Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
ND
2 Floor Hectan Commercial Building,
National Highway, Bara (Chipeco Avenue),
Calamba City, Laguna

ARMANDO RAMOS AND ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS,


Complainants,
NLRC Case No. RAB12233452014
-versusGOODLUCKY NICOLAS,
Respondent,
DECISION
THE CHARGE
Information filed the Regional Arbitration Branch IV by the complainants,
Armando Ramos and Elizabeth Cruz-Ramos1, against the respondent, Goodlucky
Nicolas2. NICOLAS is alleged to have violated the Labor Code by levying unjust
salary deductions on the spouses and by imposing the aforesaid deductions without
due process.

FACTS
Based on the complaint and answers filed, the undisputed facts are as follows:
Nicolas owns Pollo Farm a chicken farm in Balayan, Batangas established in
2004. Marlon Perez3 manages the farm as the main caretaker. It is comprised of five
chicken coops. Each coop houses 100 chickens and is tended to by two employees.
Hereafter, spouses
Hereafter, Nicolas
3 Hereafter, Perez
1
2

The spouses are employees in Pollo Farm since 2011. They are assigned to
Coop No. 1, the first coop built in the farm. The spouses' tasks are to maintain the
coop, tend to the chickens, count them at the end of each day and keep a record of it.
They each receive a salary of P10,000 per month which help in sustaining their
eight minor children.
On October 3, 2013, Perez, because of the insistence of the spouses, informed
Nicolas that the chicken coops, especially Coop No. 1, need major repairs. However,
Nicolas stated that major repairs to the coops would be done in the following year.
As a result, the spouses were only able to make minor repairs using available
materials in the farm.
Continuous forewarnings from the news were broadcasted about the
Typhoon Haiyan On November 8, 2013, Typhoon Haiyan (hereinafter, Yolanda') hit
the Philippines. Batangas was one of the severely hit provinces in Luzon. The strong
winds brought by Yolanda blew away the roof of Coop No. 1.
When the roof of Coop No. 1 was blown off by the wind, the spouses tried to
evacuate the chickens to the other coops but by then, twenty had been blown by the
wind. The other coops received damage as well but only Coop No. 1 lost its roof to
the typhoon.
After the storm has passed, Perez arranged the rebuilding of coop No. 1. After
sometime, the chickens from Coop No. 1 started dying and were diagnosed with
ascites a condition that is caused by cold temperatures during brooding.
Perez informed Nicolas about the situation of his farm. When it was time to
receive the salary, only 5,000 pesos were given to the spouses from the usual salary
of 10,000 pesos. Thus, a complaint was made against the Labor Arbiter.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION


This court admits the validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution:
I.
Testimonial Evidence:
This court admits the validity of he Affidavit of Marlon Perez4 and confirms
that he is indeed the caretaker of the Pollo Farm when the typhoon hit Batangas. We
also confirmed that there were five chicken coops and the spouses Armando and
Elizabeth Ramos were in charge of taking care of the Chicken of Coop 1.
The affidavit of Mr. Perez complements the statement made by the spouses in
their Joint Affidavit5. This confirms the fact that they were employees of the Pollo
Farm and their salaries were deducted after the storm. This affidavit also confirms
that the spouses did indeed warn Mr. Perez about the roof of Coop 1 and the need to
repair it prior to the storm.
The testimony coming from Dr. Garcias Affidavit 6 that the chickens
contracted a disease called ascites due to the cold temperatures caused by the
typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda).

II.

Documentary Evidence:

The Report on the Physical Damages7 on the coop after the storm confirms
that only Coop No. 1 was heavily damaged by the storm. This is due to the
weakness of the Coop as stated in the earlier affidavits of the witnesses. As
stated, only minor repairs were made so it was obvious that such instability from
the coop may result into heavy damages when a storm comes.

A copy of Marlon Perezs affidavit is marked as Exhibit A; Statements 1 and 2


A copy of the affidavit is marked as Exhibit B
6 A copy of the affidavit is marked as Exhibit C.
7 Exhibit D.
4
5

The payrolls8 show that the salaries of the spouses were always 10,000
pesos a month for each of them. However, after the storm has passed, they were
only given 5,000 pesos9 each. This deduction has caused a lot of distress from
their family because they were not even warned.
Lastly, the pictures of dead chickens from the ruins of Coop 1 were
captured in Exhibit G. This evidence from the complainant is a very graphic
representation of what happened after the storm. This court has noticed that the
damages of coop 1 could have been avoided if major repairs were made prior to
the storm.

EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE

I.

Documentary Evidence:

The defense presented a news report about the Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda)10.
The report said that there would be a storm and that people should prepare. We find
this evidence insufficient because even if the said typhoon is foreseeable it is
definitely unavoidable.
The defendant also presented a contract 11 stipulating the relationship
between the employee and employer. Such contract stipulated a penal clause which
provides for an automatic deduction of the salaries upon payroll for damages caused
by the employees provided that the employees are negligent on their part and such
negligence is proven.

ISSUES
The issues in the case at bar are:
Exhibit F
Exhibit E
10 Exhibit 1
11 Exhibit 2
8
9

I
Whether or not there is valid deduction on the part of the employer?

As a general rule, the law provides that the deduction of wages in not
allowed12 except when the Secretary of Labor provides a regulation that would
govern the deduction of the salary of the employee. This regulation is implemented
under Section 14, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Implementing Rules of the
Labor Code13
The complainant alleged that there was no valid deduction based on the
Omnibus rules of Labor14. A salary deduction for incurred losses or damages may be
implemented by employers, if preceded with the following requisites: 1) the
business has a recognized practice of making deductions; 2) the employees agree to
the terms of the salary deduction; 3) that before a salary deduction may be effected,
a process involving the establishment of the employees fault must be followed.
According to the complainant, Nicolas did not comply with the conditions set
forth in Section 14, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Rules for implementing salary
deductions. As the facts had shown, Nicolas unilaterally deducted P5,000 each from
the salaries of the spouses. By doing so: (1) the spouses were not given a reasonable
opportunity to show cause why no deduction should be made in their salaries; (2)
the amount of the deduction is half of their earnings for a month which is neither
fair nor reasonable as it exceeds the 20 percent limit provided by the Omnibus
Rules; and (3) the responsibility of the spouses was not clearly shown.
The defendants, on the other hand, disagree. According to the defendants,
there was a contract15 entered into by the parties that in case there was a violation

Art. 113, Labor Code


Hereafter, Omnibus Rules
14 Section 14, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Implementing Rules of the Labor Code
15 Exhibit 2, Penal Clause
12
13

of the provision of the contract and if there was negligence that might result into
damages, there would be a deduction of the salary.
Furthermore, such penal clause as stipulated in the contract is valid for such
is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. 16 The
deductions from the salaries of the spouses are valid as it can only be enforced when
it is demandable17. The penalty in the present case can be enforced because it is
already demandable.
We find that there was no valid deduction on the part of the defendant
Nicolas. The contention of the complainant is meritorious while the arguments of
the defendants are untenable.
As general rule18, deductions are not allowed except when the Labor
Secretary provides a regulation. There was a regulation implemented by the Labor
Secretary but the defendant did not comply on the requirement provided on it. The
defendant did not present any evidence that indicates that the deduction is allowed
under the practice of their business. Therefore, THERE WAS NO VALID DEDUCTION
on the part of the employer Nicolas.
The contract between the parties is not applicable because it is contrary to
law based on Article 1306 of the Civil Code. The said contract is contrary to Article
115 of the Labor Code and the Omnibus Rules that states that deductions are
generally not allowed except if it is the custom of the business to provide deduction
and when there are regulations set forth by the Labor Secretary. Therefore, we find
that the said part of the contract is void.

16Article

1306 of the New Civil Code.


Article 1226 paragraph 2 of the New Civil Code
18 Art. 115, Labor Code
17

II
Whether or not there was a fortuitous event?
According to the plaintiff, there was a fortuitous event. A fortuitous event is
an event which could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.19
In Southeastern College, Inc. v Court of Appeals20 where the schools roof was blown
away by typhoon Saling and ended up causing damage to the roof of a nearby
house, the Court stated that There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a
fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable
despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care.
In the case at bar, the spouses employed diligence in their jobs and the deaths
of the chickens were a natural consequence of Yolanda. The spouses tended to the
chickens even during the storm and tried to evacuate them from the roofless coop.
After the storm, the spouses still exercised the same degree of diligence they usually
give to their jobs.
According to the defendant there was NO fortuitous event. The occurrence of
a fortuitous event would generally exempt a person from any liability. However, a
person would be exempted from any liability due to a fortuitous event provided that
such requisites concur:
1. The cause of the breach of the obligations must be independent of
the will of the debtor
2. The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable
3. The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfil his obligation in a normal manner.

19
20

Juan Nakpil and Sons v. CA, 144 SCRA 596 (1986)


G.R. No. 126389 July 10, 1998

4. The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of,
the injury to the

creditor.21

Under the present circumstances, clearly none of these requisites exist. The
breach of the obligation is not independent of the will of the spouses, but primarily,
the spouses caused the breach: their negligence which caused the roof of the coop
to be blown away. Furthermore, the fortuitous event is not unforeseeable or
unavoidable. Consequently, the happening of the typhoon did not render it
impossible for the spouses to fulfil their obligation as they themselves showed that
though the typhoon was happening, they were still able to tend to the chickens.
Lastly, through the negligence of the spouses, they were the ones who caused the
injury to which Nicolas suffered. Therefore, the spouses cannot claim exemption
from any liability for the damage done by claiming the existence of a fortuitous
event.
In addition, the defendants claimed that there were news reports 22 about the
said typhoon a few days prior to the actual typhoon. This would give the spouses
enough time to prepare for the storm and reinforce the chicken coops.,
We believe, however, that there was a fortiuitous event. Even though the
typhoon was foreseeable, it is clearly unavoidable and inevitable that no amount of
preparation can stop the destruction of the chicken coops. Hence, we find that the
Spouses were not guilty of negligence.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the court hereby find respondent, Goodlucky Nicolas guilty of unwarranted
labor practice; and order respondent to pay complainants actual damages of P10,000 for
the salary deducted and P20,000 for moral and exemplary damages and award P5,00

21Juan
22

Nakpil and Sons v. CA, 144 SCRA 596 (1986)


Exhibit, 1

EXHIBIT A
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
2nd Floor Hectan Commercial Building,
National Highway, Bara (Chipeco Avenue),
Calamba City, Laguna

ARMANDO RAMOS AND ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS,


Complainants,
-versusNLRC Case No. RAB12233452014
(Hon. Hearing Officer Generoso V. Santos)
GOODLUCKY NICOLAS,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x
(FOR COMPLAINANT)

AFFIDAVIT OF MARLON PEREZ


This Affidavit of Marlon Gener Perez is executed to serve as his narration of facts in the
instant case.
This Affidavit is being offered to prove:
A. All the allegations in the Complaint including all annexes appended thereto
and which were already marked as exhibits;
B. All other related matters, facts and circumstances relevant and material to
this case.
This Affidavit was taken at Baylon, Flores and Associates Law Firm at Unit 522, 5th
Floor One Archers Place, Taft Ave., Malate, Manila.
The affiant fully understands that this affidavit is to be used as evidence for the present
case. He was instructed by Atty. Rebecca Flores to narrate the events relevant to the case. The
statements were given in Filipino and the corresponding translations are as follow:

I, MARLON GENER PEREZ , Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Flordeliza


Hernandez-Perez, and a resident of Brgy. Malaya, Balayan, Batangas, after having been duly
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. I work as the main caretaker in a chicken farm Pollo Farm owned by Mr. Goodlucky
Nicolas (hereafter, Mr. Nicolas) since it was established in 2004.
2. Pollo Farm has five chicken coops. Each coop houses 500 chickens and is tended by
two employees.
3. Armando Ramos and Elizabeth Cruz-Ramos (hereafter, spouses Ramos) are employees
of Pollo Farm. Their tasks are to tend to the chickens, count them at the end of each
day, keep a record of it and maintain Coop No. 1 the oldest coop in the farm.

4. On October 3, 2013, because of the insistence of the spouses Ramos, I informed Mr.
Nicolas of the major repairs that are required to maintain the chicken coops, especially
those for Coop No. 1. However, Mr. Nicolas stated that major repairs will be done in the
following year. I informed the spouses Ramos of Mr. Nicolas statement.
5. On November 8, 2013, Typhoon Yolanda hit Batangas causing the roof of Coop No. 1 to
be blown away.
6. On November 10, 2013, I informed Mr. Nicolas of the destruction of the farm due to the
typhoon. He instructed me to hire workers to repair all the coops.
7. On November 11, 2013, I called in workers to rebuild the coops, especially, Coop No. 1.
Chickens in Coop No. 1 were temporarily relocated to a small division in Coop No. 2.
8. On November 12, 2013, the spouses Ramos informed me that the chickens they are
tending to, are dying. I called Dr. Edmundo Garcia, the veterinarian, to check the
chickens. Dr. Edmundo Garcia informed me that the chickens contracted some form of
virus called, Ascites.
9. On November 28, 2013, I went to Manila to report to Mr. Nicolas the state of the farm:
major repairs are being done after the storm and many chickens died, specifically, Coop
No. 1 lost all its chickens.
10. On November 30, 2013, a messenger from Manila came to the farm to deliver the salary
of the employees. He informed me that deductions were made from the salary of the
employees. I asked him why and he told me to talk to Mr. Nicolas about it. I called Mr.
Nicolas to inquire and he said that the deductions are to compensate for the loss and
damages incurred by the farm. I handed the employees their salaries per the payroll.
The spouses Ramos, according to the payroll, are to receive Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000) each. The spouses asked me about the salary deduction and relayed to them
what Mr. Nicolas said. I told them that I was not aware of it until the payroll was sent,
so I told them to speak with Mr. Nicolas to clarify the salary deduction.
Further Affiant sayeth none.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 26th day of
February, 2014 in Balayan, Batangas, Philippines.

MARLON GENER
PEREZ
(Signature of Affiant over
Printed Name)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 26th day of February, 2014, by MARLON
PEREZ who exhibited to me his CTC No. 254321 issued on January 21, 2014 at Balayan,
Batangas.

Doc. No. 53
Page No. 2;
Book No. 1;

Notary Public

EXHIBIT B
Series of 2014.

Republic of the Philippines


Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
2nd Floor Hectan Commercial Building,
National Highway, Bara (Chipeco Avenue),
Calamba City, Laguna
ARMANDO RAMOS AND ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS,
Complainants,
-versusNLRC Case No. RAB12233452014
(Hon. Hearing Officer Generoso V. Santos)
GOODLUCKY NICOLAS,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF ARMANDO RAMOS AND


ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS
This Joint Affidavit of Armando Ramos and Elizabeth Cruz-Ramos is executed to serve
as their narration of facts in the instant case.
This Affidavit is being offered to prove:
C. All the allegations in the Complaint including all annexes appended thereto
and which were already marked as exhibits;
D. All other related matters, facts and circumstances relevant and material to
this case.
This Affidavit was taken at Baylon, Flores and Associates Law Firm at Unit 522, 5th
Floor One Archers Place, Taft Ave., Malate, Manila:
The affiants fully understand that this affidavit is to be used as evidence for the present
case. They was instructed by Atty. Rebecca Flores to narrate the events relevant to the case.
The statements were given in Filipino and the corresponding translations are as follow:
We, ARMANDO RAMOS AND ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS, Filipino citizens, of legal
ages, and residents of Brgy. Malaya, Balayan, Batangas, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
11. We are married and have eight minor children.
12. We work as coop caretakers in Pollo Farm, a poultry farm owned by Mr. Goodlucky
Nicolas (hereafter, Mr. Nicolas), since 2011. Since we were hired, our monthly salaries
had always been Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) each.
13. Pollo Farm has five chicken coops. Each coop houses 500 chickens and is tended to by
two employees. We are assigned to Coop No. 1 the oldest coop in the farm. Our tasks
are to tend to the chickens, count them at the end of each day, keep a record of it and
maintain the coop.
14. On October 2, 2013, we insisted to Mr. Marlon Perez (hereafter, Mr. Perez), the main
caretaker of the farm, that major repairs be done to the coops, especially, Coop No. 1 as
its roof is leaking and the woods that hold the coop together are infested with termites.

15. The next day, Mr. Perez informed us that Mr. Nicolas intends to make major repairs
next year. As a result, we were only made minor repairs such as covering the leaking
parts of the roof with whatever extra materials are available in the farm.
16. On November 8, 2013, Typhoon Haiyan, also known as Yolanda, hit Batangas causing
the roof of Coop No. 1 to be blown away. The other coops sustained damages as well but
only Coop No. 1s roof was blown by the typhoon. We tried to move the chickens we are
tending to, to the other coops, however, while moving them, the strong winds blew
twenty chickens away.
17. On November 11, 2013, workers were called to rebuild the coops, especially, Coop No.
1. We relocated the chickens, originally in Coop No. 1, to a small division in Coop No. 2
and continued tending to them.
18. On November 12, 2013, we noticed that the chickens were suddenly dropping dead.
We informed Mr. Perez that the chickens were dying. He called Dr. Edmundo Garcia,
the visiting veterinarian, to check the chickens. Dr. Edmundo Garcia diagnosed the
chickens with Ascites.
19. On November 30, 2013, we went to Mr. Perez to claim our salaries for the month of
November. He handed us Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) each, half of our regular salary.
We were surprised to receive the deducted salary. We asked him the reason for the
deduction and he told us that Mr. Nicolas said that it was for the loss and damages
incurred by the farm. He also told us to speak directly to Mr. Nicolas to clarify the
deductions as he was not aware of it prior to receiving the payroll.
20. On December 2, 2013, Mr. Nicolas visited the farm to check on the repairs. We told him
that the damages were not our fault; that Coop No. 1 needed major repairs before the
storm and that was the reason why it did not withstand the storm. He told us that we
were negligent and that we should have ensured the sturdiness of the coop. Thus, we,
us and him, should shoulder the damages together.
21. In December, due to the sudden diminishment in our income, our eight children were
not able to go to school for two weeks. Moreover, we were not able to celebrate
Christmas the way we usually do because we did not have the money for it.
Further Affiants sayeth none.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto affixed my signature this 26th day of
February, 2014 in Balayan, Batangas, Philippines.

ARMANDO RAMOS and ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS


(Signature of Affiants over Printed Name)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 26th day of February, 2014, by ARMANDO
RAMOS and ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS who exhibited to me their CTCs No. 253262 issued
on January 18, 2014 at Balayan, Batangas and No. 234698 issued on January 18, 2014 at
Balayan, Batangas, respectively.

Notary Public
Doc No. 52;

EXHIBIT C

Page No. 2;
Book No. 1;
Series of 2014.

Republic of the Philippines


Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
2nd Floor Hectan Commercial Building,
National Highway, Bara (Chipeco Avenue),
Calamba City, Laguna

ARMANDO RAMOS AND ELIZABETH CRUZ-RAMOS,


Complainants,
-versusNLRC Case No. RAB12233452014
(Hon. Hearing Officer Generoso V. Santos)
GOODLUCKY NICOLAS,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x
(FOR COMPLAINANT)

AFFIDAVIT OF EDMUNDO GARCIA


This Affidavit of Edmundo Chan Garcia is executed to serve as his narration of facts in
the instant case.
This Affidavit is being offered to prove:
E. All the allegations in the Complaint including all annexes appended thereto
and which were already marked as exhibits;
F. All other related matters, facts and circumstances relevant and material to
this case.
This Affidavit was taken at Baylon, Flores and Associates Law Firm at Unit 522, 5th
Floor One Archers Place, Taft Ave., Malate, Manila.
The affiant fully understands that this affidavit is to be used as evidence for the present
case. He was instructed by Atty. Rebecca Flores to narrate the events relevant to the case. The
statements were given in Filipino and the corresponding translations are as follow:

I, Edmundo Chan Garcia, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Maria Victoria ReyesGarcia , and a resident of Brgy. Masaya, Balayan, Batangas, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

22. I am a licensed veterinarian (License No. 212-2346). I specialize in treating farm


animals. I work as a visiting veterinarian for ten animal farms in Balayan, Batangas
including Pollo Farm owned by Mr. Goodlucky Nicolas.
23. I visit Pollo Farm every first Monday of the month to check on the poultry and to ensure
that the chickens are receiving proper vitamins and supplements.
24. On November 4 2013, I visited Pollo Farm. In my professional opinion, the chickens
were well rested and receiving proper care.
25. On November 12, 2013, Mr. Marlon Perez called me to visit the farm as the coop
caretakers noticed the chickens are suddenly dying. I went to check on the chickens
immediately. When I arrived, thirty chickens in Coop No.1 were bluish and dead. I
examined the dead chickens and learned that they have contracted Ascites.

Ascites occurs due to stress on the cardiopulmonary system, and is


characterized by a build-up of fluid in the abdomen of the bird. This illness can be
caused by rapid growth, cold temperatures during brooding, high altitudes, excess
dietary salt levels and/or genetic factors. The symptoms include laboured and gaspy
breathing sounds. Sometimes, they also die without any obvious symptoms.
Considering their healthy state a few days prior, the chickens in Pollo Farm contracted
ascites due to the sudden cold temperature brought by the typhoon.
26. After careful examination, I learned that the remaining chickens in Coop No. 1
contracted ascites, as well. I told Mr. Perez and the caretakers of Coop No. 1 that those
chickens left, even if they survived, are inedible. Mr. Perez insisted that medications be
given as they may still lay eggs. I gave medication to the chickens, however, days later I
was informed by Mr. Perez that the other chickens in Coop No. 1 died as well.
Further Affiant sayeth none.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 26th day of
February, 2014 in Balayan, Batangas, Philippines.

EDMUNDO CHAN GARCIA


(Signature of Affiant over Printed Name)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 26th day of February, 2014, by MARLON
PEREZ who exhibited to me his CTC No. 907654 issued on January 6, 2014 at Balayan,
Batangas.

Notary Public
Doc. No. 54:
Page No. 2;
Book No. 1;
Series of 2014.

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E
Figure 1: Page 1 of 2

Figure 2: Page 2 of 2

NOVEMBER 2013 PAYROLL SHEET

EXHIBIT F
JULY 2013 PAYROLL SHEET 1

AUGUST 2013 PAYROLL SHEET

SEPTEMBER 2013 PAYROLL SHEET

OCT
OBE
R
2013
PAY
ROL
L
SHE
ET

EXHIBIT G

Figure 2: Dead Chickens of Chicken Coop #1

Figure 1: Roofless Chicken Coop #1 after typhoon Yolanda

Exhibit 1
Typhoon Nears Philippines
By DJ Yap, Philippine Daily Inquirer
Inquirer Southern Luzon, Inquirer Visayas
12:00 am | Sunday, November 3rd, 2013

STORM COMING. Tropical Storm Haiyan, is forecast to make landfall in the area by
Friday afternoon. Particularly to hit several provinces in Luzon. It will be named
Yolanda when it enters the Philippine area of responsibility. DOST-PAGASA MAP

Possible typhoon may hit PHL on Friday


By EARL VICTOR L. ROSERO, GMA News November 3, 2013 7:25am

Weather forecasters have advised residents of the provinces of Luzon, particularly


Batangas to prepare for a cyclone approaching from the east that may have the makings
of a typhoon.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi