Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 NATIONAL SER ICE CORPORATION !

NASECO" AN# ARTURO L. PERE$, petitioners, vs. T%E %ONORA&LE T%IR# #I ISION, NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTR' O( LA&OR AN# EMPLO'MENT, MANILA AN# EUGENIA C. CRE#O, respondents. G.R. No. 7029) November 29,1988 EUGENIA C. CRE#O, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL SER ICES CORPORATION AN# ARTURO L. PERE$, respondents. The Chief Legal Counsel for respondents NASECO and Arturo L. Perez. Melchor R. Flores for petitioner Eugenia C. Credo.

PA#ILLA, J.: Consolidated special civil actions for certiorari seeking to review the decision * of the hird !ivision, National "abor Relations Co##ission in Case No. $$%&'&&%() dated *( Nove#ber $'(& and its resolution dated $+ ,anuar- $'(. den-ing #otions for reconsideration of said decision. Eugenia C. Credo was an e#plo-ee of the National /ervice Corporation 0NA/EC12, a do#estic corporation which provides securit- guards as well as #essengerial, 3anitorial and other si#ilar #anpower services to the Philippine National Bank 0PNB2 and its agencies. /he was first e#plo-ed with NA/EC1 as a lad- guard on $( ,ul- $'4.. hrough the -ears, she was pro#oted to Clerk -pist, then Personnel Clerk until she beca#e Chief of Propert- and Records, on $5 March $'(5. 1 /o#eti#e before 4 Nove#ber $'(), Credo was ad#inistrativel- charged b- /isinio /. "loren, Manager of 6inance and /pecial Pro3ect and Evaluation !epart#ent of NA/EC1, ste##ing fro# her non%co#pliance with "loren7s #e#orandu#, dated $$ 1ctober $'(), regarding certain entrprocedures in the co#pan-7s /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ent. /aid charges alleged that Credo 8did not co#pl- with "loren7s instructions to place so#e corrections9additional re#arks in the /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ent: and when ;Credo< was called b- "loren to his office to e=plain further the said instructions, ;Credo< showed resent#ent and behaved in a scandalous #anner b- shouting and uttering re#arks of disrespect in the presence of her co%e#plo-ees.8 2 1n 4 Nove#ber $'(), Credo was called to #eet Arturo ". Pere>, then Acting ?eneral Manager of NA/EC1, to e=plain her side before Pere> and NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs in connection with the ad#inistrative charges filed against her. After said #eeting, on the sa#e date, Credo was placed on 86orced "eave8 status for $ . da-s, effective ( Nove#ber $'(). +

and #ade effective $ !ece#ber $'().to be heard. while Credo was on forced leave. ) A 6ailure to co#pl.$'(&.Before the e=piration of said $.resolved.of "abor and E#plo-#ent. affidavits and other docu#entarevidence in support of their clai#s and defenses. Credo was called age to the office of Pere> to be infor#ed that she was being charged with certain offenses.-ear of service.instructions of a superior officer.given due consideration to respondent7s . and *2 directing NA/EC1 to pa. and in the presence of NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs. Credo filed a co#plaint. vi>@ OFFENSE s. officer and e#plo-ee of client co#panor officer of the Corporation.superior officer. respondent . hat. without due process.Credo separation paeBuivalent to one half #onth7s pa.lawful order or an. Manila.Credo< co##itted the following offenses in the Code of !iscipline. has alread. Co!pan" #nterest $ Policies No. Credo filed a supple#ental co#plaint for illegal dis#issal in Case No. NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs deliberated and evaluated a nu#ber of past acts of #isconduct or infractions attributed to her.discourteous act to custo#er. on ' Ma. Ministr. OFFENSE s. the labor arbiter rendered a decision@ $2 dis#issing Credo7s co#plaint.for ever. hat. 10 After both parties had sub#itted their respective position papers. alleging absence of 3ust or authori>ed cause for her dis#issal and lack of opportunit.#et its #a=i#u# tolerance point so it has decided to put an end to respondent7s .Credo. 7 1n $ !ece#ber $'(). Notabl-. . 11 . National Capital Region. on + !ece#ber $'().%da.Credo< being an undesirable e#plo-ee. *. 8 she was handed a Notice of er#ination. or on $( Nove#ber $'(). $$&'&&%(). OFFENSE s. these offenses were those which NA/EC17s Co##ittee on Personnel Affairs alread. with the Arbitration Branch. Records also show that she was repri#anded for so#e offense and did not Buestion it. on ** Nove#ber $'() to have been co##itted b. 9 Dence. docketed as Case No. 6 he co##ittee reco##ended Credo7s ter#ination. 4 A E=hibit #arked discourtes. with forfeiture of benefits.leave. Cn Pere>7s office. Pu%lic Moral No. ) A An. dated *& Nove#ber $'(). or on ** Nove#ber $'().with an. "ikewise. Credo was #ade to e=plain her side in connection with the charges filed against her: however. $$%&'&&%(). Manage#ent at this 3uncture. ) As a result of this deliberation. Authorit" No. Manage#ent has alread. said co##ittee resolved@ $. against NA/EC1 for placing her on forced leave. due to her failure to do so.Credo< scandalous actuations for several ti#es in the past.in the course of official duties or use of profane or insulting language to an.

+('45.Both parties appealed to respondent National "abor Relations Co##ission 0N"RC2 which. (ecision to dis!iss. 16 As guidelines for e#plo-ers in the e=ercise of their power to dis#iss e#plo-ees for 3ust causes. *2 petitioners failed in the burden of proving that the ter#ination of Credo was for a valid or authori>ed cause. A An. Petitioners contend that in arriving at said Buestioned order.answer the allegations stated against hi# in the notice of dis#issal within a reasonable period fro# receipt of such notice.Credo were not proven or. if he so desires.law on ter#ination... he e#plo-er shall afford the worker a#ple opportunit. .effected. As a conseBuence. this chance was given so perfunctoril-.eBuivalent position. A he e#plo-er shall i##ediatel. with reasons therefor. No. === === === /ection . NA/EC1 did not co#pl. the present recourse b. No. 12 which the N"RC denied in a resolution of $+ .be issued after the e#plo-er has afforded the e#plo-ee concerned a#ple opportunit. a reading of the guidelines in consonance with the e=press provisions of law on protection to labor 180which enco#passes the right to securit. hese are the notice which apprises the e#plo-ee of the particular acts or o#issions for which his dis#issal is sought and the subseBuent notice which infor#s the e#plo-ee of the e#plo-er7s decision to dis#iss hi#. both parties filed their respective #otions for reconsideration. can onl.the reasons therefor.notif.R. even if proved.of tenure2 and the broader dictates of procedural due process necessaril.Credo7s right to securit. Ans&er and 'earing.to be heard and to defend hi#self with the assistance of his representative.a worker in writing of a decision to dis#iss hi# stating clearl. Cn ?. the law provides that@ /ection *. 1) 1n the other hand. on *( Nove#ber $'(&. could be considered to have been condoned b.to be heard and to defend hi#self.of tenure. Cn the case at bar. "ikewise. 1+ Dence. and *2 dis#issing Credo7s clai# for attorne-7s fees. thus rendering illusor. #oral and e=e#plar.rights and other privileges appertaining thereto.petitioners. Notice of dis!issal. /ection +.$'(.da#ages.with these guidelines in effecting Credo7s dis#issal. 45*'. or substantiall.si= 0+2 #onths.anuar. rendered a decision@ $2 directing NA/EC1 to reinstate Credo to her for#er position. Although she was apprised and 8given the chance to e=plain her side8 of the charges filed against her.da#ages and li#ited her right to backwages to onl. in ?. with si= 0+2 #onths7 backwages and without loss of seniorit.. 17 hese guidelines #andate that the e#plo-er furnish an e#plo-ee sought to be dis#issed two 0*2 written notices of dis#issal before a ter#ination of e#plo-#ent can be legall. 1. and &2 the ter#ination of Credo was not for a valid or authori>ed cause. )2 the alleged infractions co##itted b.#andate that notice of the e#plo-er7s decision to dis#iss an e#plo-ee.R. A he worker #a.both parties. the N"RC acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that@ $2 petitioners violated the reBuire#ents #andated b. #oral and e=e#plar. petitioner Credo challenges as grave abuse of discretion the dispositive portion of the *( Nove#ber $'(& decision which dis#issed her clai# for attorne-7s fees.e#plo-er who seeks to dis#iss a worker shall furnish hi# a written notice stating the particular acts or o#ission constituting the grounds for his dis#issal. petitioners challenge as grave abuse of discretion the dispositive portion of the *( Nove#ber $'(& decision which ordered Credo7s reinstate#ent with backwages.

felt that she was being discri#inated against b. Besides.. discourtes. de Castro and did not sign hers. the CPA found in its Report.less punitive would suffice.sarcas# on the part of co#plainant. that the Report did not even describe how the so called 8conduct unbeco#ing8 or 8discourteous #anner8 was done bco#plainant. 6or instance.hearing which NA/EC1 thought of affording her after *& Nove#ber $'() would #erel. alleged to have been co##itted fro# $'(5 to .to consider. here is. 20 As this Court has ruled@ . his fa#il.be conceded. that a repri#and would have sufficed for the infraction. it #a.bent on ter#inating her services when she was infor#ed on $ !ece#ber $'() of the charges against her. Anent the 8sarcastic8 argu#ent of co#plainant. Nor was she even repri#anded when she allegedl. in 3ustif-ing Credo7s ter#ination of e#plo-#ent. Ct is not onl. At the #ost. notwithstanding. where a penalt.and sarcas# towards her superior officers. Credo7s #ere non%co#pliance with "orens #e#orandu# regarding the entr. under the circu#stances obtaining. 22 Cf such acts of #isconduct were indeed co##itted b.. co#plainant #a.8reacted in a scandalous #anner and raised her voice8 in a discussion with NA/EC17s Acting head of the Personnel Ad#inistration 2+ no disciplinar.Credo. so#eti#e in $'(5. 8Cn the process of her testi#on-9e=planations she again e=hibited a conduct unbeco#ing in front of NA/EC1 1fficers and argued to Mr.#easure was taken or #eted against her. but certainl.be pro for#a or an e=ercise in futilit-.a da-.be co##itted blabor ought not to be visited with a conseBuence so severe.hat Credo was not given a#ple opportunit. the. Ene#plo-#ent brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage% earner. when Credo allegedl.not ter#ination fro# services.8 "et it be noted. albeit unclear. the co#plaining officer signed the work of Ms. /. whatever #issteps #a. or when she allegedl.talked 7in a shouting or -elling #anner8 with the Acting Manager of NA/EC17s Building Maintenance and /ervices !epart#ent in $'(5 2. Dowever. -et.ul. we are of the considered view and so hold. 21 1f course.held that@ .because of the law7s concern for the working #an. where co#plainant strongl.her superior in relation to other e#plo-ees. the purported transcript 19 of the #eeting held on 4 Nove#ber $'() does not indicate an. and that an. de Castro.have sounded insistent or e#phatic about her work being #ore co#plete than the work of Ms. that co#plainant failed to place sa#e corrections9additional re#arks in the /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ents as instructed. As to the charge of insubordination. /. on the charge of gross discourtes-.of dis#issal of the N"RC correctl.NA/EC1..8shouted8 at NA/EC17s Corporate Auditor 8in front of his subordinates displa-ing . "loren in a sarcastic and discourteous #anner. in addition. NA/EC1 clai#s as additional lawful causes for dis#issal Credo7s previous and repeated acts of insubordination. the fact that she was inside the office of the Acctg.are dee#ed to have been condoned b.$'(). ?eneral Manager. his is not effective co#pliance with the legal reBuire#ents afore#entioned.. however. dated ** Nove#ber $'() that.procedures in the co#pan-7s /tate#ent of Billings Ad3ust#ent did not warrant the severe penalt. he fact also that the Notice of er#ination of Credo7s e#plo-#ent 0or the decision to dis#iss her2 was dated *& Nove#ber $'() and #ade effective $ !ece#ber $'() shows that NA/EC1 was alread.to be heard and to defend herself is evident fro# the fact that the co#pliance with the in3unction to apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a chance to prepare for her defense was dispensed in onl.

2)But then.virtue of its being a subsidiar.dis#issal.re--an. the $'(4 Constitution provides that@ . +0 Dowever. particularl. because under the sa#e $'4) Constitution . NA/EC17s condonation thereof is gleaned fro# the fact that on & 1ctober $'(). in view of the attendant circu#stances in the case. while Credo7s dis#issal was effected without procedural fairness. a reasonable award for attorne-7s fees in her favor is in order.+1 A 3udicious e=a#ination of the record #anifests no such conduct on the part of #anage#ent.govern#ent%owned or controlled corporation.. No.but prior to the ruling inNational 'ousing Corporation s.arrogance and unrul. 26 Even if the allegations of i#proper conduct 0discourtes. Buantit. upon which National 'ousing Corporation s. as a result of having been wrongfull.ad3ust#ent for having perfor#ed in the 3ob 8at least .satisfactoril-<8 27 and she was then rated 8Fer. i. dependabilit-.situated. ++ where this Court held that 8 here should no longer be an.of work.8 Ct would appear that.$'(. the ter#s and conditions of e#plo-#ent of its e#plo-ees are governed b. +. NA/EC1 cites National 'ousing Corporation s. Considering that the acts or o#issions for which Credo7s e#plo-#ent was sought to be legallter#inated were insufficientl. including ever. Cn NA/EC17s co##ent +2 in ?. cooperation.varies fro# the $'4) Constitution. in the #atter of coverage b.argued that the N"RC has no 3urisdiction to order Credo7s reinstate#ent. subdivision.shouted at NA/EC17s Cnternal Control Consultant in $'($. Credo is entitled to three 0)2 -ears of backwages without deduction and Bualification. fraudulent.the civil service law and civil service rifles and regulations. 45*'. it is reasonable to award her #oral da#ages. Cn support of this argu#ent.proven..of the ?overn#ent. the $'(4 Constitution starkl. NA/EC1 clai#s that.. it was provided that@ he civil service e#braces ever. for having been co#pelled to litigate because of the unlawful actuations of NA/EC1. as to 3ustif. and the authorit.proved. Credo was given a salar. disputes involving ter#s and conditions of e#plo-#ent in govern#ent owned or controlled corporations.R. in the interest of 3ustice.of the N"RC to e=ercise 3urisdiction over. . 6or 8absent the reason which gave rise to ./atisfactor-8 28as regards 3ob perfor#ance. there is no intention on the part of the e#plo-er to dis#iss the e#plo-ee concerned. to cases that arose before its pro#ulgation on $4 . the National /ervice Corporation 0NA/EC12.8 29 And.of the "abor Code to.in ter#s of Bualit. lack of due process in effecting her dis#issal. in sharp contrast to NA/EC17s penchant for ignoring the aforesaid acts of #isconduct. it is belatedl. Ender the $'4) Constitution. or when she allegedl. And. she was repri#anded.of the National Cnvest#ent and !evelop#ent Corporation 0NC!C2. this Court had recogni>ed the applicabilit. )*CO. agenc-.of work.the e#plo-ee7s< separation fro# e#plo-#ent.e. which in turn is a govern#ent owned corporation2. reinstate#ent is proper. that is. oppressive or #alevolent #anner. o do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other e#plo-ees si#ilarl. )uco. resourcefulness and attendance./01&2 6urther#ore.the Philippine National Bank 0PNB2.the Civil /ervice "aw. +.Buestion at this ti#e that e#plo-ees of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations are governed b. as a govern#ent corporation 0b. Dowever.to superiors2 were satisfactoril.. a#ong the#. and instru#entalit. when Credo co##itted freBuent tardiness in August and /epte#ber $'().behavior8 in $'(5. the holding in said case should not be given retroactive effect.dis#issed. rules and regulations.branch. )uco is based.owned b..anuar.be 3ustified if her dis#issal was effected in a wanton. +) 1n the other hand.the civil service of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations. an award of e=e#plarda#ages in her favor can onl. a subsidiarwholl.

61I.corporations would en3o. he phrase on line & of /ection $. the situations sought to be avoided b. instru#entalities. therefore. C would like to throw a Buestion to the Co##issioner.the Court in the National Dousing . instru#entalities. +6 0E#phasis supplied2 hus. Cs the Philippine Airlines controlled b. Conceivabl-. Article GCC%B of the constitution.this provisionH MR. Certainl-. and agencies of the ?overn#ent. including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations. C was reading the wrong provision.7 !oes that include a corporation. renas2 Co##issioner Ro#ulo is recogni>ed.the $'4) Constitution and e=pressed b.the Civil /ervice !ecree and the regulations of the Co##ission on Audit.of govern#ent to create a host of subsidiar. R1ME"1. including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations with original charter.reBuired b. subparagraph C which reads@ he Civil /ervice e#braces all branches.a willing legislature. the Civil /ervice does not include govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations which are organi>ed as subsidiaries of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation law.8 hus DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. he proceedings in the $'(+ Constitutional Co##ission also shed light on the Constitutional intent and #eaning in the use of the phrase 8with original charter. heir inco#es would not be sub3ect to the co#petitive restrains of the open #arket nor to the ter#s and conditions of civil service e#plo-#ent. sa-s@ 8including govern#ent% owned or controlled corporations.special charters. subdivisions. C refer to /ection $. Ct would be possible for a regular #inistr. A govern#ent%owned corporation could create several subsidiar.the govern#ent in the sense that the #a3orit. under the Civil /ervice Co##ission. M. +7 appear relegated to relative insignificance b. MR. free fro# the strict accountabilit.the $'(4 Constitutional provision that the Civil /ervice e#braces govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations &ith original charter: and. hese subsidiar. bclear i#plication.corporations under the Corporation Code funded b.the best of two worlds. all govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations could be created. Jill the Co##issioner please state his previous BuestionH MR. like the Philippine Airlines which is govern#ent%owned or controlledH MR.the govern#entH .corporations. and agencies of the govern#ent.Buer-@ Cs Philippine Airlines covered b. such a situation cannot be allowed to e=ist. subdivisions. C beg the indulgence of the Co##ittee. Corporation case in the following #anner A he infir#it.of the respondents7 position lies in its per#itting a circu#vention or e#asculation of /ection $. no longer b.of stocks are owned b.he civil service e#braces all branches. 61I. he Constitutional a#end#ent including such corporations in the e#brace of the civil service would cease to have application. R1ME"1. subparagraph $. heir officials and e#plo-ees would be privileged individuals. but through incorporations under the general law.

such as the "abor Code of the Philippines.corporation. the govern#ent.the civil service because of the wide%e#bracing definition #ade in this section of the e=isting $'4) Constitution. this is what we #ight call a tertiar.of . 1P"E.its own charter. R1ME"1.a /upre#e Court decision that destro-ed that distinction between a govern#ent%owned corporation created under the Corporation "aw and a govern#ent%owned corporation created b.the govern#ent. /o. acBuired the controlling stocks. /ecretar. since #na#e has been #entioned b. $'4*. and the result of that #eeting was an opinion of the /ecretar.of . 61I.uco to the effect that all govern#ent corporations irrespective of the #anner of creation. he Philippine Airlines was established as a private corporation. hat is true as Co##issioner 1ple is about to e=plain. 61I. MR. Co##issioner 1ple is recogni>ed. Mr. MR. he ?/C/ is owned b.special charter or b. Cn the case of "EI EFEC1.8 MR. Ma. this issue of the coverage of the "abor Code of the Philippines and of the Civil /ervice "aw al#ost i##ediatel. we recall the /upre#e Court decision in the case of NDA vs. R1ME"1. the /ecretar. C think it was owned b.C volunteer so#e infor#ation that #a.the private Corporation "aw. Kes.the PN1C with 3ust the #inuscule private shares left.on the govern#ent that govern#ent . MR. MR. are dee#ed to be covered b. 6ollowing the procla#ation of #artial law on /epte#ber *$. Je are not here to #ake an.ti#e. and #-self sat down. where the Article on the Civil /ervice was supposed to take i##ediate force and effect.the ?/C/. his was a govern#ent%controlled and govern#ent% owned corporation. renas2. Kes. in particular. whether b. "ater on. /o. there was a strike at the ti#e. MR.both sides. DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. Cs that not the correct situationH MR. Cn connection with the coverage of the Civil /ervice "aw in /ection $ 0$2. But we recall the response to the Buestion of Co##issioner 1ple that our intend#ent in this provision is 3ust to give a general description of the civil service. R1ME"1.be helpful both to the interpellator and to the Co##ittee. 1P"E. R1ME"1. C -ield part of #. #a. referring to the period following the co#ing into force and effect of the Constitution of $'4). Jould this be covered because the provision sa-s 8including govern#ent% owned or controlled corporations. here was apparentl.declaration as to whether e#plo-ees of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations are barred fro# the operation of laws.ustice which ' beca#e binding i##ediatel.arose. .MR.C be recogni>ed. Ct is owned b. C a#.ustice at that ti#e. through the ?/C/. Presiding 1fficer.Abad /antos.

the Civil /ervice "aw and corporations spun off fro# the ?/C/. hank -ou. the Manila Dotel and the D-att are now considered under that decision covered b.the "abor Code. Personall-.proposal was reall. C also recall that in the e#ergenc. were covered b. for the flight attendants or the PA/AC and one for the pilots of the A"PAC Dow then could a corporation like that be covered b. Presiding 1fficer. #. .well.corporations with original charters. the Manila Dotel and the D-att. there were. this does not preclude the Civil /ervice "aw to prescribe different rules and procedures. three collective bargaining agree#ents: one. Ar#and 6abella. Mr. As a #atter of fact. such as the ?/C/. for the #o#ent.the Civil /ervice lawH But. Mr. Mr.agreed to allow the CBA7s to lapse before appl-ing the full force and effect of the /upre#e Court decision. taking into consideration the nature of their operations. /o. C do not think the Co##ittee can #ake such a state#ent in the face of an absolute e=clusion of govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations. the Philippine Airlines. /o.the Civil /ervice "aw. for the ground people or the PA"CA one. e=cept for the Manila Dotel. R1ME"1. it is a general coverage but it does not preclude a distinction of the rules between the two t-pes of enterprises. . we were in the awkward situation when the new govern#ent took over. to drop fro# the provision. R1ME"1. the. C would be satisfied if the Co##ittee puts on records that it is not their intent bthis provision and the phrase 8including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations8 to cover such co#panies as the Philippine Airlines. And that de#arcation worked ver. 61I. in fact. Dowever. MR. had collective bargaining agree#ents. including e#olu#ents for e#plo-ees of proprietarcorporations.view. the phrase 8including govern#ent% owned or controlled corporations.to eli#inate. Accordingl-. as the Chair#an of the Co##ittee pointed out. which we called second generation corporations functioning as private subsidiaries. Jould the Co##ittee indicate that is the intent of this provisionH MR. were covered b.8 MR. C can agree with Co##issioner Ro#ulo when he said that this is a proble# which C a# not e=actlsure we should address in the deliberations on the Civil /ervice "aw or whether we should be content with what the Chair#an said that /ection $ 0$2 of the Article on the Civil /ervice is 3ust a general description of the coverage of the Civil /ervice and no #ore. Cn the Philippine Airlines. Cn fact. MR. M1N/1!. Presiding 1fficer. the /upre#e Court decision in the case of NDA vs. when this draft was #ade. /a#ples of such second generation corporations were the Philippine Airlines. all of these co#panies C have #entioned as e=a#ples.#eeting of the Cabinet convened for this purpose at the initiative of the Chair#an of the Reorgani>ation Co##ission. that is #. Presiding 1fficer.uco unrobed the whole thing.

Manila Dotel and D-att are e=cluded fro# the coverage of the civil service. 1n page *. then the recourse is to offer an a#end#ent as to the coverage. M1N/1!.2 and the phrase EGCEP D1/E EGERCC/CN? PR1PRCE ARK 6ENC C1N/. R1ME"1.the proceedings. fall within the a#bit of the civil service. R1ME"1.MR. Dowever.. if the Co##issioner does not accept the e=planation that there could be a distinction of the rules. Ma. including salaries and e#olu#ents. corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies such as the Philippine Airlines. DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. RE/EMP C1N 16 /E//C1N At 4@*$ p.we have a suspension of the sessionH DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr.declaration whatsoever. MR. MR. he session is resu#ed. Cn other words. renas2. Perhaps if Co##issioner Ro#ulo would like a definitive understanding of the coverage and the ?entle#an wants to e=clude govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations like Philippine Airlines. As C said before. MR. which have original charters.8 he purpose of this a#end#ent is to indicate that govern#ent corporations such as the ?/C/ and ///. /o as not to dela. renas2 Co##issioner Ro#ulo is recogni>ed. === === === DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCE 0Mr. Jhat does the Co##ittee sa-H /E/PEN/C1N 16 /E//C1N MR.original proposed a#end#ent to now read as follows@ 8including govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations JC D 1RC?CNA" CDAR ER/. C will reserve #right to sub#it such an a#end#ent. . R1ME"1. Presiding 1fficer.#. C a# a#ending #. Co##issioner Ro#ulo is recogni>ed. Mr. renas2. C suggest the following a#end#ent after 8corporations8@ Add a co##a 0. this is 3ust a general description and we are not #aking an. renas2. DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr. M1N/1!. line . the session was resu#ed. 61I.. he session is suspended. Ct was 4@$+ p. it is so#ething that should be left to the legislature to decide.#. MR.

the advocates of legalis# but it is the onl. !r. so those created b. Ct was #eant to 0be2 a vital.charred bre#oving ever. B. NA CFC!A!. 61I. Petitioners in ?. 61I. hat would be an absurd conclusion. MR.of the PNB.of social 3ustice can beco#e reall.an act of Congress.e=isting on Nove#ber $. MR. && 1.to these e=isting laws. 3o ern!ent #nsurance 4oard 0"%+5*. **$2 on the effectivit. his #a. . Je #ean that the. before the polic. in view of the foregoing. MR.special law. $'&4.wa. hat is correct. Mr. now have to be construed broadl. in his Cult of "egalis#. co#pelling principle of public polic-.were created b. said@ Certainl-.provision ini#ical to social 3ustice. hat is correct@ +8 1n the pre#ise that it is the $'(4 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the ti#e of decision thereof. the N"RC has 3urisdiction to accord relief to the parties. against or in favor of social 3ustice. was not included in the funda#ental law as a #ere popular gesture. all the laws which on the great historic event when the Co##onwealth of the Philippines was born. hus.Mr..the ter# 8original charters. And not under the general corporation law. Mr. Presiding 1fficer. . $'). *+(4. were susceptible of two interpretations strict or liberal. cited b. the NA/EC1 is a govern#ent%owned or controlled corporation without original charter. *+'&: also published in 4( Phil.conceived and so tersel. pp. .. Ct is #ore reasonable to hold that this constitutional principle applies to all legislation in force on Nove#ber $. Cf it was not designed to appl. or b. Jith that understanding and clarification.DE PRE/C!CN? 166CCER 0Mr.orge Bocobo. No. who are the private respondents in ?.in order to pro#ote and achieve social 3ustice.ust one Buestion. MR. the Co##ittee accepts the a#end#ent. No. 45*'.R. (.ustice Perfecto in his concurring opinion in 3o!ez s.?. present and future. JDERE61RE. +'(45. are . Constitution. articulate. As an ad#itted subsidiar. R1ME"1. March )$. b. MR. in turn a subsidiar. Jhat does the Co##ittee sa-H MR.law.the general corporation law are out. R1ME"1. 61I.see# novel to our friends. the challenged decision of the N"RC is A66CRME! with #odifications. this principle of social 3ustice in our Constitution as generousl. Ct should be observed in the interpretation not onl. renas2. Presiding 1fficer. and all laws thereafter passed.of the principle of social 3ustice e#bodied in the $'). No. Ct was intended to change the spirit of our laws.R. $').effective.do we #eanH MR.phrased. R1ME"1.to give life and significance to the above%Buoted principle of the Constitution.. but also of all laws alread.8 what e=actl..of the NC!C. Mr. then it would be necessar.. Presiding officer.of future legislation.to wait for generations until all our codes and all our statutes shall have been co#pletel.

Credo to her for#er position at the ti#e of her ter#ination.in the $'(4 Constitution. . C should i#agine..ustice Padilla7s well%researched ponencia.Eugenia C. Cf reinstate#ent in an. Ct would have been clearer.-ear of service. 3utierrez5 )r. Ct is clear now fro# the debates of the Constitutional Co##ission that the govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations included in the Civil /ervice are those with legislative charters. Nar asa5 ). to be co#puted on her #onthl. No. his would have avoided the suggestion that there are corporations with duplicate charters as distinguished fro# those with original charters.this thought did not occur to the Constitutional Co##ission places one again in needless pu>>le#ent.5 concur. fro# $ !ece#ber $'().salar.disappoint#ent over still another avoidable a#biguit. E=cluded are its subsidiaries organi>ed under the Corporation Code.so.55 for #oral da#ages and P. who are the private respondents in ?.8including govern#ent owned or controlled corporations with legislative charters. petitioners in ?. Se-.5 is on lea e. All charters are original regardless of source unless the. Ender the provision. Cf that was the intention.. Credo. /1 1R!ERE!. to place her in a substantiall. No.the legislature.r..event is no longer possible because of supervening events.5 Melencio6'errera5 Paras5 Feliciano5 3anca"co5 4idin5 Sar!iento5 Cortes5 3ri7o6 A8uino5 Medialdea and Regalado5 )). hat is the acceptable distinction.Eugenia C. the charter is still and alwa-s original even if a#ended as long it was granted b. with three 0)2 -ears backwages. the logical thing. and *2 pa.at the ti#e of her ter#ination on $ !ece#ber $'(). to sa. J.8 Jh. Credo P.).rights and other privileges appertaining thereto.sa.eBuivalent to one%half #onth7s salar. in addition to her backwages and da#ages as above described. are ordered to pa.R.55 for attorne-7s fees. +'(45. would have been to si#pl.ordered to@ $2 reinstate Eugenia C.R.555. Fernan5 C.for ever./e O-010o12 CRU$. C think. .5 ).eBuivalent position. however. 45*'. without Bualification or deduction. separation pa. and without loss of seniorit. C have to e=press once again #.5 in the result.555. or if such reinstate#ent is not possible.are a#ended. concurring@ Jhile concurring with Mr.

to sa. Ct would have been clearer.8including govern#ent owned or controlled corporations with legislative charters. All charters are original regardless of source unless the.the legislature. Ender the provision.8 Jh.in the $'(4 Constitution. E=cluded are its subsidiaries organi>ed under the Corporation Code.r. J.Se-. . his would have avoided the suggestion that there are corporations with duplicate charters as distinguished fro# those with original charters. however.this thought did not occur to the Constitutional Co##ission places one again in needless pu>>le#ent. the charter is still and alwa-s original even if a#ended as long it was granted b.ustice Padilla7s well%researched ponencia.are a#ended. Cf that was the intention. C should i#agine.so. Ct is clear now fro# the debates of the Constitutional Co##ission that the govern#ent%owned or controlled corporations included in the Civil /ervice are those with legislative charters../e O-010o12 CRU$. C think. the logical thing. C have to e=press once again #. hat is the acceptable distinction.sa. would have been to si#pl. .disappoint#ent over still another avoidable a#biguit. concurring@ Jhile concurring with Mr.