G.R. No. L-41518 June 30, 1976 GUERRERO'S TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs.

BLAYLOCK TRANSPORTATION SERVICES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KILUSAN (BTEA-KILUSAN), LABOR ARBITER FRANCISCO M. DE LOS REYES and JOSE CRUZ, respondents. Eladio B. Samson petitioner. Francisco Angeles for private respondents.

Respondent union then appealed said Order on March 26,1973 to the Secretary of the Department of Labor, who, instead of deciding the appeal, remanded the case for review to the NLRC which, subsequently, summoned both parties to a series of conferences. Thereafter, or on October .11, 1973, the NLRC issue a Resolution 5 ordering petitioner, among others, "to absorb all the complainants who filed their applications on or before the deadline" set by petitioner "on 15 November 1972 except those who may have derogatory records with the U.S. Naval Authorities in Subic, Zambales" and directing the Officer-in-charge of the provincial office of the Department of Labor in Olongapo City to "oversee the preparation of the list of those qualified for absorption in accordance with this resolution." Petitioner appealed to Secretary of Labor Blas F. Ople who, in turn, rendered a Decision on December 27, 1973, affirming said Resolution. 6 On January 22, 1974, Santiago A. Guerrero) appealed the decision to the President of the Philippines, 7 but on July 9, 1974, the President, through Assistant Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, returned the case to the Secretary of Labor for appropriate action on the appeal, it appearing, that the same does not involve national interest. 8 In the meantime, the Provincial Director of the Labor Office in Zambales furnished, on August 2, 1974, petitioner 9a list of forty-six (46) members of respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN and former drivers of the Blaylock Transport Service, 10 who are within the coverage of the decision of the Secretary of Labor, and requesting petitioner to report its action on the matter directly to the Chairman, NLRC, Manila. Subsequently, Santiago A. Guerrero received a letter dated September 24, 1974 11 from Col. Levi L. Basilla, PC (GSC) Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, requesting compliance with the Order dated July 19, 1974 of the NLRC in NLRC Case No. 214. In his reply letter dated October 4, 1974, Guerrero informed Col. Basilia that he had substantially complied with the decision of the Secretary of Labor affirming the NLRC Resolution of October 31, 1974 in NLRC Case No. 214, and that any apparent non-compliance therewith was attributable to the individual complainants who failed to submit themselves for processing and examination as requested by the authorities of the U.S. Naval Base in Subic, Zambales, preparatory to their absorption by petitioner. On January 18, 1975, Acting Executive Secretary Roberto V. Reyes, pursuant to Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 21, directed the Chief of Constabulary to arrest the executive officers of petitioner. 12 On February 20, 1975, petitioner informed Secretary Reyes that it has substantially complied with the NLRC Resolution of October 31, 1975 as

ANTONIO, J.: Certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to annul the Orders of the National Labor Relations Commission, of March 26, June 20 and September 25, 1975, as well as the Writ of Execution of September 26, 1975, issued in NLRC Case No. 214, and to restrain respondent Deputy Sheriff of Manila from implementing said writ. On June 1, 1972, the United states Naval Base authorities at Subic, Zambales, conducted a public bidding for a five-year contract for the right to operate and/or manage the transportation services inside the naval base. This bidding was won by Santiago Guerrero, owner- operator of Guerrero's Transport Services, Inc., herein petitioner, over Concepcion F. Blaylock, the then incumbent concessionaire doing business under the name of "Blaylock Transport Services", whose 395 employees are members of respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN. When petitioner, after the commencement of its operation on January 1, 1973, refused to employ the members of the respondent union, the latter. On January, 12, 1975, filed a complaint 1 with the National Labor Relations Commission 2docketed as NLRC Case No. 214, against Guerrero's Transport Services, Inc. and Santiago Guerrero, to compel them to employ its members pursuant to Article 1, Section 2 of the RP-US Base Agreement dated May 27, 1968. 3This case was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Commission on March 13, 1973, upon petitioner's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, there being no employer-employee relationship between the parties. 4

on October 6. 1974 to September 20. 16 On July 16. respondent Labor Arbiter. has reported for work. 18 On September 1. This Court approved this agreement and enjoined "all the parties to strictly observe the terms thereof. 1975. 14 On the same date. only a few passed the examination given and some of those who passed failed to comply with the final requirements of the U. 1973. respondent Labor Arbiter De los Reyes and Sheriff Jose Cruz filed their Comment by way of answer to the petition.00 as back wages covering the period from August 22. 1975. 214 and. 1975. 1975. 1975 by respondent union BTEAKILUSAN for reconsideration and to lift the temporary restraining order of October 6. 1975. 1975. Naval Base Authority were extended appointments as early as December 16. 1975. respondent BTEA-KILUSAN filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with respondent Labor Arbiter. this Court. declared said Orders final and executory and directed petitioner Guerrero's Transport Services. respondent Labor Arbiter issued a writ directing the respondent Deputy Sheriff of Manila levy on the moneys and/or properties of petitioner. 23 and on the same date respondent Sheriff immediately serve said writ on petitioner who was given a period of five (5) days within which to comply therewith. 1975.1975. Considering that the . on October 15. 1975. 1975. 1975 20 submitted a detailed information to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor on petitioner's compliance.110. respondent Labor Arbiter De los Reyes ordered the reinstatement of 129 individuals "to their former or substantially equivalent positions without loss of seniority and other rights and privileges". 1975. upon a motion for execution filed by respondent union. Upon motion filed on October 11. 1975.m. acting on the motion for execution filed by respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN. de los Reyes." This agreement is deemed to have superseded the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission of October 31. but none of them. Petitioner asserts that the afore-mentioned Orders were issued by respondent Labor Arbiter without jurisdiction. dated March 26 and June 20. explaining the legal justifications of their action on the premises. Secretary of Labor Blas F. Pursuant to this agreement which was embodied in the Resolution of this Court of October 24. have not been appealed pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code. October 20. issued an Order stating that "upon the finality thereof and by way of implementing any writ of execution that might be issued in this case. As prayed for. 1975 at 3:00 p. On October 11.00 each. the Provincial Director of the Zambales Labor Office. further hearings shall be held to determine the members of respondent union who are entitled to reinstatement in accordance with the basic guidelines finally determined in this case. or a total of P592. 19 and the NLRC Resolution dated October 21. pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Labor. It was on this factual environment that petitioner instituted the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction on October 6. At the hearing of this case on October 20. Ople issued an Order dated November 13. "to enable the Department of Labor to formally close" NLRC Case No. to reinstate the 129 complainants and to pay them the amount of P4. therefore. for evident lack of interest. 13 In his 1st endorsement dated March 26. 1975. Naval Base Authority. 1973.S. lifted said restraining order and set the case for hearing on Monday. 17 but this was objected to by petitioner contending that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over NLRC Case No. Inc. respondent Labor Arbiter Francisco M.out of those listed by the Regional Labor Director. 21 On September 25. 214. that only those who passed and complied with the requirements of the U. 1974. which determination shall be considered final.290." 15 On June 20. and finding that both the Orders.S. this Court. 1975. the pertinent portion of which reads as follows: The issue submitted for resolution hinges on the credibility of the alleged applications. a Compromise Agreement was arrived at by the parties wherein they agreed to submit to the Office of t he Secretary of Labor the determination of members of the respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN who shall be reinstated or absorbed by the herein petitioner in the transportation service inside the naval base. his proceedings and orders resulting therefrom are null and void. issued a temporary restraining order and required the respondents to file an answer within ten (10) days from notice. Secretary Zamora required the Secretary of Labor to verify petitioner's allegations. as affirmed by the Secretary of Labor on December 27.22 On September 26. 1975.

his only participation in this case refers to that portion of the Secretary of Labor's Order directing him to implement "* * * the absorption of the 175 members of the Blaylock Transport Employees Association (BTEA-KILUSAN) into the Guerrero Transport Services. with the request for the immediate screening and approval of their applications in accordance with applicable rules of said command. the Honorable Secretary of Labor specified that the same should be composed of the 46 submitted by OIC Liberator Carino on 2 August 1974 and the 129 applicants determined by this Labor Arbiter.S. Labor Arbiter Francisco M. listing in Annex "A" thereof.S. 24 Order to the Base Commander. Further. Thereafter. the initial step to be undertaken is for the submission of the name of the applicants to the U. the National Labor Relations Commission through Arbiter Francisco delos Reyes is hereby directed to implement the absorption of the 175 members of the Blaylock Transport Employees Association (BTEA-KILUSAN) into the Guerrero Transport Services. have to undergo processing by naval authority. Labor Arbiter De los Reyes issued an Order. 1975. U. Pampanga.S. S. The Regional Director of Regional Office No. San Fernando. Regarding the determination of whether the applicants are bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transportation Service at the time its concession expired. II. only 128 will be named." subject to certain terms and conditions. these two listings have now been consolidated and alphabetically arranged and as an integral part of this Order has been made as Annex "A" (pp 1 to 6). dated November 25. 1975. 174 employees who were bona fide employees of the private respondent. A perusal of said list show that the name "Renato Carriaga" has been doubly listed. For purposes of implementation. Naval Base at Olongapo City since persons connected with the Base like the applicants. RESPONSIVE TO THE FOREGOING. in compliance with the aforesaid directive of the Secretary of Labor. Naval Base at Olongapo City for the screening and approval by the appropriate authorities.employees are economically dependent on their jobs. Because of these factors we cannot ignore the affidavits of proof presented by the employees concerned as against the declaration of the herein respondent. and transmitting a copy of said . The applicant are no strangers to the pains and difficulties of unemployment. and the list of 129 determined by Arbiter de los Reyes as embodied in the Writ of Execution issued on 25 September 1975. subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) that they were bona fide employees of the Blaybock Transportation Service at the time its concession expired: 2) that the appellants shall pass final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U. delos Reyes conducted a hearing to receive evidence as to who were the bona fide employees of the former concessionaire at the "time of its concession expire". Of the latter. On November 24. they have all the reasons and zealousness to pursue their jobs within the legitimate framework of our laws. The pertinent portion of said Order reads as follows: As far as this Labor Arbiter is concerned. The applicants to be processed for absorption shall be those in the list of 46 submitted by OIC Liberator (Carino on 2 August 1974. we feel that such employment will likewise appear in the records of the U. Hence. Navy authorities concerned. S. Going now to the applicants who should be entitled to absorption. Olongapo City. the parties appear to be in agreement that the records of this case will eventually show whether the applicants are such employees. For convenience. Firmly entrenched is the rule in this jurisdiction that doubts arising from labor disputes must be construed and interpreted in favor of the workers. Base concerned. Naval Base. shall make available to the parties the facilities of that Office in the implementation of the aforesaid absorption process. any question of "prematurity" as espoused by respondent's counsel may not he entertained by this Labor Arbiter. which means the U.

In connection therewith.S. 1975 who satisfy the criteria enunciated viz. Navy Exchange declined to implement the order of the Labor Arbiter. de los Reyes. Naval Base. It is obviously in recognition of such obligation that petitioner entered into the afore-mentioned Compromise Agreement. the United States Armed Forces undertook. conclusive upon the [parties and their privies.00. The Order dated September 25. in the event certain services are contracted out. 25 Pursuant to Section 6 of Article I of the Philippine-U S. the United States Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessionerto give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. Considering that the afore-mentioned Compromise-Agreement of the parties. in accordance with applicable rules of that command. judgment is hereby rendered ordering petitioner to employ members of respondent labor union BTEA-KILUSAN referred to in the Order of the Secretary of Labor dated November 13. subject to the following conditions.. (Emphasis supplied. and.S. naval Base at Subic. Barredo. No pronouncement as to costs. it is. copies of this Order together with Annex "A" hereof are hereby transmitted to the Base Commander. 1975. "to provide security for employment. is on leave. 1975. concur. 27 For it is settled that a compromise has. In view of said stipulation. 1973 required the absorption of the applicants subject to the conditions therein contained. as approved by this Court. Olongapo City with the request for the immediate screening and approval of said applicants. however. the Labor Arbiter exceeded his authority in awarding back wages to the 129 complainants.: (a) those who were bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transport Services at the time its concession expired. and as municipal law for the people of each state to observe. under the Compromise Agreement as embodied in the Resolution of this Court dated October 24. is hereby set aside. Naval Base concerned. consistent with military requirements. Aquino and Martin. as it is the petitioner who should request for the screening and approval of the applicants. is more than a mere contract and has the force and effect of any other judgment. 1968. the new contractor is. As above indicated. the names of the afore-mentioned members of respondent union. and (b) those who pass the final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U. J. to implement the absorption of the 175 members 26into the Guerrero's Transport Services. Commander Vertplaetse of the U. For this purpose. the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part of the contract between petitioner and the U. the effect and authority ofres judicata and is enforceable by execution upon approval by the court. Separate Opinions FERNANDO. 28 Since the resolution of the NLRC of October 31. Zambales the requisite screening and approval. and that such determination shall be considered as final. and there being no showing that such conditions were complied with. therefore. bound to give "priority" to the employment of the qualified employees of the previous contractor.WHEREFORE.S. As part of the municipal law. U. Jr.. through Labor Arbiter Francisco de los Reyes. concurring: . Naval Base . directing the National Labor Relations Commission.: (a) that they were bona fideemployees of the Blaylock Transport Service at the time its concession expired. S.) A treaty has two (2) aspects — as an international agreement between states. JJ. Labor Agreement of May 27. and (b) that they should pass final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U. Inc. ACCORDINGLY.. awarding back wages to the 129 complainants in the total amount of P592. J.S.. According to private respondent. petitioner is hereby ordered to submit to and secure from the appropriate authorities of the U. in view of the foregoing considerations. viz.S. therefore. Naval Base authorities.110. the parties agreed to submit to the Secretary of Labor the determination as to who of the members of the respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN shall be absorbed or employed by the herein petitioner Guerrero's Transport Services. the Secretary of Labor issued an Order dated November 13. upon the parties. Concepcion.. 1975 of respondent Labor Arbiter Francisco M.

Had that provision been lived up to. Naval Base of Olongapo City. duly represented by counsel. It yields the impression. could still reasonably hope that the financial burden long sustained by its members could be eased — all in accordance with law. So it has been decided by us. had been laid off. the interpretation of such a provision should be most restrictive to assure that there be the least derogation of the rights of the territorial sovereign. of more discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor. The parties. That is quite understandable. the members of respondent Labor Union would not be in the sad plight they are in at present. and not only from . still their situation is not necessarily devoid of any hope for improvement. So the law prescribes. Unfortunately for respondent Labor Union. Certainly. Petitioner commenced its operation on January 1. of more discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor. Its terms are thus binding on them. that there was no fidelity to the basic policy on labor as prescribed by the present Constitution. 1973. They should be adhered to. 1973. Moreover. Accordingly. respondent Labor Union. Unfortunately for respondent Labor Union. Five days thereafter. Time and time again. duly represented by counsel. the writer is impelled to write this brief concurrence because of his belief that while this Court is precluded from granting additional relief to the members of respondent Labor Union who. So it has been decided by us. It has the advantage of greater flexibility. the present Constitution came into effect. in the meanwhile.The opinion of the Court penned by Justice Antonio in his usual comprehensive and lucid manner manifests fealty to the mandates of the law. It refused to employ the members of respondent Union. no provision was made for backpay. Its terms are thus binding on them. That was an omission that ought to have been remedied before the compromise was entered into. this Court has correctly stressed how far the present Constitution has gone in seeing to it that the welfare of the economically underprivileged receive full attention. the course of conduct pursued by petitioner left much to be desired. in line with what was held in Reagan v. The parties. Separate Opinions FERNANDO. from what appears of record. This Court. Nontheless. however sympathetic it may be to the claims of labor. the intervention of the authorities therein cannot be avoided. prompting the latter to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Court against it and one Santiago Guerrero to compel them to employ its members pursuant to Article 1. It is entitled to full concurrence. Accordingly. the course of conduct pursued by petitioner left much to be desired. 2Security of tenure is one of the basic features. entered on a compromise. entered on a compromise. or on January 17. This observation is made with the hope that if paid attention to. We have no choice on the matter. The present Labor Code stresses administrative rather than judicial redress. It is to be admitted that what complicated matters is that the service to be rendered is inside the U. Certainly. 1968. in the meanwhile. Accordingly. there must be compliance with what was ordained by the Secretary of Labor in his order of November 13.S. cannot go further than what was assented to by the parties themselves. the writer is impelled to write this brief concurrence because of his belief that while this Court is precluded from granting additional relief to the members of respondent Labor Union who. That could be utilized on their behalf. This Court. 5 The thought cannot be entertained that the naval authorities concerned would be insensible to the fundamental public policy of according the utmost consideration to the claims of labor. At the same time. through the efforts of the administrative officials. and not only from their standpoint. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 3 andPeople v. It is entitled to full concurrence. That could be utilized on their behalf. to me at least. from what appears of record. cannot go further than what was assented to by the parties themselves. It has the advantage of greater flexibility. concurring: The opinion of the Court penned by Justice Antonio in his usual comprehensive and lucid manner manifests fealty to the mandates of the law. Section 2 of the RP-US Bases Agreement dated May 27. had been laid off. however sympathetic it may be to the claims of labor. The present Labor Code stresses administrative rather than judicial redress. Gozo. Nontheless. no provision was made for backpay. They should be adhered to. J. All that has to be done is to refer to the expanded scope of social justice 1 and the specific guarantees intended to vitalize the rights of labor. there must be compliance with what was ordained by the Secretary of Labor in his order of November 13. We have no choice on the matter.. That was an omission that ought to have been remedied before the compromise was entered into. 4 the jurisdiction vested in this government over every inch of soil of its territory compels the conclusion that its laws are operative even inside a military base or naval reservation except as limited by the Military Bases Agreement. So the law prescribes. 1975. 1975. still their situation is not necessarily devoid of any hope for improvement.

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. pp.. Ibid. 10 Appendix "H-1". the members of respondent Labor Union would not be in the sad plight they are in at present. p. p. 32-40. 18 Appendix "R". 11 Appendix "I". Ibid. Moreover. 1968. 1973. 13 Appendix "L". Ibid. Ibid. Petition. to me at least. Footnotes 1 Appendix "A". Section 6. respondent Labor Union. could still reasonably hope that the financial burden long sustained by its members could be eased — all in accordance with law. Petition. . Naval Base of Olongapo City.. It is to be admitted that what complicated matters is that the service to be rendered is inside the U. 12 Appendix "K"." 4 Appendix "B". Had that provision been lived up to. Accordingly. Ibid. 19-20. 27-31.. p. pp. Ibid. 24-26. At the same time. 80. 7 Appendix "E". This observation is made with the hope that if paid attention to. Ibid. 9 Appendix "H". this Court has correctly stressed how far the present Constitution has gone in seeing to it that the welfare of the economically underprivileged receive full attention. or on January 17. 45.. Time and time again. the intervention of the authorities therein cannot be avoided. 41. the United States Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessionaire to give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. pp. through the efforts of the administrative officials.. SC Rollo. 73. effective October 15. p. the United States Armed Forces shall endeavor to provide security for employment and. 17 Appendix "Q". Petitioner commenced its operation on January 1.. It yields the impression. 2Security of tenure is one of the basic features. the present Constitution came into effect. the interpretation of such a provision should be most restrictive to assure that there be the least derogation of the rights of the territorial sovereign. That is quite understandable. 5 Appendix "C". 3 Article I.their standpoint. p. prompting the latter to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Court against it and one Santiago Guerrero to compel them to employ its members pursuant to Article 1. Ibid. 1972. Five days thereafter. Ibid. 74-79.. 44. Gozo. 1973. 15 Appendix "N". pp. Ibid.. p. 46. It refused to employ the members of respondent Union. 86-88. 16 Appendix "P". SC Rollo. Ibid.S. 14 Appendix "M". Commissioner of nternal Revenue 3 andPeople v. 69. 70-72. of the RP-US Base Labor Agreement provides: "Consistent with their military requirements. that there was no fidelity to the basic policy on labor as prescribed by the present Constitution. 20 Appendix "C". 19 Appendix "O". 6 Appendix "D". pp. 4 the jurisdiction vested in this government over every inch of soil of its territory compels the conclusion that its laws are operative even inside a military base or naval reservation except as limited by the Military Bases Agreement. pp. pp. pp. 2 Created under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 8 Appendix "F". 24-26. Ibid. 81-85. 21. p. 22-23. in line with what was held in Reagan v... All that has to be done is to refer to the expanded scope of social justice 1 and the specific guarantees intended to vitalize the rights of labor. in the event certain activities or services are contracted out. pp.. pp. 89-94. Ibid. 5 The thought cannot be entertained that the naval authorities concerned would be insensible to the fundamental public policy of according the utmost consideration to the claims of labor. Section 2 of the RP-US Bases Agreement dated May 27.

Towards this end. 1967. et al. . 28 Article 2037. Section 9 of the present Constitution: "The State shall afford protection to labor. 21 SCRA 180. "S-1". use. 23 Appendix "U". pp. race or creed. October 25. 24 SC Rollo. December 27. commissioner of Internal Revenue v. and regulate the relations between workers and employers... Civil Code. and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits. 1973. 22 Appendix "T". collective bargaining. Serrano v. Ibid. 1969. security of tenure. the State shall regulate the acquisition." 3 L-26379. 107-110. 101-106-A. and just and humane conditions of work. 25 Ibid. 26 Actually 174. and disposition of private property. pp.. Republic v.. pp. September 22. Ibid." 2 According to Article II. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration. pp. 30 SCRA 968. for the name of "RENATO CARRIAGA" has been doubly listed. 117 Phil. Section 6 of the present Constitution "The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity. welfare. L20812. concurring: 1 According to Article II. enjoyment.21 Appendices "S". 4 L-36409.. 13 SCRA 461. 415-420. 200-207. Miave. Ibid.. Guerrero. 95-100. 194-196. J. Estenzo. 53 SCRA 476. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization. ensue equal work opportunities regardless of sex. pp. Cayanong. ownership. and security of all the people. 25 SCRA 122. et al. 5 Cf. Fernando. promote full employment and equality in employment. 27 Piano v.

094.39.986:90 :3/0789.08 8.  44 90 :78/..99070-0900./ 9.80 41 43.:8439.079.094-0 703/070/ 8 38/0 90 & $  ...07  90 39075709.3/ 920 .070.110.-47 7002039 574.43..3.7./08 43889039 9 907 29.80/ .0/ 98 4507.3.9907889.90/:3/0790574.943 8 2.0   $0.:89.438/07.4:/-00.08 8.95708039  9894-0.-0 9908.54 9  .990807.70 41 90 0.3/0/ 8.9 1 5.-47&343 974:9001147984190.80 ./ .94384:79.-4509.08843.3349 -0 039079..90/ 025400814702542039  5503/ !09943 $#44 55    5503/ -/ 55    5503/ -/ 55    5503/ -/    5503/ -/ 5   5503/ -/ 5    5503/  -/ 5   5503/ -/ 5   5503/ -/ 5   5503/ -/ 55    5503/ -/ 5   5503/ -/ 55    5503/! -/ 55    5503/" -/ 55    5503/# -/ 55    5503/  -/ 5    5503/ -/ 55    .00.3.0 .41.0338/0.0 /.3:.057479.4397.704507.8.. #0.0411.07320394.4770.9:708  .9 574.:947908 .84303800394 9 9.4:07707494.7-0/ - 90 5708039 43899:943  !0994307 .:79 147 02542039 ..47/390:92489...80/3#0..4342.3/ 430$.2841.843..9..20 394 0110.90/2.94394. 5:-.834 1/09 94 90 -.00/ 70.808 7002039  4704.0.  422884307 41 39073.808 7002039 /.90847807./0 9 90 450 9.059 .90789.39 94 79..0703 %0 94:9 .943 0.70.-47 $0.8 9070..-:7/03438:89.8 290/ - 90 9.-47  %8 4-807.9.20920 3309.843 84:/ -0 248970897.9907 9410.43.8.9  %20 .3:.843 -003 .  44934908 5503/ !09943 $#44 55    70.90/ .1907  47 43 . 54.9.3899.3  98 4:79 .43.29. :3/0757.4:/8970.2039.7094./5990.0..943 43 ..7 -.0730/ 4:/ -0 38038-0 94 90 1:3/.8.89/074.1.943   41 90 #! &$ ..4397.3.. 43 ..99013..:.09./0 80..54.073.3349-0.8 .947 47.3 .425.90.0890/3984.0/ :5 94  90 202-078 41 708543/039 .47/.450 41 84.4/0/ %.418441989077947 .3/  3 90 0.7     9 701:80/94025490202-07841708543/039&343 574259390..843841!708/039./23897.8 5708. .-47 &343 4:/349-03908. 03/0.94-07    79.:94790890703.0 1: ..80 47 3.703.47 94 574.     .99070. 574.9..7     90 5708039 43899:943 .9.9903943 94  708543/039.39990.47/3  903907.-47 .9.3/90850..7 .998. 706:70 90 .9.88:709..3/5439 90/89025708843 9420...9 .30/-98 202-078.9.790570803943899:943.7 706:7020398  90 &390/ $9..908 720/ 47.9903943   9.89 9.9 90 01..943  41 90 #! &$ .4250890.039434190. .943.8  .30/ 9. ..943 41 8:.425.90/4:9 90 &390/ $9.943.8 94 -0 /430 8 94 70107 94 90 05. 70807.9 90 3.42203. 10.3/.9439490.98970880/41.039..7004   0110..390083903/0/94.08.438/07..908 720/ 47.090798 41 .0.03:0.3/!0450 ./2990/9.0   $0.:79 41 903:70 8 430 41 90 -.9. 84.425090294025498202-0785:78:.-47#0.9434190798 41 90 9077947.

0-.0 94 038:7090/39 01.3/ 0254078 %0$9.3/4  ..30 .70 .40.943 . .943  41 90 5708039 43899:943 %0 $9.02-07   $#      .03:0 .343 09./0147.1147/ 57490.43.43/9438 41 47  %0 $9...943    0.34.94-07  $#  .7/89803/ 90$9.3/80.  :077074     $05902-07  $#   5503/& -/ 55     $#44 55    -/ 55      .7/0884180 7.422884307 41 39073.3/ 574198   .047 .33 80. #0.9438 -09003 47078 .:7941903:70  .3/ /8548943 41 57. !     79. .425:847.90 2..9 3 02542039  038:006:.908. .0   $0.5503/.9.08$ $  -/ 55    5503/% -/ 55        1  .908.90 8. 574.3.3/ 06:.47455479:390870.  89034   $#$077. 4/0#05:-.943  41 90 5708039 43899:943 %0 $9.9:. $#  073..20 41 #%  ## ..0 09.9050450  %4.700/  .9090.. 5742490 84.88:7090798414707894 801 47.34.90 8.0    ..3/ :2.90 90 70. .7-97.3/ :89 .47/3 94 79.70:.   147 90 3.943 94 .7.- /11:80 5745079 430785 .3/ 70:. :89.8-003/4:-890/  !.47/3 94 79.:7941.-47  5742490 1: 02542039 .90 5745079  .3/ 06:9.:773  ..0   $0.6:8943  430785  :80  0342039  .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful