Solicitor General, in his Comment before the CA, even noted that the defenses presented by the petitioner were not touched in the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and suggested that there is a need to remand the case back to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings on the factual issue of whether respondent is entitled to her monetary claims.    Fourth, it submits that the CA misapplied the rule on caveat emptor; that the rule is inapplicable to labor employment contracts which are imbued with public interest and subservient to the police power of the State.    Fifth, it maintains that the CA disregarded the doctrine of stare decisis in the light of the Court’s ruling on January 14, 1998in G.R. No. 130953 entitled Lilibeth Lazaga v. National Labor Relations Commission[24] where the Court sustained the NLRC’s dismissal for lack of merit of an identical complaint for unpaid monetary claims of respondent’s co-worker in Philips.   In her Comment,[25] respondent alleges that the instant petition merits outright dismissal for being filed out of time since petitioner admitted that its counsel on record, Atty. Ricardo C. Orias, Jr., received copy of the CA Resolution dated January 7, 2000on January 25, 2000 and the petition was filed only on May 5, 2000 or 101 days late.  Respondent submits that the argument that the filing of the petition was delayed because the notice of withdrawal of Atty. Orias, Jr. was not filed on time with the CA by the petitioner as it is not adept to legal intricacies is but a tactical ploy to delay the case and avoid payment of its monetary liability.  At any rate, respondent insists that the arguments raised in the petition have already been raised and squarely resolved by the NLRC and the CA.