JOAQUINA BASA, ET AL. vs ATILANO G.

MERCADO

61 Phil 632

Petitioner: Joaquina Basa, Brions and Martinez

Respondents: Atilano G. Mercado and Jose Gutierrez David

Facts:

On June 27, 1931 Honorable Hermogenes Reyes, judge of the regional trial court of Pampanga, allowed
the last will and testament of Ines Basa, deceased. On January 30, 1932, the judge of the RTC of
Pampanga declared that the administrator of the estate will be declared as the only heir of the deceased
under the will.

Issue:

1) Whether or not section 630 of the Code of Civil procedure was successfully complied with by the
RTC of Pampanga.
2) The appellants also contended that the trial court made a wrong ruling that the newspaper, Ing
Katipunan, is not a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.

Held:

1) Yes. the language used in section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not imply that the
notice should be published for three full weeks consecutively before the date of the hearing
about the will. The publication doesn’t need to be made twenty-one days before the hearing.
2) Ing Katipunan, as shown by records, is a newspaper of general circulation. It is viewed as so
because it is published for the dissemination of local news and general information. And that it
is published at regular intervals for all, not just for a particular group of people.

Supreme Court held that the appellants petition are overruled and RTC decisions are affirmed with
costs in this case against the appellants.
PINE CITY EDUCATIONAL CENTER AND EUGENIO BALTAO vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISION(THIRD DIVISION) and DANGWA BENTREZ, ROLAND PICART, APOLLO RIBAYA SR.,
RUPERTA RIBAYA, VIRGINA BOADO, CECILIA EMOCLING, JANE BENTREZ, LEILA DOMINGUEZ, ROSE
ANN BERMUDEZ and LUCIA CHAN

227 SCRA 655

Petitioners: Pine city educational center, Eugenio Baltao, Tenefrancia, Agranzamendez, Liceralde&
Associates

Respondents: The national labor relations commission, Dangwa Bentrez, Roland Picart, Apollo
Ribaya Sr., Ruperta Ribaya, Virginia Boado, Cecilia Emocling, Jane Bentrez, Leila Dominguez, Rose
Ann Bermudez, Lucia Chan, and Reynaldo B. Cajucom

Facts:

 The Private respondents were all employed as teachers of probationary basis by Pines City
Educational Center and they were represented by their president, Eugenio Baltao.
 All the private respondents except Jane Bentrez were hired as college instructors.
 Only Roland Picart and Lucia Chan didn’t sign contracts with the petitioner for a fixed
duration.
 They were notified by the petitioner about the expiration of their contracts and their poor
performance as teachers on March 31, 1989.
 They were notified of the petitioner’s decision of not renewing their contracts.
 The Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter on April 10,
1989.
 They were not informed through writing by the petitioners regarding the criteria as to how
they would evaluate them.
 They were informed by the chancellor of the petitioners, Dra. Nimia R. Concepcion that they
were already terminated of their services on March 31, 1989 due to low performance rating
as teachers.
 The Labor Arbiter rendered judgement in favor of private respondents and that ther
respondents were ordered to reinstate the complainants immediately to their former
positions and with full backwages from the time they were dismissed up to their
reinstatement on the basis that the petitioners did not present any evidence that the
academic committee has actually evaluated the private respondents performance during
the one semester employment.
 On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the decision was that the NLRC
completely agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s decision and it was added that the definite
period of employment was null and void due to the stipulation assailing the security of the
employee’s tenure.
  But even though they agreed with the Labor Arbiter they still issued a restraining order on
March 11, 1991 for the petitioners because of the issue they raised that there was grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the labor arbiter in disregarding provisions of the law.
 As they cited in the Brent school case: That although article 280 of the labor code protects
the rights of the employees in security of their tenure,” there is an exception that there
should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed
upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties”.

Issue:

1) Whether or not all of the private respondents were legally terminated.

Held:

1) The resolution of National Labor Relations Commission dated November 29, 1990 was modified
in that Roland Picart and Lucia Chan are to be reinstated without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and their back wages were to be paid in full inclusive of allowances and their
other benefits. Their backwages are subject to deduction of income earned elsewhere during
their period of dismissal up to their actual reinstatement.
2) The Labor Abiter’s decision dated February 28, 1990, as affirmed by NLRC was set aside. The
temporary restraining order issued on March 11, 1991 was made permanent.