Back

Manly Express Inc., et al. vs. Romualdo Payong, Jr.

MANLY EXPRESS INC. and SIU ENG T. CHING, Petitioners, versus ROMUALDO PAYONG, JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 167462 | 2005-10-25

D E C I S I O N 


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: 

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the November 22, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals[1] in CA-G.R. SP No. 83800, as well as the February 28, 2005 Resolution[2] denying the motion for partial reconsideration. 

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows: 

The simple relevant facts of the case show that petitioners Hercules Balena and Romualdo Payong, Jr. were employed by Manly Express, Inc. and/or Siy Eng T. Ching on different dates, as tour coordinator (dispatcher) and welder, respectively. 

Balena alleged that...