Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION

BILLY M. REALDA,
Petitioner,




- versus -




NEW AGE GRAPHICS, INC. and
JLIAN I. MIRASOL, JR.
Respondents.

G.R. N!.
"#$"#%

Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
BRIO,
P!R!",
S!R!O, and
R!#!S, JJ.

Promulgated:

April $%, $&'$

()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(

RESOL&ION

REYES, J.'

*he petitioner, +ho +as the former machine operator of respondent e+ Age ,raphics
Inc. -,raphics, Inc.., files this petition for re/ie+ under Rule 0% of the Rules of Court of the
1ecision
'
2'3 dated 4une 5, $&&5 and Resolution
$
2$3 dated April '0, $&'& of the Court of
Appeals -CA. in CA),.R. SP o. '&65$7. By +ay of its 4une 5, $&&5 1ecision, the CA re/ersed
and set aside the 8arch 9', $&&7 1ecision
9
293 and October $7, $&&7 Resolution
0
203 of the
ational :abor Relations Commission -:RC. in :RC :AC o. '&)&&$;%5)&; affirming the
August '%, $&&; 1ecision
%
2%3 of :abor Arbiter 1anna 8. Castillon -:A Castillon., +hich found
the petitioner to be illegally dismissed.

*he CA e(onerated the petitioner from the charges of destroying ,raphics, Inc.<s
property and disloyalty to ,raphics, Inc. and its ob=ecti/es. >o+e/er, the CA ruled that the
petitioner<s un=ustified refusal to render o/ertime +or?, une(plained failure to obser/e
prescribed +or? standards, habitual tardiness and chronic absenteeism despite +arning and non)
compliance +ith the directi/e for him to e(plain his numerous unauthori@ed absences constitute
sufficient grounds for his termination. Specifically:

On the ground of repeated /iolations of company<s rules and regulations,
namely: insubordination, deliberate slo+do+n of +or?, habitual tardiness,
'2'3 Penned by Associate 4ustice 4ose :. Sabio, 4r., +ith Associate 4ustices Aicente S.!.
Aeloso and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurringB rollo, pp. 90)60.
$2$3 Penned by Associate 4ustice Aicente S.!. Aeloso, +ith Associate 4ustices 8ario :.
,uariCa III and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurringB id. at 66.
9293 Id. at ;7)7%.
0203 Id. at 76)75.
%2%3 Id. at 6;);;.
absence +ithout official lea/e and inefficiencyB De find that public respondent
commission, in affirming labor arbiter Castillon, rushed into conclusion that
petitioner has failed to con/ince the commission a quo on +hat company rules
and regulations pri/ate respondent had committed. ( ( (

*he foregoing, not+ithstanding, +e find that pri/ate respondent should be
dismissed on the ground of +illful disobedience of the +arning and memoranda
issued by petitioner. *o be /alidly dismissed on the ground of +illful
disobedience reEuires the concurrence of at least t+o reEuisites: -'. the
employee<s assailed conduct must ha/e been +illful or intentional, the +illfulness
being characteri@ed by a +rongful and per/erse attitudeB and -$. the order /iolated
must ha/e been reasonable, la+ful, made ?no+n to the employee and must pertain
to the duties +hich he had been engaged to discharge.

Pri/ate respondent<s continued refusal to ac?no+ledge receipt and to
present his defense against the notice of suspension and of dismissal, render him
guilty of insubordination or +illful disobedience of the reasonable and la+ful
order of petitioner. *hese orders +ere made +ith 2regard3 to his duties to the
company as a punctual employee and as the sole and e(clusi/e operator of the
printing machine pro/ided to him by petitioner. *herefore, the obligation to
ans+er rests upon him +ho is alleged to ha/e committed infractions against his
employer, other+ise he is deemed to ha/e +ai/ed his right to be heard and +ould
be made to suffer the conseEuences of such refusal.

Pri/ate respondent is also accused of insubordination for the reason that he
stubbornly refused to follo+ the orders of his ,eneral 8anager to sho+ the latter
and chec? on the computer using the C8#F guide, +hether the colors he is
running in his printing machine are correct. After initially follo+ing the said
order, and confirming that the first color, cyan, running in the machine +as
correct, he failed to obser/e the same procedure on the second color magenta and
did not e/en bother to remedy it after it +as pointed out by the Computer ,raphic
Artist super/ising him. Since this +as not the first time he +as reprimanded for
carelessly rushing the +or? assigned to him, disregarding certain procedures to
ensure the Euality of the same and thereby resulting in mediocre products +hich
earn the ire of the company<s clientele, his stubborn refusal to change sho+s a
clear act of insubordination against pri/ate respondent.

( ( (

Pri/ate respondent has pending +or? on :a SalleCo 8aga@ine on 8ay $%)
$6, $&&0, but refused to do o/ertime in order to finish the same. Aside from this,
he has t+o other +or?s reEuired for him to finish, mainly: PCG)8anila Brochure
and >i=as de 8aria sou/enir program. In procuring absences during the times
+hen +or?load +as hea/y, the printing deadlines for the months of April and 8ay
+ere not met and petitioner incurred losses from o/ertime pay for the other
employees +ho +ere forced to ta?e on the +or? left by pri/ate respondent and
from penalties imposed by clients for e/ery day of delay after the deadlines set for
the deli/ery of the printed materials.

( ( (

Hurthermore, pri/ate respondent<s refusal to render o/ertime +or? +hen
reEuired upon him, contributed to losses incurred by the petitioner. Public
respondent commission has erred in ruling that rendition of the same is not
mandatory. Art. 75 of the :abor Code empo+ers the employer to legally compel
his employees to perform o/ertime +or? against their +ill to pre/ent serious loss
or damage, to +it:

( ( ( (

In the present case, petitioner<s business is a printing press +hose
production schedule is sometimes fle(ible and /arying. It is only reasonable that
+or?ers are sometimes as?ed to render o/ertime +or? in order to meet production
deadlines.

On or before 8ay $6, $&&0, pri/ate respondent +as as?ed to render
o/ertime +or? but he refused to do so despite the IrushJ orders of customers and
petitioner<s need to meet its deadlines set by the former. In fact, he reneged on his
promise to do the same, after being issued an O/ertime Slip Horm by 8ylene
Alto/ar, and instead +ent out +ith another indi/idual, as attested by his +ife after
calling the company to inform it of such absence. >e ?ne+ that he +as going to
be una/ailable for +or? on the follo+ing day, but instead of trying to finish his
+or? before that date by rendering o/ertime, due to the IrushJ in meeting the
deadlines, he opted to forego +ith the same, and thereby re=ecting the order of
petitioner.

( ( (

Petitioner further alleges habitual tardiness on the part of pri/ate
respondent for +hich he recei/ed a +arning notice in April and 8ay $&&0. Hor
the month of 4anuary and Hebruary $&&0 alone, he reported late for +or? $9 times
and on 8ay $&&0, =ust prior to his suspension, he +as yet again late for 6 times.
*he 1aily *ime Records of pri/ate respondent contained the entries +hich 2+ere3
personally +ritten by him. ( ( (

Hinally, on petitioner<s allegation on pri/ate respondent<s absences +ithout
official lea/e, De hold that the latter<s actions +ere indeed un=ustified. 1espite
the +arning issued to pri/ate respondent by petitioner on his ADO:s during the
month of April and 8ay, and instead of reporting to the company to deny or to
refute the basis for recommendation of dismissal, he absented himself from 4un.
'% to 4ul. '%, $&&0, +hich prompted to -sic. the termination of his employment.
*he ruling of the labor arbiter that since the final recommendation of petitioner
+as Idismissal for causeJ, pri/ate respondent cannot be faulted for his failure to
report for +or? on 4un. '% does not hold +ater. Dhat +as gi/en to pri/ate
respondent on 4un. '%, $&&0 +as indeed in the form of a notice of dismissal.
>o+e/er, it +as only recommended that he be dismissed from his employment
and is still gi/en the opportunity to present his defense to deny or refute the said
recommendation of company.
6
263 ( ( ( -Citations omitted.


onetheless, +hile the CA recogni@ed the e(istence of =ust causes for petitioner<s
dismissal, it found the petitioner entitled to nominal damages in the amount of P%,&&&.&& due to
,raphics, Inc.<s failure to obser/e the procedural reEuirements of due process.

Pri/ate respondent +as not accorded due process +hen petitioner issued
and ser/ed to the former the +ritten notice of dismissal dated 4un. '%, $&&0. A
careful perusal of the records +ill sho+ that the notice issued by the employer
gi/es the employee only t+enty)four -$0. hours to ans+er and put up his defenses
against the accusations laid upon him by the company, in contra/ention +ith the
rule of a IreasonableJ period as construed in King of Kings Transport v. Mamac.
8oreo/er, the scheduled hearing in front of :eticia 1. :ago +as on the same date
at ':&& p.m., +hich left pri/ate respondent +ith no recourse to secure the ser/ices
of a counsel, much less prepare a good rebuttal against the alleged e/idences for
the /alid dismissal of the former.

( ( ( (

( ( ( Considering that petitioner has made efforts in the past to afford pri/ate
respondent the opportunity to be able to defend himself, but the latter, instead of
a/ailing such remedy, re=ected the sameB De ha/e ta?en this into consideration,
and impose 2P3%,&&&.&& as the penalty for the employer<s failure to comply +ith
the due process reEuirement.
;
2;3 -Citations omitted.


*his Court finds no cogent reason to re/erse the assailed issuances of the CA.

First, the petitioner<s arbitrary defiance to ,raphics, Inc.<s order for him to render
o/ertime +or? constitutes +illful disobedience. *a?ing this in con=unction +ith his inclination to
absent himself and to report late for +or? despite being pre/iously penali@ed, the CA correctly
6263 Id. at %&)%6
;2;3 Id. at %7)6'.
ruled that the petitioner is indeed utterly defiant of the la+ful orders and the reasonable +or?
standards prescribed by his employer.

*his particular issue is far from being no/el as this Court had the opportunity in R.B.
Michael Press v. Galit
7
273 to categorically state that an employer has the right to reEuire the
performance of o/ertime ser/ice in any of the situations contemplated under Article 75 of the
:abor Code and an employee<s non)compliance is +illful disobedience. *hus:

Hor +illful disobedience to be a /alid cause for dismissal, these t+o
elements must concur: -'. the employee<s assailed conduct must ha/e been
+illful, that is, characteri@ed by a +rongful and per/erse attitudeB and -$. the
order /iolated must ha/e been reasonable, la+ful, made ?no+n to the employee,
and must pertain to the duties +hich he had been engaged to discharge.

In the present case, there is no Euestion that petitioners< order for
respondent to render o/ertime ser/ice to meet a production deadline complies
+ith the second reEuisite. Art. 75 of the :abor Code empo+ers the employer to
legally compel his employees to perform o/ertime +or? against their +ill to
pre/ent serious loss or damage:

Art. 75. !8!R,!C# OA!R*I8! DORF

Any employee may be reEuired by the employer to perform
o/ertime +or? in any of the follo+ing cases:

( ( ( (

-c. Dhen there is urgent +or? to be performed on
machines, installations, or eEuipment, in order to a/oid serious loss
or damage to the employer or some other cause of similar natureB

( ( (

In the present case, petitioners< business is a printing press +hose
production schedule is sometimes fle(ible and /arying. It is only reasonable that
+or?ers are sometimes as?ed to render o/ertime +or? in order to meet production
deadlines.

( ( (

7273 ,.R. o. '%9%'&, Hebruary '9, $&&7, %0% SCRA $9.
*he issue no+ is, +hether respondent<s refusal or failure to render
o/ertime +or? +as +illfulB that is, +hether such refusal or failure +as
characteri@ed by a +rongful and per/erse attitude. In a!pue "rug #nc. v. Belga,
+illfulness +as described as Kcharacteri@ed by a +rongful and per/erse mental
attitude rendering the employee<s act inconsistent +ith proper subordination.K
*he fact that respondent refused to pro/ide o/ertime +or? despite his ?no+ledge
that there is a production deadline that needs to be met, and that +ithout him, the
offset machine operator, no further printing can be had, sho+s his +rongful and
per/erse mental attitudeB thus, there is +illfulness.

Respondent<s e(cuse that he +as not feeling +ell that day is unbelie/able
and ob/iously an afterthought. >e failed to present any e/idence other than his
o+n assertion that he +as sic?. Also, if it +as true that he +as then not feeling
+ell, he +ould ha/e ta?en the day off, or had gone home earlier, on the contrary,
he stayed and continued to +or? all day, and e/en tried to go to +or? the ne(t day,
thus belying his e(cuse, +hich is, at most, a self)ser/ing statement.

After a re)e(amination of the facts, +e rule that respondent un=ustifiably
refused to render o/ertime +or? despite a /alid order to do so. *he totality of his
offenses against petitioner R.B. 8ichael Press sho+s that he +as a difficult
employee. >is refusal to render o/ertime +or? +as the final stra+ that bro?e the
camel<s bac?, and, +ith his gross and habitual tardiness and absences, +ould
merit dismissal from ser/ice.
5
253 -Citations omitted.


oticeably, this case and R.B. Michael Press share a parallelism. Similar to the dismissed
employee in the abo/e)Euoted case, the petitioner e(hibited +illful disobedience to a reasonable
order from his employer and this Court does not find any reason +hy petitioner should be
accorded a different treatment.

$econ%, the petitioner<s failure to obser/e ,raphics, Inc.<s +or? standards constitutes
inefficiency that is a /alid cause for dismissal. Hailure to obser/e prescribed standards of +or?,
or to fulfill reasonable +or? assignments due to inefficiency may constitute =ust cause for
dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain +or? goals or +or? Euotas,
either by failing to complete the same +ithin the alloted reasonable period, or by producing
unsatisfactory results. As the operator of ,raphics, Inc.<s printer, he is mandated to chec?
+hether the colors that +ould be printed are in accordance +ith the client<s specifications and for
him to do so, he must consult the ,eneral 8anager and the color guide used by ,raphics, Inc.
before ma?ing a full run. Gnfortunately, he failed to obser/e this simple procedure and
proceeded to print +ithout ma?ing sure that the colors +ere at par +ith the client<s demands.
*his resulted to delays in the deli/ery of output, client dissatisfaction, and additional costs on
,raphics, Inc.<s part.
5253 Id. at 99)9%.

Security of tenure is indeed constitutionally guaranteed. >o+e/er, this should not be
indiscriminately in/o?ed to depri/e an employer of its management prerogati/es and right to
shield itself from incompetence, inefficiency and disobedience displayed by its employees. *he
procedure laid do+n by ,raphics, Inc. +hich the petitioner +as bound to obser/e does not
appear to be unreasonable or unnecessarily difficult. On the contrary, it is necessary and rele/ant
to the achie/ement of ,raphics, Inc.<s ob=ecti/es. *he petitioner<s non)compliance is therefore
hard to comprehend.

Dhile a penalty in the form of suspension had already been imposed on the petitioner for
his habitual tardiness and repeated absenteeism, the principle of Itotality of infractionsJ
sanctions the act of ,raphics, Inc. of considering such pre/ious infractions in decreeing
dismissal as the proper penalty for his tardiness and unauthori@ed absences incurred after+ards,
in addition to his refusal to render o/ertime +or? and conform to the prescribed +or? standards.
In Merin v. &ational a'or Relations Commission,
'&
2'&3 this Court e(pounded on the principle
of totality of infractions as follo+s:

*he totality of infractions or the number of /iolations committed during
the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be
imposed upon an erring employee. *he offenses committed by petitioner should
not be ta?en singly and separately. Hitness for continued employment cannot be
compartmentali@ed into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and
ability separate and independent of each other. Dhile it may be true that
petitioner +as penali@ed for his pre/ious infractions, this does not and should not
mean that his employment record +ould be +iped clean of his infractions. After
all, the record of an employee is a rele/ant consideration in determining the
penalty that should be meted out since an employeeLs past misconduct and present
beha/ior must be ta?en together in determining the proper imposable penalty2.3
1espite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit
misconduct and e(hibit undesirable beha/ior on board. Indeed, the employer
cannot be compelled to retain a misbeha/ing employee, or one +ho is guilty of
acts inimical to its interests.
''
2''3 -Citations omitted.


*his Court cannot condone the petitioner<s attempt to belittle his habitual tardiness and
absenteeism as these are manifestation of lac? of initiati/e, diligence and discipline that are
'&2'&3 ,.R. o. ';';5&, October ';, $&&7, %65 SCRA %;6.
''2''3 Id. at %7')%7$.
ad/erse to ,raphics, Inc.<s interest. In Challenge $oc!s Corporation v. Court of (ppeals,
'$
2'$3
this Court said that it reflects an indifferent attitude to and lac? of moti/ation in +or?. It is
inimical to the general producti/ity and business of the employer. *his is especially true +hen it
occurred freEuently and repeatedly +ithin an e(tensi/e period of time and despite se/eral
+arnings.


*his Court cannot li?e+ise agree to the petitioner<s attempt to brush aside his refusal to
render o/ertime +or? as inconseEuential +hen ,raphics, Inc.<s order for him to do so is =ustified
by ,raphics, Inc.<s contractual commitments to its clients. Such an order is legal under Article
75 of the :abor Code and the petitioner<s une(plained refusal to obey is insubordination that
merits dismissal from ser/ice.

*he petitioner harped on the improper moti/ations of ,raphics, Inc. in ordering his
dismissal, primary of +hich +as the complaint he filed before the 1epartment of :abor and
!mployment that e/entually led to the finding of /iolations of la+s on labor standards and ta(
regulations. >o+e/er, the petitioner fails to con/ince that he is not the incorrigible employee
portrayed by the e/idence presented by the respondents. *he petitioner does not deny that he had
been habitually tardy and absent and continued being so e/en after he had been +arned and
thereafter suspended. either does he deny that he refused to render o/ertime +or? and that
,raphics, Inc. had a legally acceptable reason for reEuiring him to do so. *he petitioner can only
argue that his refusal is not tantamount to +illful disobedience, +hich of course, is disagreeable.
In fact, the petitioner<s refusal despite ?no+ledge that his regular presence at +or? and e(tended
hours thereat on some occasions +ere necessary for ,raphics, Inc. to meet its obligations to its
clients does not only suggest +illfulness on his part but e/en bad faith. On the other hand, the
petitioner only proffers a general denial of the claim that ,raphics, Inc. earned the ire of its
clients due to the defecti/e output resulting from the petitioner<s failure to comply +ith the
prescribed +or? standards.

!/en assuming as true the petitioner<s claim that such complaint ga/e rise to ill)feelings
on ,raphics, Inc.<s part, he cannot reasonably and /alidly suggest that the respondents ha/e
stripped themsel/es of the right to dismiss him for his deliberate disobedience and lac? of
discipline in regularly and punctually reporting for +or?.

Gndoubtedly, ,raphics, Inc. complied +ith the substanti/e reEuirements of due process
in effecting employee dismissal. >o+e/er, the same cannot be said insofar as the procedural
'$2'$3 ,.R. o. '6%$67, o/ember 7, $&&%, 0;0 SCRA 9%6.
reEuirements are concerned. In King of Kings Transport, #nc. v. Mamac,
'9
2'93 this Court laid
do+n the manner by +hich the procedural due reEuirements of due process can be satisfied:

*o clarify, the follo+ing should be considered in terminating the ser/ices
of employees:

-'. *he ()rs* +r)**en n!*),e to be ser/ed on the employees should
contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a
directi/e that the employees are gi/en the opportunity to submit their +ritten
e(planation +ithin a reasonable period. KReasonable opportunityK under the
Omnibus Rules means e/ery ?ind of assistance that management must accord to
the employees to enable them to prepare adeEuately for their defense. *his should
be construed as a period of at least fi/e -%. calendar days from receipt of the
notice to gi/e the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them,
consult a union official or la+yer, gather data and e/idence, and decide on the
defenses they +ill raise against the complaint. 8oreo/er, in order to enable the
employees to intelligently prepare their e(planation and defenses, the notice
should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that +ill ser/e
as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge
+ill not suffice. astl), the notice should specifically mention +hich company
rules, if any, are /iolated andMor +hich among the grounds under Art. $7$ is being
charged against the employees.

-$. After ser/ing the first notice, the employers should schedule and
conduct a -ear)n. or ,!n(eren,e +herein the employees +ill be gi/en the
opportunity to: -'. e(plain and clarify their defenses to the charge against themB
-$. present e/idence in support of their defensesB and -9. rebut the e/idence
presented against them by the management. 1uring the hearing or conference, the
employees are gi/en the chance to defend themsel/es personally, +ith the
assistance of a representati/e or counsel of their choice. 8oreo/er, this
conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an
amicable settlement.

-9. After determining that termination of employment is =ustified, the
employers shall ser/e the employees a +r)**en n!*),e !( *er/)na*)!n indicating
that: -'. all circumstances in/ol/ing the charge against the employees ha/e been
consideredB and -$. grounds ha/e been established to =ustify the se/erance of their
employment.
'0
2'03


'92'93 ,.R. o. '66$&7, 4une $5, $&&;, %$6 SCRA ''6.
'02'03 Id. at '$%)'$6.
As correctly obser/ed by the CA, ,raphics, Inc. failed to afford the petitioner +ith a
reasonable opportunity to be heard and defend itself. An administrati/e hearing set on the same
day that the petitioner recei/ed the memorandum and the t+enty)four -$0. N hour period for him
to submit a +ritten e(planation are far from being reasonable.

Hurthermore, there is no indication that ,raphics, Inc. issued a second notice, informing
the petitioner of his dismissal. *he respondents admit that ,raphics, Inc. decided to terminate
the petitioner<s employment after he ceased reporting for +or? from the time he recei/ed the
memorandum reEuiring him to e(plain and subseEuent to his failure to submit a +ritten
e(planation. >o+e/er, there is nothing on record sho+ing that ,raphics, Inc. placed its decision
to dismiss in +riting and that a copy thereof +as sent to the petitioner.

otably, the respondents do not Euestion the findings of the CA. *he respondents chose
not to con/ince this Court other+ise by not filing an appeal, +hich reasonably suggests that
,raphics, Inc.<s failure to comply +ith the procedural reEuirements of due process is admitted.

onetheless, +hile the CA finding that the petitioner is entitled to nominal damages as
his right to procedural due process +as not respected despite the presence of =ust causes for his
dismissal is affirmed, this Court finds the CA to ha/e erred in fi(ing the amount that the
Company is liable to pay. *he CA should ha/e ta?en cogni@ance of the numerous cases decided
by this Court +here the amount of nominal damages +as fi(ed at P9&,&&&.&& if the dismissal +as
for a =ust cause. One of such cases is (ga'on v. &ational a'or Relations Commission,
'%
2'%3 on
+hich the CA relied in the Assailed 1ecision and +as reiterated in Genuino v. &ational Relations
Commission
'6
2'63 as follo+s:

In /ie+ of Citiban?Ls failure to obser/e due process, ho+e/er, nominal
damages are in order but the amount is hereby raised to PhP 9&,&&& pursuant to
(ga'on v. &RC. *he :RCLs order for payroll reinstatement is set aside.

In (ga'on, +e e(plained:

*he /iolation of the petitionersL right to statutory due
process by the pri/ate respondent +arrants the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal damages. *he amount of such
damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, ta?ing
'%2'%3 ,.R. o. '%7659, o/ember ';, $&&0, 00$ SCRA %;9.
'62'63 ,.R. os. '0$;9$)99, 1ecember 0, $&&;, %95 SCRA 90$.
into account the rele/ant circumstances. Consi%ering the
prevailing circumstances in the case at 'ar, *e %eem it proper to
fi+ it at ,P-./,///.//. De belie/e this form of damages +ould
ser/e to deter employers from future /iolations of the statutory due
process rights of employees. At the /ery least, it pro/ides a
/indication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the
latter under the :abor Code and its Implementing Rules.

*hus, the a+ard of PhP %,&&& to ,enuino as indemnity for non)obser/ance
of due process under the CALs 8arch 9', $&&& Resolution in CA),.R. SP o.
%'%9$ is increased to PhP 9&,&&&.
';
2';3


WHERE0ORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. *he 1ecision of the
Court of Appeals in CA),.R. SP o. '&65$7 is A00IRMED +ith MODI0ICA&ION in that
respondent e+ Age ,raphics, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay petitioner Billy 8. Realda nominal
damages in the amount of *hirty *housand Pesos -P9&,&&&.&&..

SO ORDERED.




BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate 4ustice


WE CONCR'


';2';3 Id. at 96$)969, citing (ga'on v. &RC, ,.R. o. '%7659, o/ember ';, $&&0, 00$
SCRA %;9, 6';.


AN&ONIO &. CARPIO
Associate 4ustice
Chairperson




AR&RO D. BRION
Associate 4ustice
JOSE POR&GAL PERE1
Associate 4ustice





MARIA LORDES P. A. SERENO
Associate 4ustice


A & & E S & A & I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the abo/e Resolution had been reached in consultation
before the case +as assigned to the +riter of the opinion of the Court<s 1i/ision.




AN&ONIO &. CARPIO
Associate 4ustice
Chairperson, Second 1i/ision


C E R & I 0 I C A & I O N

Pursuant to Section '9, Article AIII of the Constitution and the 1i/ision ChairpersonLs
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the abo/e Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case +as assigned to the +riter of the opinion of the Court<s 1i/ision.




RENA&O C. CORONA
Chief 4ustice