Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Morales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of separation NLRC RULING: NLRC reversed and set aside the Decision finding
pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees that Metrobank validly implemented the HRP on a nationwide scale
alleging that, despite being an organic member of the Rizal Avenue in connection with the SSP, the NLRC ruled that Morales
Branch, he was assigned to Metrobanks Zamora St. Branch in view termination in accordance therewith belied the latters claim that he
of his having signed a petition against the driver of the armored car was arbitrarily singled out for dismissal from service. Given that the
who was eventually dismissed. With his actions suddenly closely reserve pool in Visayas Region III was overstaffed, Morales was
watched and blown out of proportion, Morales claimed that he legitimately terminated in view of his poor work performance and
started receiving directives for him to explain his unauthorized negative attitude which, at one point, gravely jeopardized the
absences and out of town allowances which, far from being operations of the branch to which he was temporarily assigned.
infractions, were simply the results of miscommunication and that he Applying the general rule that the characterization of an employees
was arbitrarily singled out for termination, he was supposedly forced services as redundant is a management prerogative which should not
to sign the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim by Mariano who be interfered with absent showing of abuse, the NLRC also upheld
embarrassed him by announcing that his services had already been the validity of the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim on the ground that
terminated and that he was no longer required to report for work. the P158,496.95 Morales received represented a reasonable
settlement of his claims.
Metrobank averred that it had adopted the SSP since 1995 as a way
of addressing worsening economic conditions and stiff competition CA Ruling: Upheld the validity of Morales termination from
with strategies designed to make its operations efficient but cost- employment, the CA discounted the grave abuse of discretion
effective. Towards said end, it claimed to have embarked on a major imputed against the NLRC for ruling that Metrobanks redundancy
component of SSP called the Headcount Rationalization Program program legitimately entailed reduction of its workforce to make it
(HRP) which, taking into consideration the volume of its transactions more responsive to the actual demands and necessities of its
vis-vis the massive computerization and automation of its operating business. Considering that Abigail Perez was hired as a clerk on a
systems, targeted the reduction of its existing workforce by 10% by permanent status for the banks Ormoc Branch, the CA also ruled that
the end of 2003. Among the areas where the HRP was conducted was said employee could not be considered as Morales replacement.
Visayas Region III which was directed to reduce the manpower of its Finding that Metrobank complied with the notice requirement under
13 branches spread out in three provinces by 15 employees. Affected Article 283 of the Labor Code, the CA ultimately sustained the
was its eight-man reserve pool which was composed of former validity of the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim executed by Morales.
Issue: W/N the termination on the grounds of redundancy of Morales As evidence of the bad faith which supposedly attended his
is valid (YES) termination from service, Morales argues that his promotion in April
2003 should have excluded him from the coverage of the SSP. Aside
Ruling: Petition is denied. from the fact that his promotion rendered his position less cost-
effective, however, Morales loses sight of the fact that it was
Ratio: precisely his work performance subsequent to his promotion
which was cited by Metrobank as reason for his inclusion in the
One of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee, is SSP. In his 19 May 2003 Memorandum, R.D. Barrientos , the Branch
redundancy. Redundancy exists when the service capability of the Manager of Metrobanks Baybay Branch, reported that Morales
workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the caused delay in the processing of over-the-counter transactions on a
demands of the business enterprise. A position is redundant busy Monday when he was absent himself without an approved
when it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions leave. Since it was Morales third absence while he was assigned at
could be the result of a number of factors, such as the overhiring said branch as reliever of an employee who was on maternity leave,
of workers, a decrease in the volume of business or the dropping Barrientos even requested for another reliever on the ground that the
of a particular line or service previously manufactured or risk of losing clients as a consequence of Morales unpredictability
undertaken by the enterprise. which was inimical to the banks interest. Despite being advised
against being absent from work on Mondays and Fridays in view of
Time and again, it has been ruled that an employer has no legal
the expected volume of transactions on said days, it appears,
obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the
however, that Morales obstinately went ahead with his planned
operation of its business.
absence and simply apprised a colleague and the branch security
For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, guard of his decision not to report for work on 19 May 2003.
however, the employer must comply with the following
requisites: Given Morales previous record of not reporting for work for one
whole week without prior leave of absence while assigned as
(1) written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at
reliever in its Borongan, Samar Branch, we find that Metrobank
least one month prior to the intended date of termination of
cannot be faulted for including him in the list of employees
employment;
covered by the SSP. The rule is settled that "the determination
(2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay that the employees services are no longer necessary or
for every year of service; sustainable and, therefore, properly terminable for being
redundant is an exercise of business judgment of the employer.
(3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and
(4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to "While it is true that management may not, under the guise of
be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. invoking its prerogative, ease out employees and defeat their
constitutional right to security of tenure," the wisdom and soundness
Contrary to the first and second errors Morales imputes against the of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary
CA, our perusal of the record shows that Metrobank has more than review unless a violation of law or arbitrary or malicious action is
amply proven compliance with the third and fourth of the above- shown. Against Morales bare assertion that he was arbitrarily and
enumerated requisites for the validity of his termination from service maliciously terminated from service, Metrobank was able to establish
on the ground of redundancy. Under the SSP which Metrobank that its action was based on the fair application of a criterion
adopted in 1995, employees who voluntarily gave up their established in connection with the implementation of a well-thought
employment were paid the amount of separation pay they were redundancy program. For these reasons, we find that the CA cannot
entitled under the law and a premium equivalent to 50%-75% of their be faulted for upholding the NLRCs finding that Morales termination
salaries. It appears that employees "whose work evaluation showed pursuant to the SSP was valid.
consistent poor performance and/or those who had not been Morales next insists that Metrobank failed to comply in good faith
promoted for five years" were also considered primary candidates for with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code
optional separation from service. which allows the employer to terminate the employment of any
In order to meet the challenges of the business and to make its employee due to redundancy by serving a written notice on the
operations efficient and cost effective, however, it was shown that worker and the DOLE at least one (1) month before the intended date
Metrobank further conducted a bank-wide operational review and thereof. Intended to enable the employee to prepare himself for the
study which resulted in the adoption in March 2003 of the HRP, a legal battle to protect his tenure of employment and to find other
major component of the SSP which was designed to reduce its means of employment and ease the impact of the loss of his job and
workforce by 10%. Entailing various initiatives like conversion of his income, said notice requirement is also designed to allow the
regular branches into mini-branches, consolidation of branches, DOLE to ascertain the verity of the cause for the termination.
centralization of loans processing and branch headcount reduction,
the HRP yielded 291 employees who could no longer be redeployed, (2) Coats Manila Bay vs. Purita Ortega, G.R. 172628, 13
fifteen (15) of whom belonged to Visayas Region III. February 2009.
In implementing a redundancy program, it has been ruled that the FACTS: Petitioner, COATS MANILA BAY INC a corporation in
employer is required to adopt a fair and reasonable criteria, taking the country which is primarily engaged in the business of thread
into consideration such factors as: production. Purita M. Ortega and Marina A. Montero (respondents)
(a) preferred status; were both employed by petitioner as Clerk Analysts in the Industrial
(b) efficiency; and Engineering Department were also members of Anglo-KMU
(c) seniority Monthly Union (Union).
…among others. Consistent with this principle, Metrobank The petitioner issued a memorandum announcing that a redundancy
established that, as a direct result of the adoption of the HRP, it was plan would be implemented. It was stated that the redundancy
determined that the volume of transactions in Visayas Region III program was necessary to prevent further losses. Petitioner assured
required the further reduction of its eight-man reserve pool by two its employees that implementing a redundancy program rather than a
employees.28 As these employees had no permanent place of retrenchment program would result in better benefits to those
assignment and merely acted as relievers whenever temporary dismissed. As a result of this redundancy program, 135 employees
vacancies arise in other branches, they were the most logical were terminated, including respondents. On 10 May 2000, petitioner
candidates for inclusion in the SSP. filed with the Department of Labor and Employment its
Establishment Termination Report, indicating that it was terminating
135 of its employees, including respondents, on the ground of employed reasonable criteria in choosing which positions to declare
redundancy. The respondents received their respective separation redundant.
payments and thereafter executed release waivers and quitclaims in
favor of petitioner. In the meantime, 11 of the terminated employees
were rehired by petitioner to different positions but with lower (3) Smart Communications vs. Regina Astorga, G.R. 148132, 28
salaries and afterwhich respondents filed a complaint for illegal January 2008.
dismissal, backwages, reinstatement, vacation/sick leave, 13th month
pay, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation FACTS:
expenses and CBA benefits with the NLRC against petitioner and/or
Respondent Regina M. Astorga (Astorga) was employed by
its Chief Executive Officer Arsenio N. Tanco (Tanco).
respondent SMART on May 8, 1997 as District Sales Manager of
Respondents asserted that despite their dismissal due to redundancy, the Corporate Sales Marketing Group/ Fixed Services Division
their functions were assigned to other workers. They also claimed (CSMG/FSD) with a monthly salary of P33,650.00. She also
that they were constrained to sign the quitclaims and release waivers enjoyed additional benefits, namely, annual performance incentive
due to their pressing need for the separation pay. They further alleged equivalent to 30% of her annual gross salary, a group life and
that as a result of their termination they had suffered humiliation, hospitalization insurance coverage, and a car plan in the amount of
wounded feelings, mental anguish and thus prayed for exemplary and P455,000.00.
morals damages well as attorney’s fees.
In February 1998, SMART launched an organizational realignment
Petitioner and Tanco claimed that they had the management
to achieve more efficient operations. This was made known to the
prerogative to implement a redundancy program as per Article 283 of
employees on February 27, 1998. Said reorganization involved the
the Labor Code. They aver that both respondents were notified that
outsourcing of the marketing and sales force wherein SMART
they would be subject to redundancy and that they never objected
entered into a joint venture agreement with NTT of Japan, and
thereto as shown by the execution of their respective
formed SMART-NTT Multimedia, Incorporated (SNMI). The JV
waivers/quitclaims.
agreement will result to the abolition of Astorga’s CSMG/FSD
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring illegal respondents’ division.
dismissal and directing petitioner to reinstate respondents to their
former positions. Nevertheless, SMART will absorb some of its CSMG personnel
based on performance evaluation (if high ratings – favorably
The petitioner appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the
recommended to SNMI). Although respondent Astorga landed last in
NLRC which was reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and held
the performance evaluation, she was still offered a supervisory
that the dismissal was valid due to redundancy. Respondents moved
position in the Customer Care Department, but she refused the offer
for reconsideration but this was denied by the NLRC. Undaunted,
because the position carried lower salary rank and rate.
respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted their petition, reversed the decision of On March 3, 1998, SMART issued a memo advising Astorga of the
the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter. termination of her employment on ground of redundancy,
ISSUES effective April 3, 1998. Astorga received it on March 16, 1998.
WON the redundancy program was proper and if the employer is So respondent Astorga filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-
required to present evidence of financial losses before employees payment of salaries and other benefits with prayer for moral and
may be terminated on the ground of redundancy? exemplary damages against SMART and Ann Margaret V. Santiago
HELD (Santiago).
The totality of the actions of Coats Manila Bay Inc., shows that the RESPONDENT ASTORGA: Claims that the termination of her
redundancy program was fair, well-thought of, and made in good employment was illegal for it violated her right to security of tenure
faith. There were proper planning and implementation of the and tainted with bad faith. She asserts that the reorganization was
program. Labor Union Group consultation, notices and memos were done in order to get rid of her.
properly executed prior to the effectivity of the program. The proper
monetary benefits were given to all affected employees. She also posited that it was illegal for an employer, like SMART, to
The redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in contract out services which will displace the employees, especially if
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the contractor is an in-house agency.
the enterprise, a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and SMART: It argued that Astorga was dismissed by reason of
superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a redundancy, which is an authorized cause for termination of
number of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume
employment, and the dismissal was effected in accordance with the
of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service requirements of the Labor Code. The termination was valid and a
activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. legitimate exercise of management prerogative. The redundancy
That no other person was holding the same position prior to the of Astorga’s position was the result of the abolition of CSMG and the
termination of one's services, does not show that his position had not creation of a specialized and more technically equipped SNMI.
become redundant. Indeed, in any well-organized business enterprise,
it would be surprising to find duplication of work and two (2) or LA: Favored Astorga. Illegally terminated (reinstate with full
more people doing the work of one person. Just like installation of bwages and other benefits).
labor-saving devices, the ground of redundancy does not require
the exhibition of proof of losses or imminent losses. In fact, of all NLRC: Favored SMART. The abolition of CSMG and the creation
the statutory grounds provided in Article 283 of the Labor Code, of SNMI to do the sales and marketing services for SMART is a
it is only retrenchment which requires proof of losses or possible valid organizational action. The contracting, subcontracting and
losses as justification for termination of employment. The streamlining of operations for the purpose of increasing efficiency
redundancy program was carried out with the full consent and are allowed under the law.
participation of the duly recognized labor union and knew the
standard used in determination who will be included in the CA: Affirming with modification the resolutions of the NLRC. The
redundancy. The Court also held that it is important for a company to reorganization undertaken by SMART resulting in the abolition of
have fair and reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy CSMG was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative. It
program, such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) rejected Astorga’s posturing that her non-absorption into SNMI was
efficiency and (c) seniority. The court was satisfied that petitioner tainted with bad faith. However, the CA found that SMART failed to
comply with the mandatory one-month notice prior to the intended
termination. Accordingly, the CA imposed a penalty equivalent to The reorganization undertaken by SMART is for no purpose other
Astorga’s one-month salary for this non-compliance. than its declared objective – as a labor and cost savings device.
Indeed, this Court finds no fault in SMART’s decision to outsource
ISSUE: the corporate sales market to SNMI in order to attain greater
productivity. [Astorga] belonged to the Sales Marketing Group
WON respondent Astorga was validly dismissed due to redundancy
under the Fixed Services Division (CSMG/FSD), a distinct sales
as a result of SMART’s organizational realignment pursuant to a JV
force of SMART in charge of selling SMART’s telecommunications
agreement.
services to the corporate market. SMART, to ensure it can respond
HELD: quickly, efficiently and flexibly to its customer’s requirement,
abolished CSMG/FSD and shortly thereafter assigned its functions to
YES, she was validly dismissed. The organizational realignment newly-created SNMI Multimedia Incorporated, a joint venture
introduced by SMART, which culminated in the abolition of company of SMART and NTT of Japan, for the reason that
CSMG/FSD and termination of Astorga’s employment was an CSMG/FSD does not have the necessary technical expertise
honest effort to make SMART’s sales and marketing required for the value added services. By transferring the duties of
departments more efficient and competitive and the determination CSMG/FSD to SNMI, SMART has created a more competent and
to outsource the duties performed by Astorga’s division to the JV specialized organization to perform the work required for
agreement was a sound business judgment based on relevant criteria corporate accounts. It is also relieved SMART of all administrative
and is therefore a legitimate exercise of management prerogative. costs – management, time and money-needed in maintaining the
CSMG/FSD. The determination to outsource the duties of the
The nature of redundancy as an authorized cause for dismissal is CSMG/FSD to SNMI was, to Our mind, a sound business judgment
explained in the leading case of Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. National based on relevant criteria and is therefore a legitimate exercise of
Labor Relations Commission, viz: management prerogative.
x x x redundancy in an employer’s personnel force necessarily or SMART’S petition was granted but ordered to pay P50,000.00 as
even ordinarily refers to duplication of work. That no other person imdemnity for non-compliance with the 1-month notice requirement,
was holding the same position that private respondent held prior to separation pay of 1 month pay and her salary from Feb 15, 1998 to
termination of his services does not show that his position had not April 3, 1998. No award of backwages.
become redundant. Indeed, in any well organized business enterprise,
it would be surprising to find duplication of work and two (2) or ________________________________________________
more people doing the work of one person. We believe that
redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the OTHER NOTES:
services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably
SMART FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATED 1 MONTH
demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.
NOTICE
Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superfluous,
and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a The record is clear that Astorga received the notice of termination
number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased only on March 16, 1998 or less than a month prior to its effectivity
volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or on April 3, 1998. Likewise, the Department of Labor and
service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the Employment was notified of the redundancy program only on March
enterprise. 6, 1998.
The characterization of an employee’s services as superfluous or Article 283 of the Labor Code clearly provides:
no longer necessary and, therefore, properly terminable, is an
exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. The Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. —
wisdom and soundness of such characterization or decision is not The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee
subject to discretionary review provided, of course, that a due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy,
violation of law or arbitrary or malicious action is not shown. retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of
operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for
Here, Astorga claims that the termination of her employment was the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving
illegal and tainted with bad faith. She asserts that the reorganization a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
was done in order to get rid of her. But except for her barefaced Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof x
allegation, no convincing evidence was offered to prove it. This x x.
Court finds it extremely difficult to believe that SMART would enter
into a joint venture agreement with NTT, form SNMI and abolish WHY THE WRITTEN NOTICE IS IMPORTANT?
CSMG/FSD simply for the sole purpose of easing out a particular
employee, such as Astorga. Moreover, Astorga never denied that In the written notice, the employees are informed of the specific date
SMART offered her a supervisory position in the Customer Care of the termination, at least a month prior to the effectivity of such
Department, but she refused the offer because the position carried a termination, to give them sufficient time to find other suitable
lower salary rank and rate. If indeed SMART simply wanted to get employment or to make whatever arrangements are needed to
rid of her, it would not have offered her a position in any department cushion the impact of termination. In this case, notwithstanding
in the enterprise. Astorga’s knowledge of the reorganization, she remained uncertain
about the status of her employment until SMART gave her formal
ASTORGA CLAIMS THERE WAS NO COMPELLING ECONOMIC notice of termination. But such notice was received by Astorga
REASON FOR REDUNDANCY barely two (2) weeks before the effective date of termination, a
period very much shorter than that required by law. But still, this
SC: Untenable. An employer is not precluded from adopting a new procedural infirmity would not render the termination of
policy conducive to a more economical and effective management Astorga’s employment illegal. It is well-settled that if the dismissal
even if it is not experiencing economic reverses. Neither does the law is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to
require that the employer should suffer financial losses before he can comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon
terminate the services of the employee on the ground of redundancy. him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect,
initiated by an act imputable to the employee, and (2) if the
WHY SC RULED THAT SUCH REORG REALIGNMENT WAS A
dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but
VALID EXERCISE OF MGT PREROGATIVE
the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the
sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was
initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management
prerogative. So, SC increased the amount of penalty of P50,000.00. lack of work, it necessarily follows that retrenchment did take place
Astorga is also entitled to separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) and not dismissal.
month salary or to at least one (1) month’s pay for every year of Petitioners’ contention: NLRC erred in ruling that there was a valid
service, whichever is higher. The records show that Astorga’s length and legal reduction of business and in sustaining the theory of
of service is less than a year. She is, therefore, also entitled to redundancy in justifying the dismissal of the petitioners
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay.
ISSUE: WON petitioner’s contention, that NLRC erred in ruling
ON THE REPLEVIN CASE FILED BY SMART VS. ASTORGA valid redundancy, is correct?
SMART sent a letter to Astorga demanding that she pay the current Ruling: sNO.
market value of the Honda Civic Sedan which was given to her under The petitioners' first contention is based on a wrong premise or on a
the company’s car plan program, or to surrender the same to the miscomprehension of the statement of the NLRC. What the NLRC
company for proper disposition. Astorga, however, failed and refused sustained and affirmed is not redundancy, but retrenchment as a
to do either, thus prompting SMART to file a suit for replevin with ground for termination of employment. They are not
the RTC. synonymous but distinct and separate grounds under Article 283
of the Labor Code.
Astorga moved to dismiss and argued that the regular courts have no
jurisdiction over the complaint because the subject thereof pertains to Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in
a benefit arising from an employment contract; hence, jurisdiction excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual
over the same is vested in the labor tribunal and not in regular courts. requirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant where it
is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be
SC ruled that the RTC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over the suit the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of
and acted well within its discretion in denying Astorga’s motion to workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a
dismiss. SMART’s demand for payment of the market value of the particular product line or service activity previously
car or, in the alternative, the surrender of the car, is not a labor, but a manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.
civil, dispute. It involves the relationship of debtor and creditor rather Retrenchment, on the other hand, is used interchangeably with the
than employee-employer relations. As such, the dispute falls within term "lay-off." It is the termination of employment initiated by the
the jurisdiction of the regular courts. employer through no fault of the employee's and without prejudice to
the latter, resorted to by management during periods of business
Replevin is a possessory action, the gist of which is the right of
recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during
possession in the plaintiff. The primary relief sought therein is the
lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion
return of the property in specie wrongfully detained by another
of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new
person. It is an ordinary statutory proceeding to adjudicate rights to
methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation. It is an act of
the title or possession of personal property. The question of whether
the employer of dismissing employees because of losses in the
or not a party has the right of possession over the property involved
operation of a business, lack of work, and considerable reduction on
and if so, whether or not the adverse party has wrongfully taken and
the volume of his business.
detained said property as to require its return to plaintiff, is outside
the pale of competence of a labor tribunal and beyond the field of Article 283 of the Labor Code which covers retrenchment speaks of a
specialization of Labor Arbiters. permanent retrenchment as opposed to a temporary lay-off as is the
case here.
There is no specific provision of law which treats of a temporary
(4) Fe Sebuguero vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
retrenchment or lay-off and provides for the requisites in effecting it
G.R. 115394, 27 September 1995.
or a period or duration therefor. These employees cannot forever be
temporarily laid-off. To remedy this situation or fill the hiatus,
FACTS: Petitioners were among the 38 regular employees of GTI Article 286 may be applied but only by analogy to set a specific
Sportswear Corporation, a corporation engaged in the manufacture period that employees may remain temporarily laid-off or in floating
and export of ready-to-wear garments, who were given "temporary status. Six months is the period set by law that the operation of a
lay-off" notices (on 22 January 1991) due to alleged lack of work business or undertaking may be suspended thereby suspending the
and heavy losses caused by the cancellation of orders from employment of the employees concerned. The temporary lay-off
abroad and by the garments embargo of 1990. wherein the employees likewise cease to work should also not last
Believing that their "temporary lay-off" was a ploy to dismiss them, longer than six months. After six months, the employees should
resorted to because of their union activities and was in violation of either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following the
their right to security of tenure since there was no valid ground requirements of the law, and that failing to comply with this would
therefor, the employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair be tantamount to dismissing the employees and the employer would
labor practice, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of overtime thus be liable for such dismissal.
pay and 13th month pay.
Retrenchment is valid but defective for lack of written notice
GTI’s contention: It was its prerogative to lay-off its employees
temporarily for a period not exceeding six months to prevent losses 3 basic requisites for a valid retrenchment:
due to lack of work or job orders from abroad, and that the lay-off (1) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such
affected both union and non-union members. The failure to recall the losses are proven;
38 laid-off employees after the lapse of six months was because of
(2) written notice to the employees and to the Department of
the subsequent cancellations of job orders made by its foreign
Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the
principals, a fact which was communicated to the petitioners and the
intended date of retrenchment; and
other complainants who were all offered severance pay. 22 accepted
the separation pay. The petitioners herein did not. (3) payment of separation pay equivalent to one month pay or
at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is
LA: Valid layoff but GTI is liable for constructive dismissal; Layoff
higher.
should be not more than 6 months, if not recalled and there’ still
valid ground to layoff, extend the period and inform the employees First requisite: present; Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found
but if not possible, company should employ retrenchment and pay that the private respondent was suffering and would continue to
the employees separation pay suffer serious losses, thereby justifying the retrenchment of some of
its employees, including the petitioners. No claim was made by any
NLRC: Affirmed LA but disagreed with backwages in view of
of the parties that such a finding was not supported by substantial
constructive dismissal; No constructive dismissal as since there’s
evidence. Furthermore, the petitioners did not appeal the finding of
the Labor Arbiter that their temporary lay-off to prevent losses was clarification because she did not apply for retirement and instead
amply justified. They cannot now question this finding that there is a asserted that her services were terminated for alleged redundancy.
valid ground to lay-off or retrench them. Almocera told her that her signature on the Application for
Second requisite: not complied; Petitioners were given notice of the Retirement and Benefits was needed to process her separation pay.
temporary lay-off but no written notice was given when there was The respondent also claimed that between the period of July 4, 2003
permanent retrenchment. Although GTI conveyed to the petitioners and October 13, 2003, GMC hired fifteen (15) new employees which
the impossibility of recalling them due to the continued aroused her suspicion that her dismissal was not necessary.
unavailability of work, the law requires a written notice to the GMC reasoned out that it was forced to terminate the services of the
employees concerned and that requirement is mandatory. The notice respondent because of the economic setbacks the company was
must also be given at least one month in advance of the intended date suffering which affected the company’s profitability, and the
of retrenchment to enable the employees to look for other means of continuing rise of its operating and interest expenditures.
employment and therefore to ease the impact of the loss of their jobs Redundancy was part of the petitioner’s concrete and actual cost
and the corresponding income. reduction measures. GMC also presented the required "Establishment
There is also nothing in the records to prove that a written notice was Termination Report" which it filed before the Department of Labor
ever given to the DOLE as required by law. The notice to the DOLE and Employment (DOLE) on October 28, 2003, involving thirteen
is essential because the right to retrench is not an absolute (13) of its employees, including Viajar.
prerogative of an employer but is subject to the requirement of law The Labor Arbiter DISMISSED the complaint of Viajar for lack of
that retrenchment be done to prevent losses. The DOLE is the agency merit.
that will determine whether the planned retrenchment is justified and NLRC affirmed. The NLRC further stated that Viajar was aware of
adequately supported by facts. GMC’s "reduction mode," as shown in the GMC Vismin Manpower
3rd requisite: With respect to the payment of separation pay, the Complement, as follows:
NLRC found that GTI offered to give the petitioners their separation
pay but that the latter rejected such offer which was accepted only by No. of Employees
Year Manpower Profile
22 out of the 38 original complainants in this case. As to when this Terminated (Redundancy)
offer was made was not, however, proven.
200
The lack of written notice to the petitioners and to the DOLE does 795
0
not, however, make the petitioners' retrenchment illegal such that
they are entitled to the payment of back wages and separation pay in
200
lieu of reinstatement as they contend. Their retrenchment, for not 782
1
having been effected with the required notices, is merely defective.
Dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partially 200
GRANTED and the challenged decision of public respondent 736 41
2
National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA Case No.
004673-93 is modified by reversing and setting aside its deletion of 200
721 24
the awards in the Labor Arbiter's decision of proportionate 13th 3
month pay for 1991 and attorney's fees, the latter being reduced to
P25,000.00. Separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month pay 200
697 16
for every year of service shall be computed from the dates of the 4
commencement of the petitioners' respective employment until the
end of their six-month temporary lay-off which is 22 July 1991. In 200
696 (As of June 2005) 06
addition, private respondent G.T.I. Sportswear Corporation is 5
ordered to pay each of the petitioners the sum of P2,000.00 as
indemnification for its failure to observe due process in effecting the
retrenchment. The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC.
Aggrieved by the reversal of the NLRC decision, GMC filed a
motion for reconsideration.
(5) General Milling vs. Violeta Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, 30
January 2013. Issue:
Whether or nor the dismissal of respondent, Viajar, on the ground of
Facts: redundancy is legal.
The POEA rendered a decision dated April 21, 1993 ruling In its resolution granting FPS's motion for reconsideration, however,
that petitioner was illegally dismissed on the premise that the the NLRC made a sudden turnaround and, relying on the same
alleged redundancy of his position was not adequately evidence, ruled that redundancy of petitioner's position was
proven. adequately proven, necessitating the reversal of its original
FPS filed an appeal before the National Labor Relations decision. We cannot accommodate the new stance of the NLRC.
Commission.
In overturning its earlier decision, the NLRC reasoned out that since
In its decision dated April 19, 1994, despite newly submitted it could have summoned one of the affiants to amplify his statement,
affidavits from the officers of the Director of Personnel and it erred in ruling that said affidavits were self-serving and of little
Training Division of Sheraton Hotel by FPS substantiating the value.
redundancy of petitioner's position, the NLRC affirmed the
POEA's decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. This argument fails to impress us. Undoubtedly, said documents
still do not sufficiently explain the reason why petitioner's
Undaunted by another setback, FFS filed a motion for position had become redundant, but only elucidated the fact that
reconsideration. To petitioner's surprise and dismay, the NLRC he was not a victim of any discrimination in effecting the
reversed itself and rendered a new decision upholding the termination.
validity of his dismissal on ground of redundancy.
We have held that it is important for a company to have fair and
Issue: WON the dismissal is valid on the ground of redundancy reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy program,
such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) efficiency and
Ruling: (c) seniority. 8 Unfortunately for FPS, such appraisal was not
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged done in the instant case.
resolution is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against private Petitioner alleges that the NLRC erred in considering these affidavits
respondent. which were introduced for the first time on appeal. We rule that the
SO ORDERED. NLRC acted correctly when it admitted the affidavits submitted by
FPS on appeal, for it cannot be disputed that technical rules of
Ratio: evidence are not binding in labor cases. 9 Labor officials should use
every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily
Petitioner claims that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure,
reversed its original ruling on the basis of the affidavits which it had all in the interest of due process. 10
earlier ruled out as self-serving and of no evidentiary value.
After a careful study of the relevant facts, we are constrained to In line with the Court's liberal stance regarding procedural
reverse the findings of the NLRC. deficiencies in labor cases, we have held that even if the evidence
was not submitted at the earliest possible opportunity, the fact that it
In the case at bar, FPS failed to present substantial evidence to was duly introduced on appeal to the NLRC is enough basis for its
justify the dismissal of petitioner on the ground of redundancy. eventual admission. 11
The affidavits and documents it submitted are entitled to little
weight, for it does not prove the superfluity of petitioner's position. The admissibility of the affidavits notwithstanding, we cannot affirm
In fact, these documents do not even present the necessary the decision of the NLRC especially when its findings of fact on
factors which would confirm that a position is indeed redundant, which the conclusion was based are not supported by substantial
such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business or evidence, 12 that is, the amount of relevant evidence which a
dropping of a product line or service activity. reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
On this matter, we agree with the observation and conclusion of the (7) Asian Alcohol Company v NLRC, GR No. 131108, 25 March
POEA which we quote, to wit: 1999
In their Position Paper, petitioners asserted that they had no choice The case arose from a complaint filed by the following employees of
but to retrench respondent due to economic reverses. The corporation the San Miguel Corporation Bacolod Beer Region:
suffered a marked decline in profits as well as substantial and
persistent increase in losses. In its Statement of Income and Employe Position Yrs in Ag Total Termination
Expenses, its gross income for 1998 dropped from P1million to e Servic e Pay and Other
P665,000.00. e Benefits
P75,225.00 as
LA- not illegally dismissed but was validly retrenched retirement pay,
P5,935.00 as financial
NLRC- reversed and set aside decision of the LA Regional
Edmundo 41 assistance,
Sales 15
Torres, Jr yo P29,817.56 as unused
Manager
vacation and sick
CA- there was no retrenchment leaves and P1,462.68
as 13th month pay
P93,353.32 as
ISSUE: retirement pay,
Head of P8,900.00 as financial
Whether or not there is a valid dismissal based on retrenchment Manuel Warehous 48 assistance,
22
G. Chu e yo P24,853.23 as unused
HELD: Operations vacation and sick
leaves and P1,219.15
No. as 13th month pay
P93,450.01 as
There was no valid dismissal based on retrenchment. Retrenchment
retirement pay,
is the termination of employment initiated by the employer through
Trade and P10,465.00 as
no fault of and without prejudice to the employees. It is resorted to
Gabriel I. Customers 59 financial assistance,
during periods of business recession, industrial depression, seasonal 26
Adad Relation yo P21,166.69 as unused
fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of
Employee vacation and sick
materials, conversion of the plant to a new production program, or
leaves and P1,038.31
automation.
as 13th month pay
To effect a valid retrenchment, the following elements must be District P68,828.32 as
present: (1) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to Sales retirement pay,
prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de Supervisor P8,100.00 as financial
George
minimis, but substantial, serious and real, or only if expected, are s 45 assistance,
D. Teddy 20
reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by yo P18,036.74 as unused
Jr.
the employer; (2) the employer serves written notice both to the vacation and leaves
employee/s concerned and the DOLE at least one month before the and P987,68 as 13th
intended date of retrenchment; (3) the employer pays the retrenched month pay
employee separation pay in an amount prescribed by the Code; (4) Manuel 14 39 P47,954.16 as
the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench in good faith; and Castellan yo retirement pay,
(5) the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who o P5,635.00 as financial
would be retrenched or retained. assistance,
P15,507.18 as unused separation benefits . . . contending that supervisors were
vacation and sick awarded pay increases retroactive January 1, 1984.
leaves and P987.28 as On August 29, 1984, the company thru its Vice-President
13th month pay and Division Manager, Jose B. Lugay clarified in a letter . .
. that the pay increases were granted on selective basis with
Alleging, among others that: merit and performance as the criteria and that all the
complainants were already extended financial assistance
Complainant Chu is bound by the 1978 Retirement and
On March 14, 1984, San Miguel Corporation informed Death Benefit Plan which was later amended reducing the
them that effective at the close of the business hours on period of service to 15 years
April 15, 1984, it will exercise its option to retire them Respondents further aver that complainants were correctly
from the service (when none of them has reached yet the and completely paid their separation benefits; that
compulsory retirement age of 60 years old and none of complainants received twice than what is provided for by
them had bad record); that they will no longer be allowed the Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 284 thereof; that
to work from March 14, but they will still receive complainant Manuel Chu was retired under the optional
compensation up to April 15 retirement clause of the plan and for which he was paid one
Such retirement violated their tenurial security of (1) month's salary for every year of service; that in the case
employment, especially since the prerogative was solely of the four (4) other complainants, they applied under the
premised on its retirement and death benefit plan retrenchment program of the company and they were also
Their signatures/conformance were involuntarily secured paid one (1) month's pay for every year of service
by the company (1. when Teddy Jr. Attempted to leave the
office because he refused to affix his conformity, the
Labor Arbiter: complainants were not illegally dismissed; they
Personnel Director of the Beer and Packaging Division, Mr
voluntarily retired from the service
Antonio Labirua, blocked said door and threatened him
that whether they like it or not, the company has already
decided to retire them from work; 2. Manuel Chu did not NLRC: Other complainants have been validly retired. Respondent
sign any document but was still retired by the corporation) San Miguel Corporation is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate
They were discriminated upon by the respondent complainants Manuel C. Castillano (sic) and Edmundo Y. Torres, Jr.
corporation in the payment of their separation pay (1. they to have their former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority
were paid one month basic salary for every year of service rights and to pay complainants (their back salaries, deducting the
when other retired employees were paid 150% of their retirement pay they received)
basic monthly salary; 2. Complainants were not granted the
benefit of the wage increase for supervisory employees, ISSUE-RULING: WON Castillano and Torres, Jr were validly
made effective January 1984) retired/retrenched (NO)
Their receipt of payment does not bar them from contesting
the illegality of their dismissal or separation from the
RATIO:
service
Held: Motion for reconsideration of PAL is denied. o In implementing retrenchment, the law does
not require an employer to look back into far
· The Court has treated the instant case for what it truly is—an illegal reaches of time to check every good deed
retrenchment, one that was prematurely done and whimsically performed by every employee. This would not
carried out only be highly impractical, but manifestly absurd
as well. In evaluating job efficiency, it is enough
· This is about a “bad faith” retrenchment—one which neither for an employer to fix a determinate time frame
complied with the legal prerequisites therefor nor observed the within which to base its evaluation. It can be six
provisions of the PAL-FASAP CBA thereon; one which was not months, one year, two years, three years or ten
employed as a last resort and which did not have any fair and years. It can in fact be any period of time, subject
reasonable criteria to serve as basis for selecting who would be to management’s sound discretion.
retrenched; one which was capriciously and whimsically
implemented; one which was illegally made. o But to be fair and reasonable, the application of the
period must be uniform and consistent. It cannot
be one year for employee A, two years for
(Maya farms ruling) employee B and three years for employee C.
o The year 1997 was chosen by PAL as it was the
· It is not disputed that the LIFO rule applies to termination of
most logical period being the year immediately
employment in the line of work. Verily, what is contemplated in the
preceding the retrenchment. All relevant records
LIFO rule is that when there are two or more employees occupying
for the year 1997, such as attendance and
the same position in the company affected by the retrenchment
performance evaluation, were complete and
program, the last one employed will necessarily be the first to go.
accurate. Certainly, the year 1997 was not
selected for the purpose of discriminating against
o why there was no violation of the LIFO rule: any employee, but with the sole objective of
retaining the more efficient among the
§ The LIFO rule under the CBA is explicit. employees.
It is ordained that in cases of o CBA provisions does not even mandate seniority as
retrenchment resulting in termination a criterion.
of employment in line of work, the § Section 23 simply defines seniority and
employee who was employed on the states that seniority may be given
latest date must be the first one to go. “preferential consideration” whenever
The provision speaks of termination in PAL exercises its right to promote to a
the line of work. This contemplates a higher paying position or lay-off of
situation where employees occupying cabin attendants
the same position in the company are o Mass strike of pilots à no flights à no need for
to be affected by the retrenchment attendants
program. Since there ought to be a § Owing to this pilots’ strike, PAL was
reduction in the number of personnel in brought to the brink of disaster and
such positions, the length of service of emergency that it needed to align the
each employee is the determining number of cabin attendants with the
factor, such that the employee who has number of airplanes that were flying
a longer period of employment will be § After the pilots went on strike, PAL was
retained. left with only 68 pilots who chose to
remain, but with 2,039 cabin
§ several positions were affected by the attendants. Faced with this
special involuntary redundancy disproportionate ratio of pilots to cabin
program attendants, PAL immediately decided
to terminate the services of more than
· In other words, retrenchment was merely a necessary and natural 1,400 cabin attendants via the
consequence of PAL’s earlier decision to downsize its fleet of retrenchment scheme in question. At
aircrafts. There is thus simply no basis to say that PAL implemented the same time, the reduction in fleet—
retrenchment in the first instance. which until that time remained a mere
proposal—had to be immediately
· On the use of efficiency ratings: implemented, and cost-cutting
o There is nothing unreasonable. measures were simply out of the
§ First, while an employee may rack up question
hundreds of awards and § Strike was also temporary à There was
commendations and hundreds of hours no reason to drastically implement a
of leave credits, it does not necessarily permanent retrenchment scheme in
follow that the same employee, response to a temporary strike, which
although admittedly of exceptional could have ended at any time, or
remedied promptly, if management the final amount of liability, in order to avoid any protracted and
acted with alacrity. Juxtaposed with its heated debates which can again lead to further delays in the final
failure to implement the required cost- resolution of this case and the full realization by the retrenched flight
cutting measures, the retrenchment attendants of the amounts necessary to compensate and indemnify
scheme was a knee-jerk solution to a them for the wrongful retrenchment.
temporary problem that beset PAL at
the time. 1. Flight attendants who have been re-employed without loss of
o Guidelines for retrenchment: seniority rights shall be paid backwages but only up to the time of
their actual reinstatement.
(1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent
business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, 2. Flight attendants who have been re-employed as new hires shall be
but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are restored their seniority and other preferential rights. However, their
reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by backwages shall be computed only up to the date of actual re-hiring.
the employer;
3. Flight attendants who have reached their compulsory age of
(2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees retirement shall receive backwages up to the date of their retirement
and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month only. The same is true as regards the heirs of those who have passed
prior to the intended date of retrenchment; away.
(3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay 4. Flight attendants who have not been re-employed by PAL,
equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay including those who executed quitclaims and received separation pay
for every year of service, whichever is higher; or financial assistance, shall be reinstated without loss of seniority
rights and paid full backwages. However, the amounts they already
(4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees received should be deducted from whatever amounts are finally
in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or adjudged to them individually.
circumvent the employees’ right to security of tenure; and,
(6) Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation, et al. v.
(5) That the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining Ignacio B. Tagyamon, et al., G.R. No. 191475, Dec 11, 2013
who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the
employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, FACTS:
and financial hardship for certain workers. Petitioner Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation (PCMC) is a
corporation registered in the Philippines engaged in the business of
· In the absence of one element, the retrenchment scheme becomes manufacturing wool and yarn carpets and rugs.4 Respondents were its
an irregular exercise of management prerogative. The employer’s regular and permanent employees, but were affected by petitioner’s
obligation to exhaust all other means to avoid further losses without retrenchment and voluntary retirement programs.
retrenching its employees is a component of the first element as Tagyamon,5 Luna,6 Badayos,7 Dela Cruz,8 and Comandao9 received a
enumerated above. To impart operational meaning to the uniformly worded Memorandum of dismissal, to wit:
constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor, the
employer’s prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching This is to inform you that in view of a slump in the market demand
must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after less for our products due to the un-competitiveness of our price, the
drastic means have been tried and found wanting. company is constrained to reduce the number of its workforce. The
long-term effects of September 11 and the war in the Middle East
*** In the instant case, PAL admitted that since the pilots’ strike have greatly affected the viability of our business and we are left
allegedly created a situation of extreme urgency, it no longer with no recourse but to reorganize and downsize our organizational
implemented cost-cutting measures and proceeded directly to structure.
retrench. This being so, it clearly did not abide by all the We wish to inform you that we are implementing a retrenchment
requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. At the time it was program in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code of the
implemented, the retrenchment scheme under scrutiny was not Philippines, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations.
triggered directly by any financial difficulty PAL was experiencing In this connection, we regret to advise you that you are one of those
at the time, nor borne of an actual implementation of its proposed affected by the said exercise, and your employment shall be
downsizing of aircraft. It was brought about by—and resorted to as terminated effective at the close of working hours on April 15, 2004.
an immediate reaction to—a pilots’ strike which, in strict point of
law and as herein earlier discussed, may not be considered as a valid Accordingly, you shall be paid your separation pay as mandated by
reason to retrench, nor may it be used to excuse PAL for its non- law. You will no longer be required to report for work during the 30-
observance of the requirements of the law on retrenchment under the day notice period in order to give you more time to look for
Labor Code. alternative employment. However, you will be paid the salary
corresponding to the said period. We shall process your clearance
· Assuming that PAL was indeed suffering financial losses, the and other documents and you may claim the payables due you on
requisite proof therefor was not presented before the NLRC which March 31, 2004.
was the proper forum. More importantly, the manner of the As to Marcos, Ilao, and Nemis, they claimed that they were
retrenchment was not in accordance with the procedure required by dismissed effective March 31, 2004, together with fifteen (15) other
law. Hence, the retrenchment of the flight attendants amounted to employees on the ground of lack of market/slump in demand.
illegal dismissal. Consequently, the flight attendants affected are Respondents filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal against
entitled to the reliefs provided by law, which include backwages and PCMC.
reinstatement or separation pay, as the case may be
Respondents’ contention: PCMC did not, in fact, suffer losses shown
· Case must be remanded to the LA for further computation of the by its acts prior to and subsequent to their termination. 14 They also
actual liability of PAL per employee. insisted that their acceptance of separation pay and signing of
quitclaim is not a bar to the pursuit of illegal dismissal case.
· For the guidance of the Labor Arbiter as well as the parties, PCMC’s contention: PCMC, for its part, defended its decision to
this Court lays down the following yardsticks in the computation of terminate the services of respondents being a necessary management
prerogative. It pointed out that as an employer, it had no obligation to An action for reinstatement by reason of illegal dismissal is one
keep in its employ more workers than are necessary for the operation based on an injury to the complainants’ rights which should be
of his business. Thus, there was an authorized cause for dismissal; brought within four years from the time of their dismissal pursuant to
that respondents belatedly filed their complaint as they allowed Article 114633 of the Civil Code. Respondents’ complaint filed
almost three years to pass making the principle of laches applicable; almost 3 years after their alleged illegal dismissal was still well
that respondents accepted their separation pay and voluntarily within the prescriptive period. Laches cannot, therefore, be invoked
executed deeds of release, waiver and quitclaim, PCMC invoked the yet.
principle of estoppel **Issue regarding Waivers, Releases and Quitclaims
Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for lack As a rule, deeds of release and quitclaim cannot bar employees from
of merit. demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or from
NLRC sustained the LA decision. contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance of those
Citing the Court’s decision in the Philcea case, the CA applied the benefits would not amount to estoppel. To excuse respondents from
doctrine of stare decisis, in view of the similar factual circumstances complying with the terms of their waivers, they must locate their case
of the cases. CA ordered that respondents be reinstated with full within any of three narrow grounds: (1) the employer used fraud or
backwages less the amounts they received as separation pay. deceit in obtaining the waivers; (2) the consideration the employer
paid is incredible and unreasonable; or (3) the terms of the waiver are
ISSUES: WON there was a valid retrenchment (No) contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs
WON CA is correct in applying stare decisis (Yes) or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. 46 The
RULING: instant case falls under the first situation.
Stare Decisis WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated July 7, 2009 and
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has laid down a
Resolution dated February 26, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 105236 are
principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere
AFFIRMED.
to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are
substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.
This case and the Philcea case involve the same period which is
March to April 2004; the issuance of Memorandum to employees
informing them of the implementation of the cost reduction program;
the implementation of the voluntary retirement program and
retrenchment program, except that this case involves different
employees; the execution of deeds of release, waiver, and quitclaim,
and the acceptance of separation pay by the affected employees.
In the Philcea case, the Court discussed the requisites of both
retrenchment and redundancy as authorized causes of termination
and that petitioners failed to substantiate them. In ascertaining the
bases of the termination of employees, it took into consideration
petitioners’ claim of business losses; the purchase of machinery and
equipment after the termination, the declaration of cash dividends to
stockholders, the hiring of 100 new employees after the
retrenchment, and the authorization of full blast overtime work for
six hours daily. These, said the Court, are inconsistent with
petitioners’ claim that there was a slump in the demand for its
products. The Court’s pronouncement in the Philcea case, to wit:
Respondents failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to prove
the confluence of the essential requisites for a valid retrenchment of
its employees.
In contrast, in this case, the retrenchment effected by PCMC is
invalid due to a substantive defect, non-compliance with the
substantial requirements to effect a valid retrenchment; it necessarily
follows that the termination of the employment of petitioner Union's
members on such ground is, likewise, illegal.
The respondents here were similarly situated as the union members
in the Philcea case, and considering that the questioned dismissal
from the service was based on the same grounds under the same
circumstances, there is no need to relitigate the issues presented
herein.
With respect to respondents Marcos, Nemis and Ilao, although they
applied for voluntary retirement, the same was not accepted by
petitioner. Instead, it issued notice of termination dated March 6,
2004 to these same employees.42 And while it is true that petitioner
paid them separation pay, the payment was in the nature of
separation and not retirement pay. In other words, payment was made
because of the implementation of the retrenchment program and not
because of retirement. As their application for availing of the
company’s voluntary retirement program was based on the wrong
premise, the intent to retire was not clearly established, or rather that
the retirement is involuntary.
**Issue regarding Laches