6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [42] Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 89, 95 (1996). [43] 740 Phil. 403, 421-423 (2014). [44] Venzon v. ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 213934, November 9, 2016. [45] Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., G.R. No. 207838, January 25, 2017. [46] Rollo, pp. 243-245. [47] Id. at 195-201. [48] Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc. v. Bea, 512 Phil. 749, 755 (2005). [49] Jardin v. National Labor Relations Commission, 383 Phil. 187, 198 (2000). [50] Audion Electric Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 367 Phil. 620, 632 (1999). [51] The clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in the fifth paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 was declared unconstitutional in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. (601 Phil. 245, 306 [2009]). The said clause was reinstated only after the promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 on March 8, 2010 (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, supra note 43 at 434). It will not be applied in this case since respondent's employment and dismissal occurred in the years 2003 to 2004. [52] Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 281 (2013). [53] Fifth paragraph, Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. [54] Building Care Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 335 Phil. 1131, 1139 (1997); United Phil. Lines, Inc. v. Sibug, 731 Phil. 294, 303 (2014). [55] Nacar v. Gallery Frames, supra note 52 at 283. Source: Supreme Court E-Library This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 27/27