi'a Ca0ullo in so0e parts of the recor's)*/%lso appears as Mar3 %nn 'elos Santos in so0e parts of the recor's)*9$ollo, pp) .+#.B#%) Penne' b3 %ssociate (ustice Conra'o M) Vasue8, (r), an' concurre' in b3 %ssociate

(ustices !ien$eni'o &) Re3es an' %rsenio () Ma1pale)*=I') at /+#/-)*>I') at ++5#+.-)*5I') at +55#-+-)*BI') at +--)*+4Pro$i'in1 an Increase in the Dail3 Mini0u0 ?a1e in the National Capital Re1ion, an' Its I0ple0entin1

Rules: Rules I0ple0entin1 ?a1e Or'er No) NCR#45, appro$e' on October -9, -444)

*++$ollo, p) .-)*+-I') at /.)*+.%rt) +44) Pro2##"#o! +$+#!" e##!+"#o! or ##!"#o! o5 e!e5#") Nothin1 in this !oo< shall be

construe' to eli0inate or in an3 7a3 'i0inish supple0ents, or other e0plo3ee benefits bein1 enGo3e' at the ti0e ofpro0ul1ation of this Co'e)

*+/$ollo, pp) +.+#+.-)*+9I') at .>#.5)*+='entro (scolar niversity Faculty and llied 0or-ers nionIndependent v. 'ourt of ppeals , ")R) No)

+=9/5=, Ma3 .+, -44=, /B4 SCR% =+, >-)*+>")R) No) +/99=+, (une +9, -449, /=4 SCR% +5>, +B4#+B+)*+5CIVI& CODE, %rt) +.>4)*+BSeeRU&ES O2 COURT, Rule +.4, Sec) ++)*-4Marcopper Mining 'orporation v. %L$', ")R) No) +4.9-9, March -B, +BB=, -99 SCR% .--, ...H

citin1&avao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. +ar1ue#, ")R) No) +4-+.-, March +B, +BB., --4 SCR% +B>)*-+CIVI& CODE, %rt) +.>/H RU&ES O2 COURT, Rule +.4, Sec) ++)*--See RU&ES O2 COURT, Rule +.4, Sec) +-)*-.$ollo, p) 9.>) It appears fro0 the recor's that the3 attaine' re1ular e0plo30ent status on (ul3 .+,

-444 7ith a basic 7a1e rate of PhP -./)=>)*-/I') It appears fro0 the recor's that the3 attaine' re1ular e0plo30ent status on %u1ust -+, -444 7ith a

basic 7a1e rate of PhP -./)=5)*-9I') It appears fro0 the recor's that respon'ents %03 Durias an' Claire E$el3n Vele8 attaine' re1ular

e0plo30ent status on %pril ++, -444, 7hile (anice Ola1uir on %pril +5, -444, all 7ith a basic 7a1e rate of PhP-/4)-=)

*-=I') It appears fro0 the recor's that respon'ent Maria 2e 2lores attaine' re1ular e0plo30ent status on2ebruar3 --, -444, 7hile 2e Capistrano on March --, -444, both 7ith a basic 7a1e rate of PhP -/9)59)

*->C)%) %8ucena, T@E &%!OR CODE ?IT@ COMMENTS %ND C%SES --- -44/;)*-5No) >/+9=, (une -B, +B55, +=. SCR% >+, >5)*-Bga+on v. %L$', ")R) No) +95=B., No$e0ber +>, -44/, //- SCR% 9>., =+/)*.4")R) No) +9>4B5, (une .4, -449, /=- SCR% /59, /B>)

THIRD DIVISION
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163419.htm#_ftnref30


17/96

[G.R. No. 156109. November 18, 2004]

KHRISTINE REA M. REGINO, A!"e# $%# Re&ree%"e# b' ARMAN(O

REGINO,petitioner, vs.)ANGASINAN *O++EGES O S*IEN*EAN( TE*HNO+OG-, RA*HE++E A. GAMROT $%# E+ISSA/A+A(A(, respondents.

( E * I S I O N

)ANGANI/AN, J.

Upon enrolment, students and their school enter upon a reciprocal contract. Thestudents agree to abide by the standards o academic perormance and codes oconduct, issued usually in the orm o manuals that are distributed to the enrollees at thestart o the school term. !urther, the school inorms them o the itemi"ed ees they aree#pected to pay. $onse%uently, it cannot, ater the enrolment o a student, &ary theterms o the contract. It cannot re%uire ees other than those it speciied uponenrolment.

Te *$e

'eore the $ourt is a (etition or Re&ie) under Rule *+,-see/ing to nulliy the 0uly-1, 12211and the No&ember 11, 1221 3Orders o the Regional Trial $ourt 4RT$5 oUrdaneta $ity, (angasinan 4'ranch *65 in $i&il $ase No. U78+*-. The decretal portion

o the irst assailed Order reads9

?@ERE2ORE, the Court "R%NTS the instant 0otion to'is0iss for lac< of cause of action)*

The second challenged Order denied petitioners :otion or Reconsideration.

Te $"

(etitioner ;hristine Rea :. Regino )as a irst year computer science student at

Respondent (angasinan $olleges o Science and Technology 4($ST5. Reared in a pooramily, Regino )ent to college mainly through the inancial support o her relati&es.During the second semester o school year 122-71221, she enrolled in logic andstatistics subamurot and ?lissa 'aladad,respecti&ely, as teachers.

In !ebruary 1221, ($ST held a und raising campaign dubbed the Ra&e (arty andDance Re&olution, the proceeds o )hich )ere to go to the construction o the schools
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/156109.htm#_ftn4


18/96

tennis and &olleyball courts. ?ach student )as re%uired to pay or t)o tic/ets at theprice o (-22 each. The proamurot and ?lissa 'aladad 77 allegedly disallo)ed her romta/ing the tests. =ccording to petitioner, >amurot made her sit out her logic class )hileher classmates )ere ta/ing their e#aminations. The ne#t day, 'aladad, ater announcingto the entire class that she )as not permitting petitioner and another student to ta/etheir statistics e#aminations or ailing to pay or their tic/ets, allegedly eamurot and'aladad, )ho unrelentingly deended their positions as compliance )ith ($STs policy.

On =pril 1+, 1221, petitioner iled, as a pauper litigant, a $omplaint +or damages

against ($ST, >amurot and 'aladad. In her $omplaint, she prayed or (+22,222 asnominal damages@ (+22,222 as moral damages@ at least (-,222,222 as e#emplarydamages@ (1+2,222 as actual damages@ plus the costs o litigation and attorneys ees.

On :ay 32, 1221, respondents iled a :otion to DismissAon the ground opetitioners ailure to e#haust administrati&e remedies. =ccording to respondents, the%uestion raised in&ol&ed the determination o the )isdom o an administrati&e policy othe ($ST@ hence, the case should ha&e been initiated beore the proper administrati&ebody, the $ommission o Higher ?ducation 4$H?D5.

In her $omment to respondents :otion, petitioner argued that prior e#haustion oadministrati&e remedies )as unnecessary, because her action )as not administrati&e in

nature, but one purely or damages arising rom respondents breach o the la)s onhuman relations. =s such,


19/96

I3e

In her :emorandum, petitioner raises the ollo)ing issues or our consideration9

?hether or not the principle of e6haustion of a'0inistrati$e re0e'ies applies in aci$il action e6clusi$el3 for 'a0a1es base' on $iolation of the hu0an relation

pro$isions of the Ci$il Co'e, file' b3 a stu'ent a1ainst her for0er school)

?hether or not there is a nee' for prior 'eclaration of in$ali'it3 of a certain schoola'0inistrati$e polic3 b3 the Co00ission on @i1her E'ucation C@ED; before afor0er stu'ent can successfull3 0aintain an action e6clusi$el3 for 'a0a1es in re1ularcourts)

?hether or not the Co00ission on @i1her E'ucation C@ED; has e6clusi$e ori1inalGuris'iction o$er actions for 'a0a1es base' upon $iolation of the Ci$il Co'epro$isions on hu0an relations file' b3 a stu'ent a1ainst the school)B

=ll o the oregoing point to one issue 77 )hether the doctrine o e#haustion oadministrati&e remedies is applicable. The $ourt, ho)e&er, sees a second issue )hich,though not e#pressly raised by petitioner, )as impliedly contained in her (etition9)hether the $omplaint stated suicient cause4s5 o action.

Te *o3r" R3!%

The (etition is meritorious.

!r" I3eExhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Respondents anchored their :otion to Dismiss on petitioners alleged ailure toe#haust administrati&e remedies beore resorting to the RT$. =ccording to them, thedetermination o the contro&ersy hinge on the &alidity, the )isdom and the propriety o($STs academic policy. Thus, the $omplaint should ha&e been lodged in the $H?D,

the administrati&e body tas/ed under Republic =ct No. 8811 to implement the statepolicy to protect, oster and promote the right o all citi"ens to aordable %ualityeducation at all le&els and to ta/e appropriate steps to ensure that education isaccessible to all.-2

(etitioner counters that the doctrine inds no rele&ance to the present case sinceshe is praying or damages, a remedy beyond the domain o the $H?D and )ell )ithinthe


20/96

(etitioner is correct. First, the doctrine o e#haustion o administrati&e remedies hasno bearing on the present case. In Factoran Jr. v. CA,-1the $ourt had occasion toelucidate on the rationale behind this doctrine9

The 'octrine of e6haustion of a'0inistrati$e re0e'ies is basic)Courts, for reasons of la7, co0it3, an' con$enience, shoul' not entertainsuits unless the a$ailable a'0inistrati$e re0e'ies ha$e first beenresorte' to an' the proper authorities ha$e been 1i$en the appropriateopportunit3 to act an' correct their alle1e' errors, if an3, co00itte' inthe a'0inistrati$e foru0) 6 6 6) -3

(etitioner is not as/ing or the re&ersal o the policies o ($ST. Neither is shedemanding it to allo) her to ta/e her inal e#aminations@ she )as already enrolled inanother educational institution. = re&ersal o the acts complained o )ould notade%uately redress her grie&ances@ under the circumstances, the conse%uences orespondents acts could no longer be undone or rectiied.

Second, e#haustion o administrati&e remedies is applicable )hen there iscompetence on the part o the administrati&e body to act upon the matter complained o.-*=dministrati&e agencies are not courts@ they are neither part o the


21/96

oppressi&e.1-They thereby premised their prayer or dismissal on the $omplaintsalleged ailure to state a cause o action. Thus, a ree#amination o the $omplaint is inorder.

The $omplaint contains the ollo)ing actual allegations9

-2. In the second )ee/ o !ebruary 1221, deendant Rachelle =. >amurot, inconni&ance )ith ($ST, orced plainti and her classmates to buy or ta/e t)otic/ets each, # # #@

--. (lainti and many o her classmates obamurot and ($ST, announced in the classroom that she )as notallo)ing plainti and another student to ta/e the e#amination or their ailureand reusal to pay the price o the tic/ets, and thenceorth she e


22/96

The oregoing allegations sho) t)o causes o action@ first, breach o contract@and second, liability or tort.

Reciprocity of the

School-Student Contract

InAlcuaz v. PSBA,13the $ourt characteri"ed the relationship bet)een the schooland the student as a contract, in )hich a student, once admitted by the school isconsidered enrolled or one semester.1*T)o years later, in Non v. Dames II,1+the$ourt modiied the termination o contract theory inAlcuazby holding that thecontractual relationship bet)een the school and the student is not only semestral induration, but or "e e%"!re &er!o# "e $""er $re e7&e"e# "o om&e"e !".1A?#cept orthe &ariance in the period during )hich the contractual relationship is considered tosubsist, bothAlcuaz and Non)ere unanimous in characteri"ing the school7studentrelationship as contractual in nature.

The school7student relationship is also reciprocal. Thus, it has conse%uencesappurtenant to and inherent in all contracts o such /ind 77 it gi&es rise to bilateral orreciprocal rights and obligations. The school underta/es to pro&ide students )itheducation suicient to enable them to pursue higher education or a proession. On theother hand, the students agree to abide by the academic re%uirements o the schooland to obser&e its rules and regulations. 18

The terms o the school7student contract are deined at the moment o its inception77 upon enrolment o the student. Standards o academic perormance and the code obeha&ior and discipline are usually set orth in manuals distributed to ne) students atthe start o e&ery school year. !urther, schools inorm prospecti&e enrollees the amount

o ees and the terms o payment.

In practice, students are normally re%uired to ma/e a do)n payment uponenrollment, )ith the balance to be paid beore e&ery preliminary, midterm and inale#amination. Their ailure to pay their inancial obligation is regarded as a &alid groundor the school to deny them the opportunity to ta/e these e#aminations.

The oregoing practice does not merely ensure compliance )ith inancialobligations@ it also underlines the importance o ma


23/96

oten the means by )hich a prospecti&e employer measures )hether a


24/96

Section B)$ights of Students in School) In a''ition to otherri1hts, an' subGect to the li0itations prescribe' b3 la7 an' re1ulations,stu'ents an' pupils in all schools shall enGo3 the follo7in1 ri1hts:

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

-; The ri1ht to freel3 choose their fiel' of stu'3subGect to e6istin1 curricula an' to continue theircourse therein up to 1ra'uation, e6cept in cases ofaca'e0ic 'eficienc3, or $iolation of 'isciplinar3re1ulations)

Liaility for !ort

In her $omplaint, petitioner also charged that pri&ate respondents inhumanly punishstudents # # # by reason only o their po&erty, religious practice or lo)ly station in lie,)hich inculcated upon petitioner the eelings o guilt, disgrace and un)orthiness@ 33asa result o such punishment, she )as allegedly unable to inish any o her sub


25/96

e#isting contract )ith its students, since the act that &iolated the contract may also be atort. e ruled thus in PSBA vs. CA,3*rom )hich )e %uote9

6 6 6 % perusal of %rticle -+>= *of the Ci$il Co'e sho7s that obli1ationsarisin1 fro0 uasi#'elicts or tort, also 54;, Mr) (ustice 2isher eluci'ate' thus: 6 6 6) ?hen such acontractual relation e6ists the obli1or 0a3 brea< the contract un'er suchcon'itions that the same act which constitutes a +reach of the contract wouldhave constituted the source of an e2tracontractual o+ligation had no contract

e2isted +etween the parties)

I00e'iatel3 7hat co0es to 0in' is the chapter of the Ci$il Co'e on @u0anRelations, particularl3 %rticle -+ 6 6 6) 3+

Academic "reedom

In their :emorandum, respondents harp on their right to academic reedom. e arenot impressed. =ccording to present


26/96

school cannot renege on its contractual obligation on grounds other than those made/no)n to, and accepted by, students at the start o the school year.

In sum, the $ourt holds that the $omplaint alleges suicient causes o actionagainst respondents, and that it should not ha&e been summarily dismissed. Needlessto say, the $ourt is not holding respondents liable or the acts complained o. That )ill

ha&e to be ruled upon in due course by the court a (uo.

HEREORE, the (etition is hereby >R=NT?D, and the assailed OrdersR?V?RS?D. The trial court is DIR?$T?D to reinstate the $omplaint and, )ith alldeliberate speed, to continue the proceedings in $i&il $ase No. U78+*-. No costs.

SO OR(ERE(.

Sandoval)$utierrez, Car&io)orales, and$arcia, JJ., concur.Corona, J., on lea&e.

-*ollo, pp. 378.

1Id., pp. -67-B. (enned by (residing 0udge =licia '. >on"ale"7Decano.

3Id., p. 12.

*=ssailed 0uly -1, 1221 Order, p. 1@ rollo, p. -B.

+*ollo, pp. 1-71+.

A*ollo, pp. 1871B.

8=ssailed Order dated 0uly -1, 1221, pp. -71@ rollo, pp. -67-B. $itations omitted.

6This case )as deemed submitted or decision on December 13, 1223, upon receipt by this $ourt opetitioners :emorandum, signed by =tty. inired C. $ru". Respondents :emorandum, signedby =tty. 0oselino =. Viray, )as recei&ed by the $ourt on December 11, 1223.

B(etitioners :emorandum, p. 3@ rollo, p. B2. Original in upper case.

-2Respondents :emorandum 4citing Section 1 o R= 88115, p. 6@ rollo, p. 86.

--(etitioner e#pounds her position in her :emorandum in this )ise9

(etitioner is not see/ing any administrati&e action or relie such as ma/e7up test or anydisciplinary action against the school, its oicials or members o the aculty in&ol&ed. Neither isshe challenging the &alidity o the school policy or decision to prohibit e#aminations to non7payingstudents. She does not e&en ta/e issue )ith the &alidity o the und7raising campaign or theorced selling o tic/ets. She is not in&o/ing her right to a %uality and aordable education. In

sum, petitioner raises no administrati&e issue and see/s no action or relie )hich is administrati&ein character. She is in&o/ing


27/96

%uestion must ha&e to be tested beore an administrati&e body beore an action or damages canbe had, )ould be tantamount to saying that once it is upheld, the aggrie&ed party can no longermaintain an action or damages, or the )rongul, in


28/96

m5 re&ie) the charters o institutions o higher learning and state uni&ersities and collegesincluding the chairmanship and membership o their go&erning bodies and recommendappropriate measures as basis or necessary action@

n5 promulgate such rules and regulations and e#ercise such other po)ers and unctions as maybe necessary to carry out eecti&ely the purpose and ob


29/96

36Id., p. 16*, per !ernando, J. 4later CJ.5

3B-38 S$R= 1*+, 0une 18, -B6+.

*2-illar v. Technolo!ical Institute of the Phili&&ines, 112 (hil. 38B, =pril -8, -B6+.

Republic o the (hilippines

S)REME *ORT:anila

S?$OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 84698 ebr3$r' 4, 1992

)HI+I))INE S*HOO+ O /SINESS A(MINISTRATION, :AN (. +IM, /EN:AMIN ). )A+INO, ANTONIO

M. MAGTA+AS, *O+. )E(RO SA*RO $%# +T. M. SORIANO, petitioners,&s.*ORT O A))EA+S, HON. REGINA OR(O;E


30/96

The respondent trial court, ho)e&er, o&erruled petitionersG contention and thru an order dated 6 December

-B68, denied their motion to dismiss. = subse%uent motion or reconsideration )as similarly dealt )ith by an

order dated 1+ 0anuary -B66. (etitioners then assailed the trial courtGs disposition beore the respondent

appellate court )hich, in a decision ?promulgated on -2 0une -B66, airmed the trial courtGs orders. On 11=ugust -B66, the respondent appellate court resol&ed to deny the petitionersG motion or reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

=t the outset, it is to be obser&ed that the respondent appellate court primarily anchored its decision on the la)

o(uasi)delicts, as enunciated in =rticles 1-8A and 1-62 o the $i&il $ode. 1(ertinent portions o the appellate

courtGs no) assailed ruling state9

=rticle 1-62 4ormerly =rticle -B235 o the $i&il $ode is an adoption rom the old Spanish $i&il

$ode. The comments o :anresa and learned authorities on its meaning should gi&e )ay to

present day changes. The la) is not i#ed and le#ible 4sic5@ it must be dynamic. In act, the

greatest &alue and signiicance o la) as a rule o conduct in 4sic5 its le#ibility to adopt to

changing social conditions and its capacity to meet the ne) challenges o progress.

$onstrued in the light o modern day educational system, =rticle 1-62 cannot be construed in

its narro) concept as held in the old case o /0conde vs.Ca&uno $and ercado vs.Court

of A&&eals@ @hence, the ruling in the Palisoc 4case that it should apply to all /inds o

educational institutions, academic or &ocational.

=t any rate, the la) holds the teachers and heads o the school sta liable unless they relie&e

themsel&es o such liability pursuant to the last paragraph o =rticle 1-62 by pro&ing that they

obser&ed all the diligence to pre&ent damage. This can only be done at a trial on the merits o

the case. 5

hile )e agree )ith the respondent appellate court that the motion to dismiss the complaint )as correctly

denied and the complaint should be tried on the merits, )e do not ho)e&er agree )ith the premises o the

appellate courtGs ruling.

=rticle 1-62, in con!or its part, the school

underta/es to pro&ide the student )ith an education that )ould presumably suice to e%uip him )ith the

necessary tools and s/ills to pursue higher education or a proession. On the other hand, the student

co&enants to abide by the schoolGs academic re%uirements and obser&e its rules and regulations.


31/96

Institutions o learning must also meet the implicit or built7in obligation o pro&iding their students )ith an

atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary underta/ing o imparting /no)ledge. $ertainly, no

student can absorb the intricacies o physics or higher mathematics or e#plore the realm o the arts and other

sciences )hen bullets are lying or grenades e#ploding in the air or )here there looms around the school

premises a constant threat to lie and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that ade%uate steps are ta/en

to maintain peace and order )ithin the campus premises and to pre&ent the brea/do)n thereo.

'ecause the circumstances o the present case e&ince a contractual relation bet)een the (S'= and $arlitos

'autista, the rules on %uasi7delict do not really go&ern. 8= perusal o =rticle 1-8A sho)s that obligations arising rom %uasi7delicts or tort, also /no)n as e#tra7contractual obligations, arise only bet)een parties not other)ise bound by contract, )hether e#press or

implied. Ho)e&er, this impression has not pre&ented this $ourt rom determining the e#istence o a tort e&en )hen there obtains a contract.

InAir France vs.Carrascoso4-1* (hil. 8115, the pri&ate respondent )as a)arded damages or his un)arranted e#pulsion rom a irst7class

seat aboard the petitioner airline. It is noted, ho)e&er, that the $ourt reerred to the petitioner7airlineGs liability as one arising rom tort, not

one arising rom a contract o carriage. In eect,Air Franceis authority or the &ie) that liability rom tort may e#ist e&en i there is a contract,

or the act that brea/s the contract may be also a tort. 4=ustro7=merica S.S. $o. &s. Thomas, 1*6 !ed. 13-5.

This &ie) )as not all that re&olutionary, or e&en as early as -B-6, this $ourt )as already o a similar mind.

InCan!co vs.anila *ailroad436 (hil. 8625, :r. 0ustice !isher elucidated thus9

The ield o non7contractual obligation is much broader than that o contractual obligation,comprising, as it does, the )hole e#tent o


32/96

been reported se&eral incidents ranging rom gang )ars to other orms o hooliganism. It )ould not be

e%uitable to e#pect o schools to anticipate alltypes o &iolent trespass upon their premises, or not)ithstanding

the security measures installed, the same may still ail against an indi&idual or group determined to carry out a

nearious deed inside school premises and en&irons. Should this be the case, the school may still a&oid liability

by pro&ing that the breach o its contractual obligation to the students )as not due to its negligence, here

statutorily deined to be the omission o that degree o diligence )hich is re%uired by the nature o the obligation

and corresponding to the circumstances o persons, time and place. 9

=s the proceedings a (uo ha&e yet to commence on the substance o the pri&ate respondentsG complaint, the

record is beret o all the material acts. Ob&iously, at this stage, only the trial court can ma/e such a

determination rom the e&idence still to unold.

H?R?!OR?, the oregoing premises considered, the petition is D?NI?D. The court o origin 4RT$, :anila,

'r. *85 is hereby ordered to continue proceedings consistent )ith this ruling o the $ourt. $osts against the

petitioners.

SO ORD?R?D.

elencio)+errera, Paras, *e!alado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

oo"%o"e

K (enned by 0ustice 0ose $. $ampos, 0r. and concurred in by 0ustices Ricardo 0. !rancisco

and =lredo C. 'enipayo.

- =rticle 1-8A pro&ides9

hoe&er by act or omission causes damage to another, there being ault or negligence, isobliged to pay or the damage done. Such ault or negligence, i there is no pre7e#isting

contractual relation bet)een the parties, is called a %uasi7delict and is go&erned by the

pro&isions o this $hapter.

=rticle 1-62 pro&ides9

The obligation imposed by article 1-8A is demandable not only or oneGs o)n acts or

omissions, but also or those o persons or )hom one is responsible.

### ### ###

Castly, teachers or heads o establishments o arts and trades shall be liable or damagescaused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated o in this article shall cease )hen the person herein mentioned

pro&e that they obser&ed all the diligence o a good ather o a amily to pre&ent damage.

1 -2- (hil. 6*3


33/96

3 -26 (hil. *-*

* >.R. No. C71B21+, * October -B8-, *- S$R= +*6.

+ *ollo, p. 8+.

A >.R. No. C7*88*+, -+ =pril -B66, -A2 S$R= 3-+.

8 In Non &s. DamesII, >.R. No. 6B3-8, 12 :ay -BB2, -6+ S$R= +3+, it )as held that the

contract bet)een school and student is one imbued )ith public interest but a contract

nonetheless.

6 =rticle 1-8A, $i&il $ode is re7%uoted or stress9

hoe&er by act or omission causes damage to another, there being ault or negligence, is

obliged to pay or the damage done. Such ault or negligence,if there is no &re)e0istin!

contractual relation "et1een the &arties, is called a %uasi7delict and is go&erned by the

pro&isions o this $hapter. 4emphasis supplied5

B =rticle --83, $i&il $ode pro&ides9

The ault or negligence o the obligor consists in the omission o that diligence )hich is

re%uired by the nature o the obligation and corresponds )ith the circumstances o the

persons, o the time and o the place. hen negligence sho)s bad aith, the pro&isions o

articles --8- and 112-, paragraph 1, shall apply.

[G.R. No. 1@4284. (eember 1, 2000]

A-A+A *OR)ORATION,petitioner, vs. ROSA=(IANA REA+T- AN((EE+O)MENT *OR)ORATION, respondent.

( E * I S I O N

(E +EON, :R., J.

'eore us is a petition or re&ie) on certiorarisee/ing the re&ersal o a decisionrendered by the $ourt o =ppeals in $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *+B6 entitled, =yala $orporation

&s. Rosa7Diana Realty and De&elopment $orporation, dismissing =yala $orporations

petition or lac/ o merit.

The acts o the case are not in dispute9


34/96

(etitioner =yala $orporation 4hereinater reerred to as =yala5 )as the registered

o)ner o a parcel o land located in =laro Street, Salcedo Village, :a/ati $ity )ith an

area o 6*2 s%uare meters, more or less and co&ered by Transer $ertiicate o Title

4T$T5 No. 133*3+ o the Register o Deeds o Ri"al.

On =pril 12, -B8A, =yala sold the lot to :anuel Sy married to Vilma (o and Sy ;a

;ieng married to Rosa $han. The Deed o Sale e#ecuted bet)een =yala and the buyers

contained Special $onditions o Sale and Deed Restrictions. =mong the Special

$onditions o Sale )ere9

a2 the vendees shall "uild on the lot and su"mit the "uildin! &lans to the vendor "efore

Se&tem"er 34, 5678 for the latters a&&roval

"2 the construction of the "uildin! shall start on or "efore arch 34, 5677 and

com&leted "efore 5676. Before such com&letion, neither the deed of sale shall "e

re!istered nor the title released even if the &urchase &rice shall have "een full# &aid

c2 there shall "e no resale of the &ro&ert#

The Deed Restrictions, on the other hand, contained the stipulation that the gross

loor area o the building to be constructed shall not be more than i&e 4+5 times the lot

area and the total height shall not e#ceed orty t)o 4*15 meters. The restrictions )ere to

e#pire in the year 121+.

:anuel Sy and Sy ;a ;ieng ailed to construct the building in &iolation o the

Special $onditions o Sale. Not)ithstanding the &iolation, :anuel Sy and Sy ;a ;ieng,in =pril -B6B, )ere able to sell the lot to respondent Rosa7Diana Realty and

De&elopment $orporation 4hereinater reerred to as Rosa7Diana5 )ith =yalas

appro&al. =s a consideration or =yala to release the $ertiicate o Title o the sub


35/96

=yala or appro&al en&isioned a 1*7meter high, se&en 485 storey condominium pro


36/96

The trial court sustained Rosa7Dianas Demurrer to ?&idence saying that =yala )as

guilty o abandonment andor estoppel due to its ailure to enorce the terms o deed o

restrictions and special conditions o sale against :anuel Sy and Sy ;a ;ieng. The trial

court noted that not)ithstanding the &iolation o the special conditions o sale, :anuel

Sy and Sy ;a ;ieng )ere able to transer the title to Rosa7Diana )ith the appro&al o

=yala. The trial court added that =yalas ailure to enorce the restrictions )ith respect to

Traalgar, Shellhouse, ?uro&illa, C(C (la"a, (arc Regent, C(C :ansion and Ceron&ille

)hich are located )ithin Salcedo Village, sho)s that =yala discriminated against those

)hich it )ants to ha&e the obligation enorced. The trial court then concluded that or

=yala to discriminately choose )hich obligor )ould be made to ollo) certain conditions

and )hich should not, did not seem air and legal.

The $ourt o =ppeals airmed the ruling o the trial court saying that the appeal is

sealed by the doctrine o the la) o the case in $.=. >.R. S.(. No. 1B-+8 )here it )as

stated that

:0 0 0 A#ala is "arred from enforcin! the Deed of *estrictions in (uestion

&ursuant to the doctrine of 1aiver and esto&&el. 'nder the terms of the deed

of sale, the vendee S# ;a ;ien! assumed faithful com&liance 1ith the s&ecial

conditions of sale and 1ith the Salcedo -illa!e Deed of *estrictions. ne of

the conditions 1as that a "uildin! 1ould "e constructed 1ithin one #ear.

+o1ever, S# ;a ;ien! failed to construct the "uildin! as re(uired under the

Deed of Sale. A#ala did nothin! to enforce the terms of the contract. In fact, it

even a!reed to the sale of the lot "# S# ;a ;ien! in favor of &etitioner *ealt#in 56ustifia"le reason for

A#ala to attem&t to enforce the terms of the conditions of sale a!ainst the

&etitioner.

0 0 0

The $ourt o =ppeals also cited $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *A*66 entitled, =yala

$orporation &s. Ray 'urton De&elopment $orporation )hich relied on $.=. >.R.

S.(. No. 1B-+8 in ruling that =yala is barred rom enorcing the deed restrictions in

dispute. Upon a motion or reconsideration iled by herein petitioner, the $ourt o

=ppeals clariied that the citation o the decision in =yala $orporation &s. Ray 'urton

De&elopment $orporation, $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *A*66, !ebruary 18, -BBA, )as made not

because said decision is res >udicatato the case at bar but rather because it is

precedential under the doctrine o stare decisis.

Upon denial o said motion or reconsideration, =yala iled the present appeal.


37/96

=yala contends that the pronouncement o the $ourt o =ppeals in $.=. >.R. S.(.

No. 1B-+8 that it is estopped rom enorcing the deed restrictions is merely o"iter

dictainasmuch as the only issue raised in the aoresaid case )as the propriety o a lis

&endensannotation on Rosa7Dianas certiicate o title.

=yala a&ers that Rosa7Diana presented no e&idence )hatsoe&er on =yalas

supposed )ai&er or estoppel in $.=. >.R. S.(. No. 1B-+8. =yala li/e)ise pointed out

that at the time $.=. >.R. S.(. No. 1B-+8 )as on appeal, the issues o the &alidity and

continued &iability o the deed o restrictions and their enorceability by =yala )ere

udicataand stare decisis, principally on the

ground that the rule o the la1 of the caseoperates only in the particular case and only

as a rule o policy and not as one o la). *=t &ariance )ith the doctrine o stare decisis,

the ruling adhered to in the particular case under the doctrine o the la1 of the

caseneed not be ollo)ed as a precedent in subse%uent litigation bet)een other

parties, neither by the appellate court )hich made the decision ollo)ed on a

subse%uent appeal in the same case, nor by any other court. The ruling co&ered by the

doctrine o the la1 of the caseis adhered to in the single case )here it arises, but is not

carried into other cases as a precedent.+On the other hand, under the doctrine o stare

decisis, once a point o la) has been established by the court, that point o la) )ill,

generally, be ollo)ed by the same court and by all courts o lo)er ran/ in subse%uent

cases )here the same legal issue is raised. AStare decisisproceeds rom the irst

principle o


38/96

The $ourt o =ppeals, in ruling against petitioner =yala $orporation stated that the

appeal is sealed by the doctrine o the la1 of the case, reerring to >.R. No. --188*

entitled =yala $orporation,&etitioner&s. $ourt o =ppeals, et al., res&ondents. The

$ourt o =ppeals li/e)ise made reerence to $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *A*66 entitled, =yala

$orporation &s. Ray 'urton De&elopment $orporation, Inc. in ruling against petitioner

saying that it is .R. S.(. No. 1B-+8 )as )hether or not the annotation o lis &endensis

proper. The $ourt o =ppeals, in its decision, in act stated the principal issue to be

resol&ed is9 )hether or not an action or speciic perormance, or in the alternati&e,

rescission o deed o sale to enorce the deed o restrictions go&erning the use o

property, is a real or personal action, or one that aects title thereto and its use or

occupation thereo.6

In the aoresaid decision, the $ourt o =ppeals e&en


39/96

e#pressions o opinion )hich are not necessary to support the decision reached by the

court. :ere dictaare not binding under the doctrine o stare decisis.--

hile the $ourt o =ppeals did not err in ruling that the present petition is not barred

by $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *A*66 entitled =yala $orporation &s. Ray 'urton De&elopment

Inc. under the doctrine o res >udicata, neither, ho)e&er, can the latter case be cited as

precedential under the doctrine o stare decisis. It must be pointed out that at the time

the assailed decision )as rendered, $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *A*66 )as on appeal )ith this

$ourt. Signiicantly, in the decision e ha&e rendered in =yala $orporation &s. Ray

'urton De&elopment $orporation-1)hich became inal and e#ecutory on 0uly +, -BBB

)e ha&e clearly stated thatAn e0amination of the decision in the said *osa)Diana case

reveals that the sole issue raised "efore the a&&ellate court 1as the &ro&riet# of the lis

&endens annotation. +o1ever, the a&&ellate court 1ent "e#ond the sole issue and

made factual findin!s "ereft of an# "asis in the record to ina&&ro&riatel# rule that A?A%A

is in esto&&el and has 1aived its ri!ht to enforce the su">ect restrictions. Such rulin!1as immaterial to the resolution of the issue of the &ro&riet# of the annotation of the lis

&endens. The findin! of esto&&el 1as thus im&ro&er and made in e0cess of >urisdiction.

$oming no) to the merits o the case, petitioner a&ers that the $ourt o =ppeals

departed rom the usual course o


40/96

It bears emphasis that as complainant, =yala had the prerogati&e to initiate an

action against &iolators o the deed restrictions. That Rosa7Diana had acted in bad aith

is maniested by the act that it submitted t)o sets o building plans, one )hich )as in

conormity )ith the deed restrictions submitted to =yala and :=$?=, and the other,

)hich e#ceeded the height re%uirement in the deed restrictions to the :a/ati building

oicial or the purpose o procuring a building permit rom the latter. :oreo&er, the

&iolation o the deed restrictions committed by respondent can hardly be denominated

as a minor &iolation. It should be pointed out that the original building plan )hich )as

submitted to and appro&ed by petitioner =yala $orporation, en&isioned a t)enty our

41*5 meter high, se&en 485 storey condominium )hereas the respondents building plan

)hich )as submitted to and appro&ed by the building oicial o :a/ati is that o a thirty

eight 4365 storey, B-.A+ meters high, building. =t present, the (ea/ building o

respondent )hich actually stands at -33.A+ meters )ith a total gross loor area o

13,32+.2B s%uare meters, seriously &iolates the dimensions indicated in the building

plans submitted by Rosa7Diana to petitioner =yala or appro&al inasmuch as the (ea/building e#ceeds the appro&ed height limit by about -2B meters and the allo)able gross

loor area under the applicable deed restrictions by about -B,-2+ s%uare

meters. $learly, there )as a gross &iolation o the deed restrictions and e&ident bad

aith by the respondent.

It may not be amiss to mention that the deed restrictions )ere re&ised in a general

membership meeting o the association o lot o)ners in :a/ati $entral 'usiness District

the :a/ati $ommercial ?state =ssociation, Inc. 4:=$?=5 )hereby direct height

restrictions )ere abolished in lieu o loor area limits. Respondent, ho)e&er, did not &ote

or the appro&al o this re&ision during the >eneral :embership meeting )hich )as heldon 0uly --, -BB2 at the :anila (olo $lub (a&ilion, :a/ati, :etro :anila and again on

0uly -1, -BB2 at the Hotel :andarin Oriental, :a/ati, :etro :anila. Hence, respondent

continues to be bound by the original deed restrictions applicable to Cot 8, 'loc/ - and

annotated on its title to said lot. In any e&ent, assuming ar!uendothat respondent &oted

or the appro&al o direct height restrictions in lieu o loor area limits, the total loor area

o its (ea/ building )ould still be &iolati&e o the loor area limits to the e#tent o about

B,6A+ s%uare meters o allo)able loor area under the :=$?= re&ised restrictions.

Respondent Rosa7Diana a&ers that there is nothing illegal or unla)ul in the building

plans )hich it used in the construction o the (ea/ condominium inasmuch as it bears

theim&rimaturo the building oicial o :a/ati, )ho is tas/ed to determine )hether

building and construction plans are in accordance )ith the la), notably, the National

'uilding $ode.

Respondent Rosa7Diana, ho)e&er, misses the point inasmuch as it has reely

consented to be bound by the deed restrictions )hen it entered into a contract o sale


41/96

)ith spouses :anuel Sy and Sy ;a ;ieng. hile respondent claims that it )as under

the impression that the deed restrictions )ere no longer being enorced by =yala, the

Underta/ing-*it e#ecuted belies this same claim. In said Underta/ing, respondent

agreed to construct and complete the construction o the house on said lot as re%uired

under the special condition o sale. Respondent li/e)ise bound itsel to abide and

comply )ith # # # the condition of the rescission of the sale "# A#ala %and, Inc. on the

!rounds therein stated 0 0 0.

$ontractual obligations bet)een parties ha&e the orce o la) bet)een them and

absent any allegation that the same are contrary to la), morals, good customs, public

order or public policy, they must be complied )ith in good aith. Hence, =rticle --+B o

the Ne) $i&il $ode pro&ides

"li!ations arisin! from contracts have the force of la1 "et1een the

contractin! &arties and should "e com&lied 1ith in !ood faith.

Respondent Rosa7Diana insists that the trial court had already ruled that the

Underta/ing e#ecuted by its $hairman and (resident cannot &alidly bind Rosa7Diana

and hence, it should not be held bound by the deed restrictions.

e agree )ith petitioner =yalas obser&ation that respondent Rosa7Dianas special

and airmati&e deenses beore the trial court ne&er mentioned any allegation that its

president and chairman )ere not authori"ed to e#ecute the Underta/ing. It )as

inappropriate thereore or the trial court to rule that in the absence o any authority or

conirmation rom the 'oard o Directors o respondent Rosa7Diana, its $hairman andthe (resident cannot &alidly enter into an underta/ing relati&e to the construction o the

building on the lot )ithin one year rom 0uly 18, -B6B and in accordance )ith the deed

restrictions. $uriously, )hile the trial court stated that it cannot be presumed that the

$hairman and the (resident can &alidly bind respondent Rosa7Diana to enter into the

aoresaid Underta/ing in the absence o any authority or conirmation rom the 'oard o

Directors, the trial court held that the ordinary presumption o regularity o business

transactions is applicable as regards the Deed o Sale )hich )as e#ecuted by :anuel

Sy and Sy ;a ;ieng and respondent Rosa7Diana. In the light o the act that respondent

Rosa7Diana ne&er alleged in its =ns)er that its president and chairman )ere not

authori"ed to e#ecute the Underta/ing, the aoresaid ruling o the trial court is )ithout

actual and legal basis and surprising to say the least.

The act alone that respondent Rosa7Diana con&eniently prepared t)o sets o

building plans 7 )ith one set )hich ully conormed to the Deed Restrictions and another

in gross &iolation o the same 7 should ha&e cautioned the trial court to conclude that

respondent Rosa7Diana )as under the erroneous impression that the Deed Restrictions
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/134284.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/134284.htm#_edn14


42/96

)ere no longer enorceable and that it ne&er intended to be bound by the Underta/ing

signed by its (resident and $hairman. e reiterate that contractual obligations ha&e the

orce o la) bet)een parties and unless the same are contrary to public policy morals

and good customs, they must be complied by the parties in good aith.

(etitioner, in its (etition, prays that


43/96

;ieng to comply )ith their obligation to construct a building )ithin one year rom =pril

12, -B8A, has eecti&ely )ai&ed its right to rescind the sale o the sub


44/96

immediatel# &recedin! five #ears as "ased on the 1ei!hted avera!e of

1holesale &rice and 1a!e indices of the National Census and Statistics ffice

and the Bureau of %a"or Statistics.

B ) is e(ual to the $ross Floor Area of the com&leted or e0&anded "uildin! ins(uare meters.

C ) is e(ual to the estimated $ross Floor Area &ermitted under the ori!inal

deed restrictions, derived "# multi&l#in! the lot area "# the effective ori!inal

FA* sho1n "elo1 for each location.

e then ruled in the aoresaid case thatthe de&elopment charges are a air

measure o compensatory damages )hich therein respondent Ray 'urton De&elopment

Inc. is liable to =yala $orporation. The dispositi&e portion o the decision in the said

case )hich is s%uarely applicable to the case at bar, reads as ollo)s9

9+/*/F*/, &remises considered, the assailed Decision of the Court of

A&&eals dated Fe"ruar# @7, 5668, in CA)$.*. C.-. No. 8


45/96

=2 *a# Burton Develo&ment cor&oration is further ordered to &a#

A?A%A e0em&lar# dama!esin the amount of P@,E44,444.44

attorne#s fees in the amount of P@E4,444.44.

S *D/*/D.

There is no reason )hy the same rule should not be ollo)ed in the case at bar, the

remedies o speciic perormance andor rescission prayed or by petitioner no longer

being easible.In accordance )ith the peculiar circumstances o the case at bar, the

de&elopment charges )ould certainly be a air measure o compensatory damages to

petitioner =yala.

?#emplary damages in the sum o (1,+22,222.22 as prayed or by petitioner are

also in order inasmuch as respondent Rosa7Diana )as in e&ident bad aith )hen it

submitted a set o building plans in conormity )ith the deed restrictions to petitioner=yala or the sole purpose o obtaining title to the property, but only to prepare and later

on submit another set o building plans )hich are in gross &iolation o the Deed

Restrictions. (etitioner =yala is li/e)ise entitled to an a)ard o attorneys ees in the

sum o (1+2,222.22.

HEREORE, the assailed Decision o the $ourt o =ppeals dated December *,-BB8 and its Resolution dated 0une -B, -BB6 , $.=. >.R. $.V. No. *+B6, are

R?V?RS?D and S?T =SID?. In lieu thereo,


46/96

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 112182 (eember 12, 1994

/RI*KTON (EE+O)MENT *OR). B!" %eC or&or$"e %$me M+TINATIONA+ REA+T-(EE+O)MENT *OR)ORATIOND $%# MARIANO


47/96

(ri&ate respondent )as only able to pay petitioner corporation the sum o (-,33*,**3.1- 4?#hs. = to ;5. In

the mean)hile, ho)e&er, the parties continued to negotiate or a possible modiication o their agreement,

although nothing conclusi&e )ould appear to ha&e ultimately been arri&ed at.

!inally, on -1 October -B6-, petitioner corporation, through its legal counsel, sent pri&ate respondent a Notice

o $ancellation o $ontract 4?#h. D5 on account o the latterGs continued ailure to pay the installment due 32

0une -B6- and the interest on the unpaid balance o the stipulated initial payment. (etitioner corporationad&ised pri&ate respondent, ho)e&er, that it 4pri&ate respondent5 still had the right to pay its arrearages )ithin

32 days rom receipt o the notice other)ise the actual cancellation o the contract 4)ould5 ta/e place.

Se&eral months later, or on 1A September -B63, pri&ate respondent, through counsel, demanded 4?#h. ?5 the

reund o pri&ate respondentGs &arious payments to petitioner corporation, allegedly amounting to

(1,*++,*B8.8-, )ith interest )ithin iteen days rom receipt o said letter, or, in lieu o a cash payment, to

assign to pri&ate respondent an e%ui&alent number o unencumbered lots at the same price i#ed in the

contracts. The demand, not ha&ing been heeded, pri&ate respondent commenced, on -6 No&ember -B63, its

action )ith the court a (uo.1

!ollo)ing the reception o e&idence, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositi&e portion o )hich read9

In &ie) o all the oregoing,


48/96

435 The cancellation o the contract re%uired a positi&e act on the part o petitioners gi&ing

pri&ate respondent the si#ty 4A25 day grace period pro&ided in the contracts to sell@ and

4*5 In not holding that the oreiture o the (-,386,-B8.*6 )as )arranted under the li%uidated

damages pro&isions o the contracts to sell and the supplemental agreement and )as not

ini%uitous nor unconscionable.

The core issues )ould really come do)n to 4a5 )hether or not the contracts to sell )ere &alidly rescinded or

cancelled by petitioner corporation and, in the airmati&e, 4b5 )hether or not the amounts already remitted by

pri&ate respondent under said contracts )ere rightly oreited by petitioner corporation.

=dmittedly, the terms o payment agreed upon by the parties )ere not met by pri&ate respondent. O a total

selling price o (1-,A3B,68+.22, pri&ate respondent )as only able to remit the sum o (-,33*,**3.1- )hich )as

e&en short o the stipulated initial payment o (1,122,222.22. No additional payments, it )ould seem, )ere

made. = notice o cancellation )as ultimately made months ater the lapse o the contracted grace period.

(aragraph -+ o the $ontracts to Sell pro&ided thusly9

-+. Should the (UR$H=S?R ail to pay )hen due any o the installments mentioned in

stipulation No. - abo&e, the ON?R shall grant the purchaser a si#ty 4A257day grace period

)ithin )hich to pay the amounts due, and should the (UR$H=S?R still ail to pay the due

amounts )ithin the A27day grace period, the (UR$H=S?R shall ha&e the right to e#7parte

cancel or rescind this contract, pro&ided, ho)e&er, that the actual cancellation or rescission

shall ta/e eect only ater the lapse o thirty 4325 days rom the date o receipt by the

(UR$H=S?R o the notice o cancellation o this contract or the demand or its rescission by

a notarial act, and thereater, the ON?R shall ha&e the right to resell the lots sub


49/96

respondent, the series o e&ents and circumstances described by said courts to ha&e pre&ailed in the interim

bet)een the parties, ho)e&er, )arrant some a&orable consideration by this $ourt.

(etitioners do not deny the act that there has indeed been a constant dialogue bet)een the parties during the

period o their


50/96

SO ORD?R?D.

Bidin, *omero and elo, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 192105, December 09, 2013

ANTONIO LOCSIN II, Petitioners, v.MEKENI FOOD CORORATION,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO,J.!

In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan agreement between the employer and employee, theformer may not retain the installment payments made by the latter on the car plan and treat them as rents for the use ofthe service vehicle, in the event that the employee ceases his employment and is unable to complete the installmentpayments on the vehicle. The underlying reason is that the service vehicle was precisely used in the formers business; anypersonal benefit obtained by the employee from its use is merely incidental.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1assails the anuary !", !#1# $ecision!of the %ourt of &ppeals '%&( in %&)*.R. +Po. 1#-#, as well as its &pril !/, !#1# Resolution/denying petitioners 0otion for Partial Reconsideration.%hanRobles2irtualawlibrary

Factual Antecedents

In 3ebruary !##, respondent 0e4eni 3ood %orporation '0e4eni( 5 a Philippine company engaged in food manufacturingand meat processing 5 offered petitioner &ntonio 6ocsin II the position of Regional +ales 0anager to oversee 0e4enisational %apital Region +upermar4et73ood +ervice and +outh 6u8on operations. In addition to a compensation and benefitpac4age, 0e4eni offered petitioner a car plan, under which one)half of the cost of the vehicle is to be paid by the companyand the other half to be deducted from petitioners salary. 0e4enis offer was contained in an 9ffer +heetwhich waspresented to petitioner.

Petitioner began his stint as 0e4eni Regional +ales 0anager on 0arch 1", !##. To be able to effectively cover hisappointed sales territory, 0e4eni furnished petitioner with a used :onda %ivic car valued at P!#,###.##, which used to bethe service vehicle of petitioners immediate supervisor. Petitioner paid for his #< share through salary deductions ofP,###.## each month.

+ubse=uently, 6ocsin resigned effective 3ebruary !, !##>. ?y then, a total of P11!,##.## had been deducted from hismonthly salary and applied as part of the employees share in the car plan. 0e4eni supposedly put in an e=uivalent amountas its share under the car plan. In his resignation letter, petitioner made an offer to purchase his service vehicle by paying

the outstanding balance thereon. The parties negotiated, but could not agree on the terms of the proposed purchase.Petitioner thus returned the vehicle to 0e4eni on 0ay !, !##>.

Petitioner made personal and written follow)ups regarding his unpaid salaries, commissions, benefits, and offer to purchasehis service vehicle. 0e4eni replied that the company car plan benefit applied only to employees who have been with thecompany for five years; for this reason, the balance that petitioner should pay on his service vehicle stood at P11>,/#.##if he opts to purchase the same.

9n 0ay /, !##", petitioner filed against 0e4eni and7or its President, Prudencio +. *arcia, a %omplaint>for the recovery ofmonetary claims consisting of unpaid salaries, commissions, sic47vacation leave benefits, and recovery of monthly salarydeductions which were earmar4ed for his cost)sharing in the car plan. The case was doc4eted in the ational 6aborRelations %ommission '6R%(, ational %apital Region '%R(, @ue8on %ity as 6R% %R %&+A 9. ##)#)#1/-)#".


51/96

9n 9ctober /#, !##", 6abor &rbiter %resencio *. Ramos rendered a $ecision,"decreeing as followsBC:ARA39RA, in the light of the foregoing premises, Dudgment is hereby rendered directing respondents to turn)over tocomplainant E E E the subDect vehicle upon the said complainants payment to them of the sum of P1##,/..

+9 9R$ARA$.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

9n appeal,

-

the 6abor &rbiters $ecision was reversed in a 3ebruary !", !##- $ecision

1#

of the 6R%, thusBC:ARA39RA, premises considered, the appeal is hereby *ranted. The assailed $ecision dated 9ctober /#, !##" is herebyRA2AR+A$ and +AT &+I$A and a new one entered ordering respondent)appellee 0e4eni 3ood %orporation to paycomplainant)appellee the followingB

1. Fnpaid +alary in the amount of P1!,11.;

!. Fnpaid sic4 leave7vacation leave pay in the amount of P1,"-.1;

/. Fnpaid commission in the amount of P-,"#.##; and

. Reimbursement of complainants payment under the car plan agreement in the amount of P11!,##.##; and

. The e=uivalent share of the company as part of the complainants benefit under the car plan #7# sharing amounting toP11!,##.##.

Respondent)&ppellee 0e4eni 3ood %orporation is hereby authori8ed to deduct the sum of P,"/>.# representing

complainant)appellants cash advance from his total monetary award.

&ll other claims are dismissed for lac4 of merit.

+9 9R$ARA$.11

The 6R% held that petitioners amorti8ation payments on his service vehicle amounting to P11!,##.## should bereimbursed; if not, unDust enrichment would result, as the vehicle remained in the possession and ownership of 0e4eni. Inaddition, the employers share in the monthly car plan payments should li4ewise be awarded to petitioner because it formspart of the latters benefits under the car plan. It held further that 0e4enis claim that the company car plan benefit appliedonly to employees who have been with the company for five years has not been substantiated by its evidence, in whichcase the car plan agreement should be construed in petitioners favor.

0e4eni moved to reconsider, but in an &pril /#, !##- Resolution,1!the 6R% sustained its original findings.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

0e4eni filed a Petition for Certiorari1/with the %& assailing the 6R%s 3ebruary !", !##- $ecision, saying that the 6R%

committed grave abuse of discretion in holding it liable to petitioner as it had no Durisdiction to resolve petitioners claims,which are civil in nature.

9n anuary !", !#1#, the %& issued the assailed $ecision, decreeing as followsBWHEREFORE, the petition for certiorariis GRANTED. The Decisionof the ational 6abor Relations %ommission dated !"3ebruary !##-, in 6R% %R %ase o. ##)#)#1/-)#", and its Resolutiondated /# &pril !##- denying reconsiderationthereof, are MODIFIEDin that the reimbursement of 6ocsins payment under the car plan in the amount of P11!,##.##,and the payment to him of 0e4enis #< share in the amount of P11!,##.## are DELETED. The rest of the decisionisAFFIRMED.

+9 9R$ARA$.1

In arriving at the above conclusion, the %& held that the 6R% possessed Durisdiction over petitioners claims, including theamounts he paid under the car plan, since his %omplaint against 0e4eni is one for the payment of salaries and employeebenefits. Cith regard to the car plan arrangement, the %& applied the ruling in Elisco Tool Manu!acturin" Corporation v.Court o! Appeals,1where it was held that 5First. Petitioner does not deny that private respondent Rolando 6antan ac=uired the vehicle in =uestion under a car plan foreEecutives of the Ali8alde group of companies. Fnder a typical car plan, the company advances the purchase price of a car

to be paid bac4 by the employee through monthly deductions from his salary. The company retains ownership of the motorvehicle until it shall have been fully paid for. :owever, retention of registration of the car in the companys name is only a

form of a lien on the vehicle in the event that the employee would abscond before he has fully paid for it. There are alsostipulations in car plan agreements to the effect that should the employment of the employee concerned be terminatedbefore all installments are fully paid, the vehicle will be ta4en by the employer and all installments paid shall be consideredrentals per agreement.1>

In the absence of evidence as to the stipulations of the car plan arrangement between 0e4eni and petitioner, the %&treated petitioners monthly contributions in the total amount of P11!,##.## as rentals for the use of his service vehiclefor the duration of his employment with 0e4eni. The appellate court applied &rticles 1)1> of the %ivil %ode,1"andadded that the installments paid by petitioner should not be returned to him inasmuch as the amounts are notunconscionable. It made the following pronouncementB


52/96

:aving used the car in =uestion for the duration of his employment, it is but fair that all of 6ocsins payments beconsidered as rentals therefor which may be forfeited by 0e4eni. Therefore, 0e4eni has no obligation to return thesepayments to 6ocsin. %onversely, 0e4eni has no right to demand the payment of the balance of the purchase price from6ocsin since the latter has already surrendered possession of the vehicle.1

0oreover, the %& held that petitioner cannot recover 0e4enis corresponding share in the purchase price of the servicevehicle, as this would constitute unDust enrichment on the part of petitioner at 0e4enis eEpense.

The %& affirmed the 6R% Dudgment in all other respects. Petitioner filed his 0otion for Partial Reconsideration,1-but the

%& denied the same in its &pril !/, !#1# Resolution.

Thus, petitioner filed the instant Petition; 0e4eni, on the other hand, too4 no further action.

I""#e

Petitioner raises the following solitary issueB$IT% ALL D&E RESECT, T%E %ONORA'LE CO&RT OF AEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING T%E CAR LANRIVILEGE AS ART OF T%E COMENSATION ACKAGE OFFERED TO ETITIONER AT T%E INCETION OF %ISEMLO(MENT AND INSTEAD LIKENED IT TO A CAR LOAN ON INSTALLMENT, IN SITE OF T%E A'SENCE OFEVIDENCE ON RECORD.!#

Petitioners Arguments

In his Petition and Reply,!1petitioner mainly argues that the %& erred in treating his monthly contributions to the car plan,

totaling P11!,##.##, as rentals for the use of his service vehicle during his employment; the car plan which he availed ofwas a benefit and it formed part of the pac4age of economic benefits granted to him when he was hired as Regional +ales0anager. Petitioner submits that this is shown by the 9ffer +heet which was shown to him and which became the basis for

his decision to accept the offer and wor4 for 0e4eni.

Petitioner adds that the absence of documentary or other evidence showing the terms and conditions of the 0e4enicompany car plan cannot Dustify a reliance on 0e4enis self)serving claims that the full terms thereof applied only toemployees who have been with the company for at least five years; in the absence of evidence, doubts should be resolvedin his favor pursuant to the policy of the law that affords protection to labor, as well as the principle that all doubts shouldbe construed to its benefit.

3inally, petitioner submits that the ruling in the Elisco Toolcase cannot apply to his case because the car plan subDect ofthe said case involved a car loan, which his car plan benefit was not; it was part of his compensation pac4age, and thevehicle was an important component of his wor4 which re=uired constant and uninterrupted mobility. Petitioner claims thatthe car plan was in fact more beneficial to 0e4eni than to him; besides, he did not choose to avail of it, as it was simplyimposed upon him. :e concludes that it is only Dust that his payments should be refunded and returned to him.

Petitioner thus prays for the reversal of the assailed %& $ecision and Resolution, and that the %ourt reinstate the 6R%s3ebruary !", !##- $ecision.

Respondents Arguments

In its %omment,!!0e4eni argues that the Petition does not raise =uestions of law, but merely of fact, which thus re=uiresthe %ourt to review anew issues already passed upon by the %& 5 an unauthori8ed eEercise given that the +upreme %ourtis not a trier of facts, nor is it its function to analy8e or weigh the evidence of the parties all over again.!/It adds that theissue regarding the car plan and the conclusions of the %& drawn from the evidence on record are =uestions of fact.

0e4eni asserts further that the service vehicle was merely a loan which had to be paid through the monthly salarydeductions. If it is not allowed to recover on the loan, this would constitute unDust enrichment on the part of petitioner.

O#r R#)*+

The Petition is partially granted.

To begin with, the %ourt notes that 0e4eni did not file a similar petition =uestioning the %& $ecision; thus, it is deemed tohave accepted what was decreed. The only issue that must be resolved in this Petition, then, is whether petitioner is

entitled to a refund of all the amounts applied to the cost of the service vehicle under the car plan.

Chen the conclusions of the %& are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conDectures, or when the inferencesmade by it are manifestly mista4en or absurd, its findings are subDect to review by this %ourt.!

3rom the evidence on record, it is seen that the 0e4eni car plan offered to petitioner was subDect to no other term orcondition than that 0e4eni shall cover one)half of its value, and petitioner shall in turn pay the other half through

deductions from his monthly salary. 0e4eni has not shown, by documentary evidence or otherwise, that there are otherterms and conditions governing its car plan agreement with petitioner. There is no evidence to suggest that if petitionerfailed to completely cover one)half of the cost of the vehicle, then all the deductions from his salary going to the cost ofthe vehicle will be treated as rentals for his use thereof while wor4ing with 0e4eni, and shall not be refunded. Indeed,


53/96

there is no such stipulation or arrangement between them. Thus, the %&s reliance on Alisco Tool is without basis, and itsconclusions arrived at in the =uestioned decision are manifestly mista4en. To repeat what was said in Elisco Tool5First. Petitioner does not deny that private respondent Rolando 6antan ac=uired the vehicle in =uestion under a car plan foreEecutives of the Ali8alde group of companies. Fnder a typical car plan, the company advances the purchase price of a carto be paid bac4 by the employee through monthly deductions from his salary. The company retains ownership of the motorvehicle until it shall have been fully paid for. :owever, retention of registration of the car in the companys name is only aform of a lien on the vehicle in the event that the employee would abscond before he has fully paid for it. T-ere re )"o"/*#)/*o+" *+ cr )+ reeme+/" /o /-e eec/ /-/ "-o#) /-e em)ome+/ o /-e em)oee co+cer+e be

/erm*+/e beore )) *+"/))me+/" re #)) *, /-e 4e-*c)e *)) be /6e+ b /-e em)oer + )) *+"/))me+/"* "-)) be co+"*ere re+/)" er reeme+/.!'E#p$asis supplied(It was made clear in the above pronouncement that installments made on the car plan may be treated as rentals onlywhe

case to read january 2016

Documents